|DATE||PRIMARY FACTS||SUPPORTING FACTS||Copy||URL||URL||URL||URL|
|Resume of Richard I. Fine||x||http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine|
|1974||Since 1974, California has had a Political Reform Act requiring elected public officials, including judges, and public employees to disclose sources of income and refrain from conflicts of interest. The judiciary is also subject to a Code of Judicial Ethics.||x||http://www.fppc.ca.gov/Act/2009_Act.pdf||http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf|
|1988||Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich telephones judge to try to influence a case on behalf of political contributors. Was sued and and found liable, but million-dollar judgment was overturned on appeal in Kasparian v. County of Los Angeles, Antonovich, et al.||x||http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-17/local/me-36152_1_superior-court-jury|
|Late 1980s||Los Angeles County's illegal bonus payments to judges believed to have begun.||Richard Fine: "Contrary to the Magistrate Judge’s Report (in Jun3 2009), counties were not given a credit for their “local judicial payment” from their Maintenance of Effort (MOE) payments. Under the original setting of their MOE requirement, counties could deduct the local judicial benefit payment if it had been mistakenly placed in the MOE requirement."|
|11/10/88||Memorandum issued by Roger W. Whitby, Senior Assistant, LA County Counsel (approved by DeWitt W. Clinton, County Counsel), to Frank S. Zolin, County Clerk/Executive Officer of the Superior Court, written in response to Zolin's request for an "opinon concerning the legality of providing judges with County employee benefits".||"It is our opinion that judges' salaries must be st by the Legislature, but other benefits may (and in some cases must) be provided by the County. … For reasons which will become apparent below, we believe that 'compensation' as used in Section 19 refers only to the salary which is the emolument of the judicial office. The Attorney General does not agree. See, e.g., 59 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at 496; 61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at 388."||x||http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfttxk5d_1gzdfzpg5&hl=en||http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfttxk5d_3dxcgprjx&hl=en||http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfttxk5d_5cncpc5gr&hl=en||http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfttxk5d_7f3km57fh&hl=en|
|1995||Decision by the California Court of Appeal in County of Sonoma v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 222 Cal.App.3d 1133, 1136-37, 272 Cal.Rptr. 297, 298 (Cal.Ct.App.1990): "We disagree with the position taken by the Judicial Council. Although the question is not before us, we note that the Government Code provision in question may well be unconstitutional."||"In 1956, the Attorney General issued an opinion concluding that superior and municipal court judges and certain personnel of the superior courts were not county employees and were thus ineligible for county-sponsored health insurance. (27 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 338 (1956).) In 1976, the Attorney General issued another opinion, specifically stating that the version of Government Code section 53200.3 then in effect was unconstitutional, insofar as it ran afoul of the provision in California Constitution, article VI, section 19, which states that " he Legislature shall prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record. . . ." Citing the 1967 Judicial Council Report to the Governor and the Legislature on this provision and the opinion in County of Madera v. Superior Court, supra, 39 Cal. App. 3d at page 670, the Attorney General stated: "Because of the use of 'prescribe' the Legislature cannot delegate the authority granted to it by Article VI, section 19 of the Constitution. Any attempt to make such a delegation would be constitutionally invalid." (59 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 496, 497 (1976).) The opinion concluded that "that section [Gov. Code, § 53200.3] is an unconstitutional attempt on the part of the Legislature to delegate a nondelegable duty." (Id., at p. 501.)"||x||http://www.napil.com/PersonalInjuryCaseLawDetail40178/Page6.htm|
|[Cont.]||"Subsequently, the statute was amended by the Legislature to its present form, in an attempt to meet the concerns of the Attorney General. (Stats. 1977, ch. 106, § 1, pp. 537-538.) In 1978, the Attorney General issued another opinion on the statute, stating that the Legislature had failed to remove those deficiencies in the original section that had rendered it unconstitutional. (61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 388, 390 (1978).)"|
|10/17/95||Appeals Court overturns $1.2 million judgment and rules in favor of Antonovich in Kasparian v. County of Los Angeles, Antonovich, et al.||(Opinion by Croskey, J., with Klein, P. J., and Aldrich, J., concurring.) Croskey was an LA Superior Court judge from 1985-1987; Aldrich was a Ventura County Superior Court judge from 1991-1994, and was also Chair of the Select Committee on Trial Court Co-ordination Implementation, whose findings were a precusor to the Trial Court Unification Act. He has also been a member of the Judicial Council since 1998. Presiding Justice Klein was also a former LA County Municipal and Superior Court judge.||x||http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/38/242.html||http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/justices.htm|
|11/27/95||California Law Revision Commission issues Memorandum re Trial Court Unification: Delegation of Legislative Authority.||One alternative (re SB 162): "Do Nothing - A plausible argument can be made that the SB 162 delegation of authority is proper, despite what appears to be a plain limitation in the Constitution. It may be that the validity of the delegation will never even become an issue, just as the validity of statutes delegating authority to county boards of supervisors to increase the number of judges in their counties have not become an issue. Over time, as judgeships are converted and the system changes, it will become impractical to undo the changes and the Constitution will be read in light of long-standing practice. However, there are real risks, and the stakes are high."||x||http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/1995/M95-77.pdf|
|7/1/1997||Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act (Cal. Govt. Code §77000 et seq.) declared that the State was solely responsible for trial court funding to remove the disparities in compensation received by judges in different counties.|
"The Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 was intended to shift the expense of trial court operations from the counties to the state, with counties being required to contribute only the dollar amounts that they provided to court operations in the 1994–1995 fiscal year as their maintenance of effort (MOE) payment obligation; the state would be responsible for future growth in the cost of trial court operations. The trial court further noted that the Legislature 'specifically contemplated the counties’ cost for local judicial benefits' in enacting the Trial Court Funding Act and provided that counties could have their annual MOE payment reduced by the amount of benefits paid by counties in the 1994–1995 fiscal year. Los Angeles County’s MOE was reduced in that manner."
|Per Judicial Council, explaining Justice Richman’s order [wrongly] granting the county’s motion for summary judgment in Sturgeon v County of L. [The order was later overturned on appeal on 10/10/88.]||x||http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/bbc/documents/factsheet-judbenefitsqna.pdf|
|1997||"[T]he California Legislature promised its continued support of local judicial benefits in return for judges' support of the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act and of the 1998 Trial Court Unification Act. Thus, it is fundamentally unfair for those benefits now to be stripped away, particularly when the Legislature has stated expressly that they must be continued."||Terms of the "deal" between judges and the legislature, as reported by Assn of Southern California Defense Counsel in amicus re Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, below. (Note that bribes and vote trading are violations of Section 86 of the California Penal Code. And exactly who in the legislature made this promise?) Amicus letter written 11/25/2008 to CA Supreme Court to support judges against Sturgeon.||x||http://www.ascdc.org/docs/C-ChiefJusticeGeorge-11-25-08-RECVD-12-1-08.pdf||http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/86.html|
|1997||"We tried and tried in discovery [in Sturgeon v LA County, discussed below] to seek where and when these benefits were approved. And of course, it is our contention that nobody ever did. --We asked, in our discovery, is there any meeting wherever this was discussed, by the supervisors, or in session, in secret session, even then, we were given nothing by the County in terms of discovery. The only thing they said, well, there there's a final budget. All they had titled on it was Judicial Benefits, no meetings. no approvals, just Judicial Benefits. And that was like a spike on the final budget. That was the only thing that the County gave to us for justification of where did this money came from."||Atty Sterling Norris, in Full Disclosure interview.||http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/540.php|
|12/31/97||Antelope Valley scandal re "Michael D. Antonovich Courthouse".||x||http://avpress.com/n/sp/court/court22a.htm|
|7/21/98||Richard Fine wins injunction "closing government", which had the effect of freezing payment of judges' and court commissioners' salaries during the 1998 budget crisis, in case of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Steven White v. Connel, a taxpayer lawsuit which sought to declare unconstitutional the State's expenditure of monies without a budget or an emergency appropriation. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The California Supreme Court upheld Fine in confirming that the State cannot expend monies without an appropriation. ||Fine won an injunction which temporarily stopped payment of the salaries of the Governor, the members of the State Legislature, the judges and court commissioners and state employees during the 1998 budget crisis. This injunction effectively shut down the California government until an "emergency legislation" bill of $19 Billion was passed to allow the government to function during a "budget impasse" under the California Constitution. This action of emergency legislation had never been taken before by the Governor and State Legislature to relieve the pressure of a budget crisis upon the people of the State of California.||ID|
|11/01/98||LA Superior Court Judge J. Stephen Czuleger, who sitting as a designated appellate judge, in 1998 voted to overturn the case of Veltman v. County of Los Angeles, previously won by Richard Fine, which stopped LA County from taking $100 million in cash and $150 million in loans from the Transportation Fund dedicated to the MTA. Judge Czuleger was subjected to a salary loss under the 1998 preliminary injunction in the Howard Jarvis case, and did not disclose that he was receiving payments from LA County||ID|
|June 1999||LA Superior Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell, who was subject to the salary loss under the 1998 preliminary injunction won by Fine in the Howard Jarvis case, who was also receiving unconstitutional payments from LA County and not disclosing such, and who was also sitting as a "temporary judge" in the Eminent Domain Department of the LA Superior Court and not disclosing such payments to the parties fighting LA County, unlawfully denied a motion for class certification in the damage portion of the case of Shinkle et al., v. City of Los Angele.||a violation of the California Supreme Court case of Linder v. Thrifty Oil.||ID|
|Oct 1999||LA Superior Court Judge Kurt Lewin, in the case of Amjadi and LACAOEHS v. LA County Board of Supervisors et al, previously won by Fine, refused to award attorneys fees. Judge Lewin did not disclose that he was receiving unconstitutional payments from LA County, nor did he disclose that he was also subject to a salary loss under the 1998 preliminary injunction in the Howard Jarvis case.||ID|
|Nov 1999||Commissioner Mitchell, in the case of Shinkle et al., v. City of Los Angeles, where Fine represented the taxpayer class, unlawfully denied a motion for reconsideration, and in December 1999 entered an unlawful attorney's fee award against Fine in an amount of $25,000+ for bringing the motion. ||ID|
|Dec 1999||Commissioner Mitchell, who was no longer the temporary judge in the case of DeFlores et al. v. EHG et al. which had settled on June 29, 1999, for $7.86 million without the naming of a specific person as class counsel for the Settlement Class in the Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgment, and where Fine had obtained the settlement and was the "Representative Plaintiffs Counsel", unlawfully stopped the claims administration procedure to pay claims to the class members and clients of Fine. ||Richard Fine's experience: "The chronology of events as shown by the court records demonstrates that commencing in 1999, LA Superior Court judges and court commissioners then commenced deciding cases against Fine's clients or refused to award Fine attorneys fees in cases where he had prevailed. After these actions, Fine became aware that LA Superior Court judges and court commissioners were also receiving payments from the LA County in addition to their state salaries, and not disclosing such to the other party in any case where LA County was a party or to the public. In 1999 and 2000, Fine began challenging the judges and court commissioners for not having disclosed such and for having violated due process in the state court appeals of the cases and ultimately in two federal civil rights cases for violating the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act and the Code of Judicial Ethics."||ID|
|2000||The Epsteins/Del Rey Shores developers in Marina del Rey begin aggressively contributing to election campaigns of LA County's Board fo Supervisors. Supervisors reciprocate with votes approving various Epstein projects, costing LA County taxpayers at least $700 million.||See below for identification of the Epstein developers.||ID||http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/money-trail---edited-version|
|03/06/00||Commissioner Mitchell, who was no longer the temporary judge in the DeFlores case, unlawfully removed Fine as "class counsel" in violation of the Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgment and Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §473(d) and the case of Lovret v. Seyfarth. Mitchell soon removes Fine as counsel in several other class actions as well.||Fine challenges Mitchell because “he is biased and prejudiced [and] has abused and misused the judicial process by engaging in a concerted action with Diane Goldman, counsel for [certain plaintiffs] who opposed the class action, (1) by unlawfully delaying the claims administration process by stopping such on December 13, 1999 at the request of Ms. Goldman in violation of [section 170.4, subdivision (d)], (2) by soliciting and offering to pay Ms. Goldman from the Settlement Fund on April 14, 2001, to represent him in the present appeal of the December 1, 2000 Orders which Ms. Goldman is doing in conflict of the interests of her clients in having a private judge decide the value of their claims, (3) by allowing Ms. Goldman to interfere with the attorney-client relations of Fine and his clients as admitted in the Declaration of Diane Goldman dated July 24, 2001, paragraph 9 p. 8 ln. 5-17, (4) by not punishing Ms. Goldman for placing her return address on the ‘court notice’ without permission thereby allowing claimants to believe she has a ‘special’ status in the case,||ID|
|(5) by not sanctioning Ms. Goldman for breaking the June 5, 2001 non-solicitation order for writing the July 2, 2001 letter to Richard Bagdasarian, and  by hearing a motion for disqualification of Fine which duplicates the present appeal of the December 1, 2001 Orders brought by Ms. Goldman in violation of [section 916] while knowing that he is prohibited from hearing such.” Fine, who signed the affidavit under penalty of perjury, asserted that he “first discovered these facts as a pattern on August 5, through August 30, 2001.”|
|Oct 2000||California Court of Appeal Justices Doi Todd, Boren and Nott dismiss the appeal of the removal of "class counsel" in the DeFlores case on the grounds that the "class members do not have standing to appeal". ||Doi Todd, who had just been appointed, had immediately previously been a LA Superior Court judge receiving unconstitutional payments from LA County. Justices Boren and Nott also did not disclose their knowledge that Doi Todd had been a superior court judge.||ID||http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/justices.htm|
|09/15/00||On September 15, 2000 California Chief Justice Ronald M. George stated to the California Judges Association at their meeting in San Diego with respect to the LA County payments of "local judicial benefits" to the LA County judges: "That State of affairs is not only wrong, it may be unconstitutional."||ID||http://www.ahrc.se/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMedia/id/4644|
|Late 2000, early 2001||Commissioner Mitchell overturned the class certification and removed Fine as class counsel in the cases of Debbs v. California Department of Veterans Affairs, affecting tens of thousands of veterans who had millions of dollars of loans with the California Department of Veterans Affairs, and the case of Churchfield v. Wilson, affecting tens of thousands of small and minority business owners who had not been paid during the California "budget crises", refused to grant the motion for class certification in the consolidated cases of Professional Servicers Organization v. Sony, Professional Servicers Organization v. Sharp and Professional Servicers Organization v. Toshiba, affecting thousands of servicers and millions of consumers, and overturned a settlement including a $20 million judgment in the class action case of McCormick v. Reddi Brake et al. affecting hundreds of shareholders, falsely arguing that Fine is unsuitable to be class counsel and relying upon his unlawful and void March 2000 order in the DiFlores case. ||ID|
|Early 2001||LA Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant granted a motion to dismiss the case of John Silva v. Garcetti, even though the DA admitted to unlawfully withholding approximately $14 million in child support monies which should have been distributed to thousands of mothers and children. The case was brought as a taxpayer class action by Fine. ||ID|
|06/05/01||"[Judge David P.] Yaffe Fails to List Receipt of Free Legal Services on Form Filed With [Fair Political Practices Committee]"||ID||http://www.metnews.com/articles/perspectives0605.htm|
|Aug 2001||California Court of Appeal Justice Doi Todd did not recuse herself in the appeal of the case of John Silva v. Garcetti with the information about Judge Chalfant just having been disclosed in the Opening Brief. Justices Boren and Nott knew of Justice Doi Todd's conflict of interest yet failed to disqualify themselves. The justices affirmed the case in the District Attorney's favor on 2/6/02.||ID|
|9/24/01||Commissioner Mitchell entered unconstitutional contempt order against Fine in the DeFlores case.||ID|
|Feb 2002||Richard Fine wins Amjadi and Los Angeles County Association of Environmental Health Specialists (LACAOEHS) v. LA County Board of Supervisors, but is denied attorney's fees by LASC Judge Kurt Lewin, who claimed the case was a union negotiation "ploy".||ID|
|03/07/02||CA Court of Appeal denies Fine's appeal from Mitchell's order in Charles Churchfield et al v. Pete Wilson, et al (vendor payments).||ID|
|Mar 2002||Fine files LACAOEHS v County of Los Angeles and Kurt Lewin, a Federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that LA County's payments to Los Angeles County Superior Court judges violated Article VI, § 19 of the California Constitution, and also violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and John Silva v. County of Los Angeles, James C. Chalfant, Kathryn Doi Todd, Bruce E. Mitchell, Roger W. Boren, and Michael G. Nott, filed in June, 2002, a federal taxpayer class action civil rights lawsuit alleging that the LA County payments to LA Superior Court judges violated Article VI, § 19 of the California Constitution, and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.||ID|
|3/14/02||California Court of Appeal Justices Doi Todd, Boren and Nott affirmed Commissioner Mitchell's unconstitutional 9/24/01 contempt order against Fine in the DeFlores case.||ID|
|04/23/02||CA Court of Appeals denies Fine's appeal from Mitchell's orders removing Fine as class counsel, and decertifying class in John L. Debbs et al v CA Dept of Veterans Affairs et al.||x||http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5C2002%5C20020423_0003697.CA.htm/qx|
|2001-2002||LA Superior Court Presiding Judge James A. Basque, whose salary was stopped during the budget crisis, who was receiving LA County payments, did not report such and knew that the taking of the payments violated Code of Judicial Ethics, reported Fine to the California State Bar, causing the filing of the case against him, Case No. 00-O-10175 on April 22, 2003, which was "dismissed in the furtherance of justice" on February 2, 2004 by the State Bar after Fine moved to dismiss the case.|
|8/21/02||Commissioner Mitchell, who was no longer the temporary judge in the DeFlores case, and whose September 24, 2001 unconstitutional contempt order was voided and annulled on the same day, entered an order removing all clients from Richard I. Fine.||ID|
|11/13/02||Supervisors vote to hire Litigation Cost Manager||"The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to hire a "litigation cost manager" in an effort to trim Los Angeles County's tab for lawyers' fees, legal fees, judgments and settlements -- a bill that reached $167 million last year. County supervisors, anticipating a total budget deficit of at least $332 million over the next three years, have become increasingly critical of the county counsel's handling of cases."||X||http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/13/local/me-sfvbriefs13.1|
|2002||Later in 2002, it was discovered that Justice Todd of the California Court of Appeal, one of the justices who refused to consider the payments to Judge Chalfant, had received monies from LA County while she was a recent LA Superior Court judge, and did not disclose such in the appeal; nor did the other appellate justices disclose that they also knew of the payments to Justice Todd.|
|04/22/03||State Bar case against Fine, originated by Judge Basque, "dismissed in the furtherance of justice" by the State Bar after Fine moved to dismiss the case on the eve of trial.||ID|
|5/5/03||Commissioner Mitchell executed a false declaration to institute a second contempt proceeding against Fine.||ID|
|California Court of Appeal Justices Doi Todd, Boren and Nott refused to recall the remittitur in the state case of Fine v. Superior Court after the U.S. District court in the federal case of Fine v. Superior Court issued a Stay Order and Order to Show Cause for Issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Further Hearing indicating the September 24, 2001 contempt order affirmed in the state case of Fine v. Superior Court was unconstitutional, and which contempt order was voided and annulled on August 21, 2002.||ID|
|9/29/03||LA Superior Court Judge Czuleger entered an unconstitutional contempt order based upon the false declaration that Commissioner Mitchell is a "judicial officer" in the DeFlores case. Judge Czuleger "consents" to disqualification and the contempt order is voided on August 29, 2006.||ID|
|2004||Commissioner Mitchell "secretly" reported Fine to the California State Bar, which becomes Case No 04-O-14366-filed February 6, 2006, regarding the filing and pursuing of the federal taxpayer civil rights cases of LACAOEHS v. County of Los Angeles and Lewin and Silva v. County of Los Angeles, Chalfant, Mitchell, Doi Todd, Boren, and Nott for the unconstitutional LA County payments etc.||The State Bar never disclosed to Fine that Mitchell was the "complaining party" or produced his complaint in the second case. Fine only learned of it when Mitchell admitted that he was the complaining party when he made a surprise appearance at the State Bar trial.||ID|
|2004-2005||Fine filed four taxpayer class action lawsuits, each alleging a gift of public funds to private individuals by the LA County Supervisors' leases to "developers" in Marina del Rey. The lawsuits were consolidated under Coalition to Save the Marina and Marina Tenants Association, et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al. |
Judge Soussan G. Bruguera did not disclose that she was receiving LA County payments. She unlawfully "struck" the CCP § 170.3 "Objection" to her based upon her receiving such payments, by admitting such payments and arguing the legality of same in the "Strike Order".
| Judge Bruguera then remained on the consolidated cases and dismissed them prior to trial despite the knowledge that the plaintiffs had shown violations of law and the California Constitution which would cause them to prevail. This action has cost LA taxpayers approximately $910 million dollars in lost income from LA County's leases of "public land" to private developers in Marina del Rey as of the present time. |
One of the lawyers in the case for Marina Pacific Associates is Sheldon H. Sloan, who was also a member of the Board of Governors and then President of the State Bar of California, when the State Bar of California initiated and pursued its suit to disbar Fine.
LA County had a "financial relationship" with State Bar Hearing Court Judge Honn through its $30,000 payments to Special Olympics Southern California to influence the removal of Fine from the Marina Pacific case. Fine was forced to leave the Marina Pacific case prior to trial due to actions by Judge Honn of ordering Fine inactive on October 12, 2007. Richard Fine did not return to the Marina Pacific case after the California Supreme
Court did not affirm Judge Honn's October 12, 2007, order.
|04/01/05||Commissioner Mitchell unlawfully, on April 1, 2005 (April Fool's Day), approved the expenditure of $80,000 to purchase all claims of Mr. Fine against "Bruce E. Mitchell, other judicial officers and others" from the DeFlores Class Settlement Fund in violation of the Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgment in the DeFlores, case and subsequently paid approximately $270,000 from the same Fund to defend his April 1, 2005, action. On July 27, 2006, Commissioner Mitchell approved and ordered the payment of approximately $1.6 million dollars to attorneys from the DeFlores Class Settlement Fund and the Attorney's Fee Fund, in violation of the Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgment, on the condition that they would withhold 35%, or approximately $566,684.65, to defend his April 1, 2005, action. |
Mitchell transferred the class settlement fund from Wells Fargo Bank to Bank of America (where according to his filed Form 700 Financial Disclosure Form, he had loans).
|Commissioner Mitchell was, and is, assigned to the Eminent Domain Department of the LA Superior Court and presides as a "temporary judge" upon the stipulation of the parties. Commissioner Mitchell does not disclose the LA County payments on his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests as required under the California Political Reform Act. Commissioner Mitchell, John Moe, II, and Peter Leeson, IV (the lawyers who he appointed as "bankruptcy counsel for the DeFlores class members and who negotiated the acquisition of the claims against Mitchell, engaged in bribery and soliciting a bribe by their actions.|
(Judge David P. Yaffe is also assigned to this Department of the court.)
|06/09/05||As disclosed by the June 9, 2005, October 3, 2007 and October 1, 2008 County Counsel Annual Litigation Cost Reports, the 2005 Report shows that 404 lawsuits were dismissed in the first three quarters of 2004-2005 as compared to 163 in the first three quarters of 2003-2004 and no decision in favor of a party by a judge in 2004-2005. 213 new lawsuits were filed in the third quarter of FY 2004-2005. (Pages 1 and 2)||The October 3, 2007 Report shows no decision in favor of a party by a judge in 2006-2007, (Page 3) and 261 dismissals in 2007 which was 12% less than 2006 (page 4). There were 670 new cases filed in 2007, which was 21% less than 2006 and 5% less than 2005 (page 4).|
The October 1, 2008 Report shows the County tried 25 cases, prevailed in 16, received adverse verdicts or decisions in 7 and 2 cases resulted in "hung juries". The Report did not show that any adverse "decision" was rendered by a LA County Superior Court judge. (page 3). Unlike previous years, the 2008 Report did not report "new cases filed" or "dismissals".
|06/21/05||LA Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant dismisses Silva v. Garcetti and LA County. (LA County and the LA District Attorney were sued for unlawfully withholding $14 million in child and spousal support payments beyond the 6-month statutory time period.)||Chalfant dismissed the case even after LA County had testified that they started to pay out the overdue child and spousal support monies. After the case was over, it was discovered that Judge Chalfant had been receiving monies from LA County during the case and did not disclose such. The payment of monies to Judge Chalfant was then raised with the California Court of Appeal, who stated that, it was too late to raise such. The payment of monies was raised with the California Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case on May 22, 2002. Later in 2002, it was discovered that Justice Todd of the California Court of Appeal, one of the justices who refused to consider the payments to Judge Chalfant, had received monies from LA County while she was a recent LA Superior Court judge, and did not disclose such in the appeal; nor did the other appellate justices disclose that they also knew of the payments to Justice Todd.|
|06/28/06||"The 8.5 percent raise, which will bring trial judges' salaries to more than $160,000, fulfils a long-delayed promised going back to the administration of former Gov. Gray Davis. The Legislature back then granted an 8.5 percent raise, with an additional increase of equal size expected to pass in 2001, but that was dropped -- or "deferred" as Chief Justice Ronald M. George said at the time -- due to a state budget crisis.|
"[Judges Assn's lobbyist Michael] Belote praised Kate Howard, the new lobbyist for the Judicial Council, as well as the chief justice for persuading the legislative leadership to make the increase part of the 2006-2007 budget."
|4/24/06||Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles filed by Sterling Norris, Esq., of Judicial Watch, on behalf of taxpayers.||Case assigned to non-LA County Superior Court judge Richman.||ID||http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/sturgeon-v-lacounty.pdf|
|07/27/06||Commissioner Mitchell ordered the removal of approximately $1.6 million from the DeFlores Class Settlement Fund in violation of the Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 of the Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgment (See Joint Trial Ex. 180), through approving the purchase of all claims held by Fine against “Bruce E. Mitchell, the Superior Court and other judicial officers” in the name of the class members for $40,000.00 with another $40,000.00 to be paid to defend the purchase in violation of Paragraph 5.2 (b), approving $300,000.00 to be paid to specially appointed “class bankruptcy counsel” to defend the purchase in violation of Paragraph 5.2(b) approving $1.6 million in attorneys fees to “plaintiffs counsel” on the condition that they would withhold 35% (or approximately $566,464.65) to fund the defense of the “purchase" in violation of Paragraph 5.2 (b), (of the $1.6 million of attorneys fees, the additional violations of Paragraph 5.2(a)(i)-(iv) were approximately $1,075,000.00 in “Individual Fees and Costs in violation of Paragraph 5.2 (a)(i)-(iv) and approximately $301,342.22 in Attorney Fee Reserve Fund in violation of Paragraph 5.2 (a)(I)-(iv));||Commissioner Mitchell, based upon the accounting presented by the Disbursing Agent for the March 13, 2006 hearing in the DiFlores case, illegally paid, Byron Moldo who is also the “receiver” and “notice giver”, an estimated $510,172.00 for performing attorneys work, acting as a “receiver”, and a “notice giver”, illegally paid, Diane Karpman, of Karpman & Associates, an estimated $55,980.00 as an “ethics expert” to assist “plaintiffs’ attorneys”, illegally paid, Bernard George Investigations an estimated $10,146.00 as an “investigator” to investigate Fine, illegally paid, Joel Rudof an estimated $7,939.00 to contact Fine’s clients, illegally paid, Tovar & Cohen $800.00 to retain a medical expert for the Court, and illegally paid, $768.00 to purchase a “scanner” for an unstated purpose, all in violation of Section 5, Paragraph 5.2(b) of the Stipulation of Settlement (See Joint Trial Ex. 180);||ID||Joint Trial Ex. 180|
|02/06/06||A California State Bar case against Fine (State Bar Court Case No. 04-O-14366) commenced on February 6, 2006, while Fine was opposing LA County and Del Rey Shores and the Epsteins before the LA County Regional Planning Commissionon on behalf of clients Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners' Assoc. Sheldon H. Sloan, a lawyer for Marina Pacific Associates, a lessee of land from LA County in Marina del Rey, controlled by Jerry B. Epstein, and a co-defendant with LA County in the case of Coalition to Save the Marina et al v. LA County et al, who is also a member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar and incoming president, does not disclose that he has a financial interest in Fine being removed from the case as counsel for the plaintiffs.||Jerry B. Epstein also controls the Del Rey Joint Venture and the Del Rey Joint Venture North who are Real Parties in Interest in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles. |
Judge Honn did not disclose that he was a member of the Board of Governors of Special Olympics Southern California with Gerald Hime of LA County, and that Special Olympics Southern California received payments of $30,000 from LA County from July 1, 2005, to January 18, 2008, while he was the trial judge on, and decided the case of, In the Matter of Richard Isaac Fine in which Judge Honn found Fine guilty of "moral turpitude" for filing the LACAOEHS and Silva cases.
|Additionally, State Bar Court Judge Patrice E. McElroy, who refused to disqualify Judge Honn, was a member of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center. The Center did not release or post the contributions from its donors. Another member of the Board was Jerry Roth, a partner of the lawfirm Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, whose partner Jeffrey Bleich was a member of the Board of Governors and President of the State Bar, succeeding Sheldon H. Sloan. Munger, Tolles & Olson represented LA County in the negotiations and drafting of the "Option to Extend Lease" and the "Restated and Amended Lease" with Del Rey Shores. Campaign contribution reports show that the attorneys and partners of Munger, Tolles & Olson contributed over $14,000 to the campaign coffers of LA County Supervisors. The combination of Judges Honn and McElroy on Fine's State Bar case demonstrated an inordinate "unity" of LA County interest in Fine's disbarment.|
|Fine says: "Court documents show that LA Superior Court officials complained to the State Bar. Court documents show that Sheldon E. Sloan, a member of the Board of Governors and the President of the State Bar had a personal financial interest in removing me from practice as he was opposing me in the case of Coalition to Save the Marina et al., v. LA County and Marina Pacific Associates, and his client (Jerry B. Epstein, a developer and an owner of Marina Pacific Associates and an owner of Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North) was also opposing me in another major matter which became the case Marina Strand Colony II, HOA v. County of Los Angeles."|
|Court documents also show that Laura Chick, the LA City Controller, who became a "public member" of the State Bar Board of Governors, had a personal financial interest in removing me from practice as I had shown that Latham & Watkins, the attorneys and lobbyist for Playa Capital Corp., the party opposing me in the case of Etina and Grassroots Coalition v. LA County et al., had given a $5,000.00 "behest" in her name on June 5, 2007, the day after she issued a report concluding that the LA City Dept. of Building and Safety had acted properly regarding the issuance of permits at the Playa Vista development, when documents showed otherwise and before she responded to the Response of the LA Dept. of Building & Safety in August, 2007. Court documents also showed that she was a member of the LA City Council in the case of Shinkle and Crawford v. City of LA, which was one of the cases in the charges against me where the City of LA violated the Cal. Code of Civil Procedure and the State Bar was attempting to circumvent such violations."||http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/fine110507.htm|
|07/27/06||Commissioner Mitchell wrongly ordered the payment of approximately $2 million to attorneys from the DeFlores Class Settlement Fund in violation of the Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgment on the condition that they would withhold 35%, or approximately $566,684.65, to defend his April 1, 2005 action.|
|10/16/06||County Counsel Robert E. Nagle sends letter to Supervisors alleging problems.||x||http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/28653.pdf|
|Oct 2006||LA Superior Court Judge Soussan G. Bruguera dismissed the consolidated cases of Coalition to Save the Marina and Marina Tenants Association et al., v. County of Los Angeles et al. prior to trial while knowing that the cases stated viable causes of action.|
|10/27/06||"County auditor directed to investigate allegations the LA County Counsel's Office manipulated reports to hide deteriorating litigation and trial results. The unusual request for an investigation into a department head follows the firing of litigation cost manager Robert E. Nagle, who helped cut the county's litigation costs in half in recent years. Nagle has appealed his firing, alleging County Counsel Ray Fortner's office hid information about rising costs, failed to comply with cost-cutting policies and didn't notify supervisors about conflicts of interest... " (Nagle later received $450,000 in settlement after suing the County.)||x||http://www.thefreelibrary.com/COUNTY+COUNSEL%27S+OFFICE+TO+BE+INVESTIGATED+DECISION+FOLLOWED+HEATED...-a0153376462|
|Jan 2007||LA Superior Court Judge Soussan G. Bruguera held the motion for reconsideration beyond the time period to maintain the right to receive a decision in the trial court while still being able to timely file an appeal in the case of Coalition to Save the Marina and Marina Tenants Association et al., v. County of Los Angeles|
|5/15/07||Supervisors vote to approve Del Rey Shores' EIR, despite receiving political contributions from Epsteins near time of vote.||http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/money-trail---edited-version|
|06/14/07||On June 14, 2007, Fine filed a petition for writ of mandate in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles seeking to overturn the Supervisors' approval of an EIR in favor of the redevelopment of the Del Rey Shores apartment complex. The petition alleged that the EIR violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that LA County did not receive any positive financial benefit from the project as required by CEQA.||David P. Yaffe was the judge assigned to the case.|
|10/3/07||In a letter from the LA County Counsel to the LA Board of Supervisors, the "real purpose" of the contributions is to reduce the exposure of LA County to liability in the LA Superior Court. This was accomplished by creating a financial atmosphere in which judges deciding LA County cases were relying financially upon LA County for their living expenses and therefore would not decide against LA County. The statistics supported this "real purpose".||http://counsel.lacounty.gov/supp_06-07.pdf|
|10/12/07||State Bar orders Fine placed on "involuntary inactive enrollment".||Per CRC Rule 9.10, State Bar didn't have the authority.|
|10/12/07||Fine left the Marina Strand case on October 12, 2007, as s result of the actions of California State Bar Court Hearing Department Judge Honn, who ordered Mr. Fine's Bar membership into "inactive" status, meaning he could no longer practice law.||"The State Bar prosecuted me for bringing the LACAOEHS and Silva cases at the behest of the LA Superior Court. The "complaining party" in the State Bar case was LA Superior Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell, who was a defendants class reperesentative defendant in the Silva case and who had received "local judicial benefits" and not disclosed such while acting as a "temporary judge" in eminent domain cases involving LA County.|
The State Bar concealed his identity and falsely stated to the State Bar Court that the case was started by the State Bar. The truth came out during the trial when Mitchell made a surprise appearance at the trial as a visitor, and responded that he was the "complaining witness" in response to a question from the Hearing Judge to identify himself.
The State Bar Court specifically referred to the bringing of the LACAOEHS and Silva cases as the reason for its recommendation for disbarment as being "frivolous" cases brought "to retaliate against judges who had decided cases against me."
|11/19/07||Fine filed a petition for writ of review with the California Supreme Court in the case of Fine v. State Bar of California, asking it to review and overturn the State Bar's decision. On November 19, 2007, the California Supreme Court denied Fine's petition, but did not enter an order affirming Judge Honn's order, or enter its own order, making Fine officially inactive, as it was required to do under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6084(a) when a timely petition for writ of review was filed.||Supreme Court: "Fine’s conflict with the bench, Honn recounted, stemmed initially from his involvement in the case of DiFlores v. EHG National Health Services, a class action emanating from the disclosure that a phony doctor had performed about 1,000 medical examinations on behalf of an insurance company." |
Following a “fairness” hearing, Mitchell gave final approval of the settlement, ordered an initial distribution of $2,000 to each of the 19 named plaintiffs as an incentive award, and ordered that payment of fees to the attorneys be delayed “until the final amounts can be computed.”
On Fine’s motion, however, Mitchell later ordered a partial distribution to Fine of $450,000, which Fine said was inadequate. In subsequent proceedings, Mitchell granted an additional distribution of less than $170,000, but also ordered Fine not to file any further motions for partial distribution for at least four months.
|[Cont.]|| Counsel for other plaintiffs, in the meantime, moved for sanctions against Fine for repeatedly filing motions for partial distribution of attorney fees and ex parte applications for expedited hearings on those motions. |
Fine objected to Mitchell hearing those motions, claiming they were not covered by the stipulation allowing Mitchell to hear the case as judge pro tem, but Mitchell struck the objection and ordered Fine to show cause why he should not be removed as class counsel.
|01/08/08||On January 8, 2008, Judge Yaffe ordered that Fine, who was no longer the attorney for Marina Strand, pay sanctions of $1,000.00 and attorney's fees and costs to LA County and Del Rey Shores without having given Fine notice of the hearing and without Fine being present at the hearing. Fine was sent notice by mail on January, 23, 2008.|
Shortly thereafter, Fine made a "special appearance" in the Marina Strand case and moved to dismiss the January 8, 2008, order. Judge Yaffe took the motion "off calendar". On March 25, 2008, Fine served Judge Yaffe with a CCP § 170.3 "Objection" based upon Judge Yaffe's admitting in a hearing on March 20, 2008, that he received payments from LA County. Judge Yaffe did not make any response to the Objection, which faillure to respond automatically disqualified him on April 8, 2008, by operation of law under CCP § 170.3(c)(4). Judge Yaffe, however, refused to leave the case relating to Fine.
|04/15/08||Judge Yaffe, after being disqualified, still entered an order for attorney's fees and costs against Fine in the Marina Strand case.|
|05/02/08||Fine v State Bar: Fine files Complaint in Federal Court against the State Bar and its Board of Governors seeking to declare the California laws under which the State Bar prosecuted him to be unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.. Case assigned to Judge Pregerson and Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle.||The State Bar Court judges have expressed their opinion in a motion to dismiss that they oppose any First Amendment protection regarding Fine's acts. In court papers Fine has shown that such opposition is "bias" "as a matter of law".|
|06/09/08||LA Superior Court Judge Edmon refused to overturn Judge Yaffe's April 15, 2008 void order.|
|June 2008||In June, 2008, Judge Yaffe ruled against Marina Strand Colony on the issue of whether the new lease with Del Rey Shores, which was part of the project, would be of a financial benefit to LA County. At the contempt trial, it was shown that no evidence was presented in the "record" that a positive financial benefit to LA County would occur. R. J. Comer, counsel for Del Rey Shores, testified that he did not review the new lease and could not cite to any evidence showing a benefit to the county.||The "Draft Amended and Restated Lease Agreement" showed at section 4.4.1 that LA County was giving Del Rey Shores an $11,050,000 Lessee Credit plus accrued interest for the dedication of 54 low- and moderate-income apartments in the project. Under the Mello Act, Del Rey Shores was required to dedicate these apartments without any lessee credit.|
|08/26/08||Judge Yaffe denied Fine's motion for attorney's fees as former counsel for the prevailing party in the Marina Strand case.|
|09/03/08||Judge Yaffe refused to send Fine's motion to quash writ of execution to Department 1 for calendaring, and unlawfully insisted on being the judge to hear the motion for sanctions in the Marina Strand case.|
|10/10/08||Taxpayers win appeal in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles. Caselaw now confirms that payments to judges by counties are illegal under the California Constititution.||x||http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/sturgeon-v-losangeles-ruling.pdf|
|09/16/08||Fine v State Bar: ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, approved by Chief Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler, with the concurrence of the Case Management and Assignment Committee, this case is transferred from Judge George P. Schiavelli to the calendar of Judge Dale S. Fischer for all further proceedings.|
|Late 2008||Michael Belote, lobbyist for the California Judges Association, on Dec 28, 2008, said he has "been talking to people ... about how you might craft a bill or a legislative solution [to issues raised by Sturgeon], and actually we were kind of getting down to a draft that might be workable and we'd hoped to have that in early January. But we are going to have to move this thing as quick as possible."||x||http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427031446|
|11/03/08||Judge Yaffe unlawfully heard an Order to Show Cause and set a contempt trial (before himself) against Fine for "attacking the integrity of the LA Superior Court" by claiming that they have received unconstitutional payments from LA County in the Marina Strand case.||Judge Yaffe knew, at this point, about the Sturgeon holding that the payments were unconstitutional.|
|11/05/08||Board of Supervisors holds non-public meeting with its attys re Sturgeon.||The Board authorized County Counsel to pursue "all available" appellate review in the Sturgeon case. (The County had previously defended its payments to judges by saying it was obligated to make them. No longer obligated, the County still pursued an appeal seeking to confirm an obligation it had just been relieved of.)||x||http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/45930.pdf|
|11/03/08||Meanwhile, in the Marina Strand case, Judge Yaffe both presided as the judge and appeared as an adverse witness in the "contempt" proceedings against Fine which began November 3, 2008, with an order to show cause containing 16 counts. The "contempt" proceeding was based upon allegations of actions occurring after Judge Yaffe entered the January 8, 2008, void order in the Marina Strand case. ||The charges included, but were not limited to, refusing to respond to questions at a judgment enforcement hearing, making false statements in pleadings, making motions for reconsideration of the court's January 8, 2008, order, directly and indirectly attacking the integrity of the LA Superior Court and the court [Judge Yaffe], attacking the integrity of the State Bar Court, attacking the integrity of Del Rey Shore's counsel, and holding himself out to practice law in violation of B&P Code §§ 6126 and 6127, despite the fact he had been placed on involuntary inactive status by the State Bar of California.|
|On the first day of trial, Judge Yaffe testified, as an adverse witness called by Fine, that he had received the LA County payments, that he knew that LA County had cases before him, that he did not disclose the payments on his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests required to be filed with the State of California under the Political Reform Act, that he was a State of California employee and an elected state judge under the California Constitution, that he did not have any employment contract with LA County or agreement or arrangement to provide services to LA County, that he reported the LA County payments as "income" on his tax returns, that he did not put the LA County payments into his "campaign contributions account" for his judicial elections, and that other than making a decision regarding the recirculation of the EIR in the Marina Strand case, he could not name any case in the last three (3) years where he decided the case against the interests of LA County.||After seven days of trial, Judge Yaffe held Fine "not guilty" on 14 counts and "guilty" on 2 counts, one of which was refusing to answer questions at a judgment enforcement exam regarding the unlawful order to pay attorney's fees, and the second of holding himself out to practice law. Yaffe made these rulings despite the illegality of the January 8, 2008, order, the testimony at trial of counsel Joshua L. Rosen that they were not relying on the January 8, 2008, order to enforce the judgment, that there was no other order in evidence for Fine to pay fees or costs, the fact that the California Supreme Court had not ordered Mr. Fine "inactive," and neither statute relied upon "State Bar orders".|
|11/13/08||"Richard I. Fine Files Complaint With FBI To Investigate Retaliation Against Him For Exposing And Prosecuting Unconstitutional Payments By L.A. County To L.A. County Judges"||http://www.ahrc.se/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMedia/id/4683|
|Nov 2008||LA Superior Court / Judicial Council hires Burt Margolin (ex legislative assemblyman with current ties to Board of Supervisors worth $100,000+) to lobby the Legislature on behalf of judges in exchange for a fee of $10,000 a month for six months.||Were public funds used for private gain?||x||http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/bill020409.htm|
|12/16/08||On December 16, 2008, Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe voted for the approval of the recirculated EIR for the Del Rey Shores Project, after having accepted campaign contributions from Del Rey Shores' developers.||Maximum contribution made by Jerry B. Epstein on 8/14/08 to Antonovich for $1,000. Contribution by David O. Levine on 8/15/08 to Antonovich for $1,000. Contribution by Marina Properties, LLC on 3/18/08 (an entity controlled by Jerry Epstein) to Knabe for $1000. The law forbids contributions being made within one year of a vote on a subject in which the donor has an interest in the outcome.|
|12/16/08||On December 16, 2008, Supervisor Gloria Molina also voted for the approval of the recirculated EIR for the Del Rey Shores Project, doing so after having accepted campaign contributions to the "Gloria Molina 'Yes' on Measure U etc." fund from Jerry B. Epstein - $1,250.00 on 10/8/08 and David Levine - $1,250 on 10/8/08, within six weeks of the vote.|
Supervisor Gloria Molina did not disclose those contributions prior to, or at the time of the hearing.
|Taxpayers lost, and developer Jerry B. Epstein gained, approximately $700 million dollars of income from Marina del Rey when LA Superior Court Judge Soussan G. Bruguera dismissed the consolidated cases before trial. (Judge Bruguera at first did not disclose that she was receiving LA County payments, but admitted in response to a "disqualification" which she unlawfully "struck", that she was receiving payments from LA County, who was the lead defendant in the cases.) This particular loss to taxpayers is continuing at approximately $70 million dollars per year. At the present time, the loss over the past thirteen (13) years is approximately $910 million dollars and growing.|
|Oct '08 - |
|"A proposed bill to create a statewide supplemental judicial benefits program in response to [the Sturgeon decision] striking down Los Angeles County’s payment of benefits to Superior Court judges beyond that fixed by state law will not go forward, a spokesperson for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg confirmed"|| The proposed, but never introduced, bill reportedly would have allowed the Judicial Council to create a program of supplemental benefits for all judges that would gradually escalate, starting in 2011, to reach 20 percent of a judge’s salary by 2018.|
Steinberg’s representative indicated the proposed bill’s language had been developed at the Judicial Council’s request in order to share with interested parties for analysis, but said the senator had opted not to move forward under the circumstances after vetting the proposal.
Parachini deferred comment on any specific statewide benefit proposals to the Administrative Office of the Courts, and said that the contract with Margolin did not involve “any consequential amount of court resources.” He declined to speculate on public perception of the use of such resources to lobby for judicial benefits.
|01/30/09||Judicial Council seeks Bill to authorize State to pay supplemental salary to judges||x||http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/bill020409.htm|
|Judicial Council, Burt Margolin (lobbyist) and Darrell Steinberg (Senate President) work to get SBx2-11 passed by Legislature.||"Because of the violation of the extraordinary session and several other factors… When that bill was passed up there, the only court in this state that benefited was L.A. County. None of the rest of the judges across the state had anything to do with that. And the Sturgeon case only dealt with L.A. County. Almost the last statement the court made at the Court of Appeals was that 'we express no opinion as to other counties, as to other benefits that they may receive'." Atty Sterling Norris, in Full Disclosure interview.|
|02/01/09||Fine sends letter to Eric Holder, US Attorney General, Department of Justice, requesting investigation.||http://www.ahrc.se/new/index.php/src/news/sub/letter/action/ShowMedia/id/4766|
|02/02/09||Fine sends criminal complaint to FBI|
|02/02/09||Fine files Federal lawsuit related to the California State Bar's attempts to disbar him.|
|02/04/09||L.A. County threatens to withhold revenue from state||x||http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/04/local/me-county-budget4|
|02/11/09||SBx2-11 was actually introduced by Senator Ducheny, under the pretense of making statutory changes related to the Budget Act of 2008, but no details whatsoever were made available to the public.||(Bribes and vote trading are violations of Section 86 of the California Penal Code.)||x||http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx2_11_bill_20090211_introduced.pdf|
|02/11/09||Official docs show only "regular" sessions, no "extraordinary" session for today, the date SBx-11 was introduced by Senator Ducheny.||x||ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/senate-journal/sen-journal-0x-20090211-145.PDF||http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/senate-journalhtml/sj_200902.html||ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/senate-journal/sen-journal-0x-20090214a-153.PDF||ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/senate-journal/sen-journal-2x-20090214-27.PDF|
|02/14/09||SBx2-11 was amended in the Senate on 2/14/09 and purportedly introduced by President Steinberg as: "An act to add Sections 68220, 68221, and 68222 to the Government Code, relating to judges." In the amended version, all references to the original intent of SB 11 were stricken.||See second link, at right re full legislative history of SBx2-11.|
See third and fourth links for "COMPLETE BILL HISTORY" (see History), and note the details regarding SBx2-11's original introduction by Senator Ducheny have been entirely stricken.
|See definition of "suspension of" Senate Rule 29.3, referred to in the SBx2-11 history.|
In the second link, the practice of suspending Rule 29.3 is referred to on page 8 in this 2006 Senate Journal under "Motion to Suspend Senate Rule 29.3":
|02/18/09||CA Legislature passes "sneaker" Bill SBx2-11, during midnight hours of second emergency session, during budget crisis. (See links re use of "special" session may have been improper as SBx2-11 was not at all a matter "relating to, germane to and having a natural connection with the subject proper. . . ." of Governor Schwarzenegger's budget crisis proclamations..)||The source of SBx2-11 was California's Administrative Office of the Courts ("AOC"). The AOC is the administrative arm of the Judicial Council, which is chaired by California's Chief Justice, Ronald M. George. William C. Vickrey is both the secretary of the Judicial Council and the Director of the AOC. (See "Source" in SBx2-11, at link.)||x||http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx2_11_cfa_20090214_174659_sen_floor.html||http://gov.ca.gov/proclamation/11164/||http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/proclamation/11308/||http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/11306/||http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pdf/Ch_06_CaLegi06.pdf|