For over a decade, Los Angeles County judges received “not permitted payments” (“bribes”), which required the signing of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) to all such judges.
“On October 10,2008, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, declared the County's payment of supplemental judicial benefits to be unconstitutional because the benefits had not been prescribed by the Legislature, as required by Cal. Const., art. VI, § 19.
…
The County had paid supplemental judicial benefits to the trial judges of the superior court since at least as earlv as 1997. In the eleven year period from 1997 to 2008, the County paid an estimated $350 million dollars in supplemental judicial benefits to approximately 1,000 superior court judges.”
…
Section 26525 of the Government Code requires a district attorney to institute a lawsuit to recover unlawfully paid county monies.
…
Please consider this letter as notice of and a request to institute a lawsuit under Section 26525 of the Government Code to recover the illegal expenditure of County funds by county supervisors and other county officials, as declared by the Court of Appeal in Sturgeon.”
Attached:
| # | Date | Record | |
| 1. | April 13, 2011 | Letter by Judicial Watch to LA Coutny District Attorney | |
Related Records:
The underlying litigation of Sturgeon v LA County is opined as simulated litigation.
10-07-15 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke - for public corruption and deprivation of rights - in RE: Conduct of pretense litigation in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286)
No comments:
Post a Comment