SB-11

Greetings,
This is the beginning of the down ship for people regarding SB-11. The nation is so outraged, this is an example of what they are doing Minn. for starters. Please take a look at this YouTube. Now,Attorney Fine is being held in jail, he is being denied pencil, paper and pen. Also, he is being denied the right to represent himself. All because he exposed the courts, Fine also exposed the fact the in the years of 2005-2007, no L.A. Judge ever ruled against the County when they were defendant's in a case. If immunity is being giving to the judges and their cohorts, why can't all those people that were denied due process for the last past twelve years have their cases revisited. if immunity was good for the goose, it should be good for the gander.
The three branches of govt are to be for checks and balances, how is this a check and balance when you admit in your Bill that the judges took the money when it was unlawful to do so and then you turn around and not only give them immunity but make it twelve years retroactive. Lastly, being that L.A County has a 11 percent unemployment rate, how do you justify paying those judges in this specific County 21 million a year extra. I see this money being better used for jobs, services and a host of other things. God bless Huff and Dutton for not going alone with this terrible bill. In addition, people in your district will suffer the most, as Due Process certainly won't ever be given to them, as it really never was, as one can see the jails, cps and the police brutalities. One hopes that Fine is not injured in this jail all because he spoke out. One more thing, what this bill state is that the entire state is corrupt. In other words, if one branch of government is exposed, will they have the ability to come to the state house and have immunity granted, all against the people.

Fine You Tube Click here: YouTube - Disclosure Watch Town Hall Meeting


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASESaint Paul MinnesotaFebruary 27, 2009Minnesota Legislators to Discipline JudgesIn response to dozens of petitions by the citizens of the state of Minnesota, an Ad Hoc committee has been scheduled to hear the evidence of the corruption within the Minnesota Judicial Branch.Spearheaded by minority whip Rep. Dan Severson, the bipartisan joint committee will convene on March 13th, 2009 at the State Office Building at 9:00AM in room 300N.The ad hoc committee was formed because the chairs of the senate and house committees that oversee matters of the judiciary have refused to hear the citizen petitions concerning corruption in the Minnesota Judicial Branch.The evidence to be presented to the ad hoc committee is massive and includes transcripts being altered, bribery, extortion, denial of access to the Grand Jury and numerous state and felonies by certain district and appellate court judges. Bills of impeachment against many judges will be brought.Never before in the history of the state of Minnesota, and perhaps the nation, have the legislative committees charged with overseeing the matters in the judiciary refused to listen to the evidence of crimes being committed by judges. Article Six Section Nine of the Minnesota Constitution clearly directs it is the intent of the people for the Legislature to discipline the Judicial Branch. The courageous legislators that have agreed to participate in the Ad Hoc committee number over a dozen and more are joining as citizens from across the state meet with their legislators and encourage participation. Additionally, a press conference will be held the week of March 9th, 2009 to discuss the introduction of judicial reform bills and the agenda for the Ad Hoc committee.


Here is a copy of your Bill SB-11, I highlighted your admission in RED.


Enrolled:SB 11, Steinberg. Judges: employment benefits.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sbx2_11&sess=CUR&house=B&author=steinbergSB 11, Steinberg. Judges: employment benefits. The California Constitution requires the Legislature to prescribecompensation for judges of courts of record. Existing law authorizesa county to deem judges and court employees as county employees forpurposes of providing employment benefits. These provisions were heldunconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of the obligation ofthe Legislature to prescribe the compensation of judges of courts ofrecord. This bill would provide that judges who received supplementaljudicial benefits provided by a county or court, or both, as of July1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from thecounty or court then paying the benefits on the same terms andconditions as were in effect on that date. The bill would authorize acounty to terminate its obligation to provide benefits uponproviding 180 days' written notice to the Administrative Director ofthe Courts and the impacted judges, but that termination would not beeffective as to any judge during his or her current term while thatjudge continues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the electionof the county, when that judge leaves office. The bill also wouldauthorize the county to elect to provide benefits for all judges inthat county. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report tothe Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, the AssemblyCommittee on Budget, and both the Senate and Assembly Committees onJudiciary on or before December 31, 2009, analyzing the statewidebenefits inconsistencies. This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer oremployee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or besubject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefitsprovided to a judge under the official action of a governmentalentity prior to the effective date of the bill on the ground thatthose benefits were not authorized under law. This bill would provide that nothing in its provisions shallrequire the Judicial Council to increase funding to a court for thepurpose of paying judicial benefits or obligate the state or theJudicial Council to pay for benefits previously provided by thecounty, city and county, or the court.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of thefollowing: (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to address the decision ofthe Court of Appeal in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167Cal.App.4th 630, regarding county-provided benefits for judges. (b) These county-provided benefits were considered by theLegislature in enacting the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Actof 1997, in which counties could receive a reduction in the county'smaintenance of effort obligations if counties elected to providebenefits pursuant to paragraph (l) of subdivision (c) of Section77201 of the Government Code for trial court judges of that county. (c) Numerous counties and courts established local or courtsupplemental benefits to retain qualified applicants for judicialoffice, and trial court judges relied upon the existence of theselongstanding supplemental benefits provided by the counties or thecourt.SEC. 2. Section 68220 is added to the Government Code, to read: 68220. (a) Judges of a court whose judges received supplementaljudicial benefits provided by the county or court, or both, as ofJuly 1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits fromthe county or court then paying the benefits on the same terms andconditions as were in effect on that date. (b) A county may terminate its obligation to provide benefitsunder this section upon providing the Administrative Director of theCourts and the impacted judges with 180 days' written notice. Thetermination shall not be effective as to any judge during his or hercurrent term while that judge continues to serve as a judge in thatcourt or, at the election of the county, when that judge leavesoffice. The county is also authorized to elect to provide benefitsfor all judges in the county.SEC. 3. Section 68221 is added to the Government Code, to read: 68221. To clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies in terms withregard to judges and justices and to ensure uniformity statewide, thefollowing shall apply for purposes of Sections 68220 to 68222,inclusive: (a) "Benefits" and "benefit" shall include federally regulatedbenefits, as described in Section 71627, and deferred compensationplan benefits, such as 401(k) and 457 plans, as described in Section71628, and may also include professional development allowances. (b) "Salary" and "compensation" shall have the meaning as setforth in Section 1241.SEC. 4. Section 68222 is added to the Government Code, to read: 68222. Nothing in this act shall require the Judicial Council toincrease funding to a court for the purpose of paying judicialbenefits or obligate the state or the Judicial Council to pay forbenefits previously provided by the county, city and county, or thecourt.SEC. 5. Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity, orofficer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur anyliability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action becauseof benefits provided to a judge under the official action of agovernmental entity prior to the effective date of this act on theground that those benefits were not authorized under law.SEC. 6. The Judicial Council shall report to the Senate Committeeon Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee on Budget, andboth the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary on or beforeDecember 31, 2009, analyzing the statewide benefits inconsistencies.SEC. 7. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provisionof this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidityshall not affect other provisions or applications that can be giveneffect without the invalid provision or application.