Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 47 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing Summarizing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
General News   
  

APOLOGISTS FOR JUDICIAL CORRUPTION EXPOSED

By       (Page 6 of 8 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   1 comment

Richard Fine

"Every proceeding which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the state and the accused, denies the latter due process of law."

Throughout the years, the test was adopted to civil cases and expanded beyond just the payment of monies.

Most relevant to the Los Angeles County payments to the Los Angeles Superior Court judges, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Caperton, stated at Slip Opinion page 16 that:

"Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own case, similar fears of bias can arise when without the consent of the other parties a man chooses the judge in his own case. . ."

By paying all of the judges of the L.A. Superior Court, L.A. County "bought the court". No other party consented to the judge in their case. In fact, due to the "fraud upon the court", no other party knew that the court was "bought."

Mr. Green has studiously avoided mention of all these precedents other than "Mayberry", which he tries to distinguish.

He even concedes that the L.A. Superior Court was "bribed." He alluded to the "bribes" now being legal under state legislation, assumedly Senate Bill SBx2-11. This part of Senate Bill SBx2-11 is under appeal, with its constitutionality being questioned.

If the Court of Appeal adopts the same position in this appeal as it took regarding the 1997 Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), in which it held that the L.A. County payments to the L.A. Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, and that Lockyer-Isenberg did not "prescribe" such payments as the payments were "voluntary" on behalf of the counties and the counties could continue to pay the benefits to their own employees and stop paying the benefits to the judges.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Richard Fine Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Richard I. Fine has been referred to as a "crusader", the "taxpayer advocate attorney" and the "peoples' lawyer" for his work in challenging and correcting the abuses and corruption in government. The breadth of his experience encompasses antitrust (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter

Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

APOLOGISTS FOR JUDICIAL CORRUPTION EXPOSED

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend