9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 51 - Letter To 9th Circuit Panel Re Antonovich Statement
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 51 - Letter To 9th Circuit Panel Re Antonovich Statement as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 702
- Pages: 4
DR. RICHARD I. FINE
ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected]
December 1, 2009 ATTN: Panel Justices Assigned to Case # 09-56073, Set for Hearing 12/10/2009 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103 RE:
“L.A. County Judges to Lose Payments From County to Avoid Conflicts”; Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-56073, District Court Case No. CV-09-1914 JFW (CW)
Dear Panel: Enclosed herewith is a copy of a November 28, 2009 article from Full Disclosure Network reporting Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich’s salient remarks of November 23rd at a meeting of the L.A. County Lincoln Club. When asked about the continuing public concern that the County’s payments created a “conflict” for judges and whether that conflict was going to be resolved, Mr. Antonovich replied that no “new” judge (appointed or elected) will be receiving the payments. In so doing, Supervisor Antonovich has admitted that judges were being paid by the County and that the practice has been stopped. This article concerning Supervisor Antonovich’s statement is relevant to this case because it shows that LA county is stopping the payments which do not have immunity under SBX2-11, which gave retroactive immunity for payments made prior to May 21,2009 and did not give immunity for payments which it allowed after such date. Those payments are presently being challenged as unconstitutional, and an injunction is being sought to stop them in the continuing case of Sturgeon v. the County of Los Angeles, which is presently on appeal in the California Court of Appeal where the Second Appellate District (serving Los Angeles County) has recused itself. Antonovich’s statement is also a tacit admission of the County’s recognition that the payments create a conflict for the judges. Sincerely,
RICHARD I. FINE RIF/mlm cc: Aaron Mitchell Fontana, Esq. Paul B. Beach, Esq.
Kevin M. McCormick, Esq.
PR Newswire: “Judges to Lose LA County Payments to Avoid Conflicts” Release Date: November 28, 2009
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, a long-time elected member of the Board of Supervisors in the County of Los Angeles explained to the members of a prominent Republican organization on November 23, 2009 that the practice of providing extra payments to Superior Court Judges will be ending with the new Judges. Full Disclosure Network(R) presents an online 3 min video report covering the Lincoln Club meeting where Antonovich described the judicial payments that had been ruled illegal as having been legalized on February 20, 2009 by special state legislation. He explained that the practice had been statewide in most California counties. The video report is available at the URL: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Report_Antonovich.php The County's payments to judges over and beyond their State salaries were ruled illegal by a Fourth District CA Court of Appeals decision in November of 2008 in the Judicial Watch case Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles. In response to a question about the continuing public concern about the county payments creating a "conflict" for judges who hear cases involving the County as litigants and how this conflict would be resolved Antonovich made the following points.
• • • • • •
All new judges (elected or appointed) will not be receiving payments from the county. Most other California counties have been paying extra benefits to the judges . This was not just a Los Angeles County practice . Recent legislation, Senate Bill SBX2 11 has now made the payments legal. L.A. Judges have not always ruled in favor of the County. Several rulings have been in favor of illegal aliens (which the county opposed).
Featured in the video are quotes from : Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch, David Hernandez and From his L.A. County Central Men's Jail cell, anti-trust attorney Richard I Fine gave his reaction to the Antonovich statement, available at: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/11/county-to-stop-payments-for-new-judgesl.html. Fine remains in solitary "coercive confinement" following his attempt to disqualify Judge Yaffe for not disclosing to litigants in his courtroom receipt of payments from the County . WHAT IS THE FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK(R) http://www.pdfcoke.com/doc/22429230/Leslie-Dutton-Backgrounder-111109 One Pager On Series "Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption . Contact: Leslie Dutton, [email protected], 310-822-4449, Full Disclosure Network http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/judges-to-lose-payments-from-county-to-avoid-conflicts-fulldisclosure-networkr-video-news-report-3-min-78138387.html
2009 © All Rights Reserved. Full Disclosure Network®
ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected]
December 1, 2009 ATTN: Panel Justices Assigned to Case # 09-56073, Set for Hearing 12/10/2009 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103 RE:
“L.A. County Judges to Lose Payments From County to Avoid Conflicts”; Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-56073, District Court Case No. CV-09-1914 JFW (CW)
Dear Panel: Enclosed herewith is a copy of a November 28, 2009 article from Full Disclosure Network reporting Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich’s salient remarks of November 23rd at a meeting of the L.A. County Lincoln Club. When asked about the continuing public concern that the County’s payments created a “conflict” for judges and whether that conflict was going to be resolved, Mr. Antonovich replied that no “new” judge (appointed or elected) will be receiving the payments. In so doing, Supervisor Antonovich has admitted that judges were being paid by the County and that the practice has been stopped. This article concerning Supervisor Antonovich’s statement is relevant to this case because it shows that LA county is stopping the payments which do not have immunity under SBX2-11, which gave retroactive immunity for payments made prior to May 21,2009 and did not give immunity for payments which it allowed after such date. Those payments are presently being challenged as unconstitutional, and an injunction is being sought to stop them in the continuing case of Sturgeon v. the County of Los Angeles, which is presently on appeal in the California Court of Appeal where the Second Appellate District (serving Los Angeles County) has recused itself. Antonovich’s statement is also a tacit admission of the County’s recognition that the payments create a conflict for the judges. Sincerely,
RICHARD I. FINE RIF/mlm cc: Aaron Mitchell Fontana, Esq. Paul B. Beach, Esq.
Kevin M. McCormick, Esq.
PR Newswire: “Judges to Lose LA County Payments to Avoid Conflicts” Release Date: November 28, 2009
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, a long-time elected member of the Board of Supervisors in the County of Los Angeles explained to the members of a prominent Republican organization on November 23, 2009 that the practice of providing extra payments to Superior Court Judges will be ending with the new Judges. Full Disclosure Network(R) presents an online 3 min video report covering the Lincoln Club meeting where Antonovich described the judicial payments that had been ruled illegal as having been legalized on February 20, 2009 by special state legislation. He explained that the practice had been statewide in most California counties. The video report is available at the URL: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Report_Antonovich.php The County's payments to judges over and beyond their State salaries were ruled illegal by a Fourth District CA Court of Appeals decision in November of 2008 in the Judicial Watch case Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles. In response to a question about the continuing public concern about the county payments creating a "conflict" for judges who hear cases involving the County as litigants and how this conflict would be resolved Antonovich made the following points.
• • • • • •
All new judges (elected or appointed) will not be receiving payments from the county. Most other California counties have been paying extra benefits to the judges . This was not just a Los Angeles County practice . Recent legislation, Senate Bill SBX2 11 has now made the payments legal. L.A. Judges have not always ruled in favor of the County. Several rulings have been in favor of illegal aliens (which the county opposed).
Featured in the video are quotes from : Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch, David Hernandez and From his L.A. County Central Men's Jail cell, anti-trust attorney Richard I Fine gave his reaction to the Antonovich statement, available at: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/11/county-to-stop-payments-for-new-judgesl.html. Fine remains in solitary "coercive confinement" following his attempt to disqualify Judge Yaffe for not disclosing to litigants in his courtroom receipt of payments from the County . WHAT IS THE FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK(R) http://www.pdfcoke.com/doc/22429230/Leslie-Dutton-Backgrounder-111109 One Pager On Series "Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption . Contact: Leslie Dutton, [email protected], 310-822-4449, Full Disclosure Network http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/judges-to-lose-payments-from-county-to-avoid-conflicts-fulldisclosure-networkr-video-news-report-3-min-78138387.html
2009 © All Rights Reserved. Full Disclosure Network®
Related Documents
9th Circuit Local Rules
May 2020 6
More Documents from "Honor in Justice"
