Superior Court vs Superior Court In Los Angeles ... Judges Fight To Keep Illegal Benefits: Full Disclosure Network® Video News Report (11 min)

Share Article

The Full Disclosure Network® presents an eleven minute Video News Report covering the July 13, 2009 Superior Court hearing held on the Judicial Watch motion for Injunctive Relief in the Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles case BC351286, a taxpayers lawsuit. In October 2008, an Appellate Court decision found Los Angeles County payments to the Superior Court Judges were illegal, however recent legislation (SBX 2 11) to legalize the payments generated a legal debate as to the whether or not the payments could continue. View the video report here: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/73.php

Superior Court vs Superior Court

the Judges and their legal counsel do not want to be interviewed on this case.

Full Disclosure Network presents an eleven minute video news report of the July 13, 2009 Superior Court hearing held on the Judicial Watch motion for Injunctive Relief in the Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles case (BC351286), a taxpayers lawsuit. In October 2008, the Fourth Appellate Court District decision (D050382) ruled that Los Angeles County payments to the Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were illegal. View the video report here: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/73.php

The Appellate Court decision was upheld by the California Supreme Court when the Los Angeles Superior Court intervened and their petition for re-hearing was denied. The Court was represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, one of the most powerful and influential legal firms in the country. View the appeal ruling here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/sturgeon-v-losangeles-ruling.pdf

Specially appointed Appellate Court Judge James A. Richman from San Francisco presided at the July 13, 2009 hearing and after oral arguments, took the matter into submission. His decision on the Judicial Watch motion for an injunction to prevent L A County from making further payments to the judges, is expected in 30 to 60 days.

The Full Disclosure Network® is billed as THE NEWS BEHIND THE NEWS. Appearing in the Video News Report here: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/73.php are Judicial Watch attorneys Sterling Norris and Paul Orfanedes who are interviewed by Full Disclosure's Leslie Dutton, following the hearing.

An attorney representing the Superior Court described emergency legislation (SBX 2 11) a provision inserted into the February 11, 2009 budget bill, as having retroactively made the County's payments to the Judges legal. According to Judicial Watch attorneys the legislation, that received no public debate, also provides criminal immunity from prosecution and liability to the Judges and County officials involved in the transfer of what has been estimated to be almost from $250 to $300 million dollars over the past two decades.

Full Disclosure Network® contacted the following Court officials to interview them on this matter but was informed " the Judges and their legal counsel do not want to be interviewed on this case."

  •      Judge Mary Wiss, President California Judges Association
  •      Mike Beloid, Cal Advocates Lobbyist for CJA on SBX 2 11
  •      Judge Charles McCoy, Presiding Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
  •      J. Frederick Bennett, L.A. Superior Court Legal Counsel
  •      Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (for Superior Court)

Here is a link to an exclusive video covering the issue of Sturgeon vs County of L.A. and the Judicial Watch taxpayers lawsuit. http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/540.php These videos are also featured on the Full Disclosure Network® website and distributed to over 45 cable systems in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Manhattan, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.

###

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

LESLIE DUTTON
Visit website