Comment E-mail Print

Page 3 of 4

Here's the scoop according to the February 20, 2009, edition of Cal Law:

After five round-the-clock days of legislative horse trading and stalemates, California's judicial leaders scored two key political victories Thursday as state lawmakers finally closed a $40 billion budget deficit.

Among the three-dozen bills legislators sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk to handle the shortfall was language that lets counties continue paying extra benefits to local judges. Proponents say that bill effectively overturns a 4th District ruling from October finding that only the state, not counties, can set compensation levels for judges...

...Judges' campaign to keep their extra benefits was a bold move at a time when state leaders were drafting deep cuts to education and social services programs.

Bold doesn't quite capture it. This "double dipping" by trial court judges costs Los Angeles County taxpayers $20 million per year. And, again, these are benefits they already receive from state coffers, which is why the court ruled in our favor last October.

Let me give you just one example. Even though judges receive a full benefits package from the state, Los Angeles County also provides each judge $27,324 annually in cash allowances to purchase on a pre-tax basis additional health, life, disability and other benefits. Given that there are no requirements as to how the money must be spent, judges may either purchase the benefits or keep the cash allowance as taxable income. (The total cost of duplicate benefits for each judge is estimated to be $46,000.)

This latest piece of legislation, called the "Sturgeon fix bill" because it intends to overturn the victorious Judicial Watch lawsuit, Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But aren't judges supposed to be interpreting the law, paying big bucks to lobby a legislature to pass laws that benefit them? We're still evaluating how any new law might affect our lawsuit (or whether new law is, in fact, constitutional). In the meantime, our lawsuit continues -- and with more outrageous moves by the court.

The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles ("State Court"), using a big name private law firm, recently sought to intervene as a defendant in our Sturgeon lawsuit. This is extraordinary and, frankly, beyond the lawful powers of the court. To give you a sense of the impropriety of this latest action, I'll quote from our brief opposing the move:

If the State Court is allowed to intervene, the State Court would be litigating a matter before the State Court...the State Court's intervention would create an irreconcilable conflict, as the litigation would be pending in the State Court, who would be a party. Plaintiff strongly objects to having the State Court consider whether the State Court should be allowed to intervene in a matter pending before the State Court.

If this doesn't give you a sense that the court is out of control, I don't know what would.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3 4