!!!!

December 21, 2013 !The Honorable Darrell E. Issa !49th District, California United States House of Representatives 2347 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 c/o Amy Walker1800 Thibodo Road, #310 Vista, CA 92081 !Dear Representative: I am a constituent, retired economist and satellite engineer. I am concerned about judicial bias in the California Courts. The judicial partnership and collaboration with the county bureaucracies is greatly damaging our families and my two children.

I am requesting assistance on two federal matters. Both involve alleged campaign payments to judges by county officials. Either the IRS is ignoring widespread mis-application of wage and salary rules or the counties have established a new mechanism for unlimited campaign financing.

The first federal issue concerns the failure of the Internal Revenue Service to properly classify payments to California’s Superior Court judges by 35 counties as campaign contributions instead of wage and salary payments. The judges are not county employees and any tax-favored treatment of those county payments is fraudulent. Use of the county payroll system also leads to mis-representation on state Fair Political Practices reports like the Form-700.

Dennis Ettlin 27222 Paseo Lomita

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 T 949-542-3036 C 310-795-9507

dennis@ettlin.net

The second federal issue is a consequence of the first issue. Federal judges who were previously Superior Court judges in those 35 counties, most likely, failed to properly disclose the campaign funds, from the counties in which they served, on their application for a federal judgeship (Items 30(b) and 31). This failure to properly disclose outside payments conceals a large potential judicial bias and also makes the District Court judges parties to a sophisticated county racketeering (RICO) enterprise which makes payments to judges in exchange for favorable treatment.

I am requesting that your office investigate the failure of the IRS to properly classify and collect the appropriate current taxes due on the annual $50,000 payments to every judge, every year in Los Angeles County. Lesser amounts are paid in other counties.

I am also requesting your office to investigate the ethics and legality of my using the same technique of what I call “fictitious wage donations”. I would like to make contributions to political candidates and campaigns by writing a payroll check to the candidate of my choice and sending that candidate/staffer a W-2 at the end of the year. As payroll, there is no limit on the amount, the payments are not reportable to election monitoring organizations and the IRS would not release data on either side of the transaction.

In a similar fashion, I would like to make charitable donations by writing a payroll check to the organization of my choice and sending that organization a W-2 at the end of the year. The gift/donation would 100% tax-deductible as wages paid.

I have attached a summary presentation and supporting material to this request. I greatly appreciate your time reviewing this request. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Dennis Ettlin CC: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration P.O.Box 589 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0589

CALI

FORN

IA C

OUN

TY S

UPPL

EMEN

TAL

JUD

ICIA

L B

ENEF

ITS

INNO

VATI

VE C

AMPA

IGN

FINA

NCIN

G

OR

SIM

PLE

BRIB

E

JUDI

CIAL

PAY

MEN

TS•

Judg

es a

re s

tate

em

ploy

ees

•Ju

dges

are

pol

itical

can

dida

tes

ever

y six

yea

rs

•35

of 5

8 co

untie

s tre

at ju

dges

as

empl

oyee

s

•Th

e su

pple

men

tal p

aym

ents

are

eith

er

•Ille

gal B

ribes

, or

•In

nova

tive

Cam

paig

n Fi

nanc

ing

HIST

ORY

•Ju

dici

al s

alar

y in

crea

ses

diffi

cult

to o

btai

n

•19

85 S

B124

8 au

thor

ized

use

of L

.A. C

ount

y pa

yrol

l sy

stem

for p

ayin

g co

unty

judg

es

•19

88 L

.A. C

ount

y co

nvin

ced

L.A.

Sup

. Cou

rt to

use

op

erat

ing

fund

s to

pay

tem

pora

ry ju

dges

•19

97 L

ocky

er-Is

enbe

rg T

rial C

ourt

Fund

ing

Act

•20

00 P

ropo

sitio

n 22

0 m

erge

d co

urts

L.A.

CO

UNTY

•Pr

ovid

es p

ayro

ll ser

vices

to s

tate

for j

udge

s

•St

ate

Cont

rolle

r rei

mbu

rses

cou

nty

only

for s

tate

sal

arie

s

•Su

pple

men

tal J

udic

ial B

enefi

ts a

re th

e ad

ditio

nal

paym

ents

mad

e by

L.A

. Cou

nty

to th

e ju

dges

•Cu

rrent

ly $5

0,00

0 ev

ery

judg

e, e

very

yea

r

•$2

0,00

0 M

edic

al, $

25,0

00 4

01K,

$5,

000

Trai

ning

•Ap

pear

ance

of b

ias

when

cou

nty

has

inte

rest

in c

ase

L.A.

SUP

ERIO

R CO

URT

•L.

A. S

uper

ior C

ourt

Com

miss

ione

rs a

re e

mpl

oyee

s of

loca

l Sup

erio

r Cou

rt, n

ot s

tate

em

ploy

ees

•L.

A. S

uper

ior C

ourt

pays

Com

miss

ione

rs a

nd

sele

ct c

ourt

empl

oyee

s fro

m o

pera

ting

fund

s to

m

atch

cou

nty

paym

ents

to ju

dges

CHAL

LENG

ES•

2008

Stu

rgeo

n I,

Judi

cial

Wat

ch

•20

09 S

BX2

11, J

udic

ial C

ounc

il and

CA

Judg

es A

ssn

•20

09 R

icha

rd I.

Fin

e, w

hist

lebl

ower

disb

arre

d

•20

10 S

turg

eon

II, J

udic

ial W

atch

•20

11 E

ttlin

-Coo

per-L

ocat

elli,

10 F

amily

Law

cas

es

•20

13 E

ttlin

, L.A

. Sup

ervis

ors

and

AG K

amal

a Ha

rris

1995

LEG

ISLA

TIVE

DAR

EA

lthou

gh th

ere

is c

erta

inly

a p

ossi

bilit

y th

at S

B 16

2 w

ill

be h

eld

to b

e an

inva

lid d

eleg

atio

n of

legi

slat

ive

auth

ority

to d

eter

min

e th

e nu

mbe

r of s

uper

ior c

ourt

an

d m

unic

ipal

cou

rt ju

dges

, !a

case

can

be

mad

e th

at th

is w

ill n

ot o

ccur

. !T

he p

robl

ems

that

wou

ld b

e cr

eate

d if

it is

hel

d in

valid

ar

e su

bsta

ntia

l. Th

e st

aff b

elie

ves

som

ethi

ng s

houl

d be

do

ne in

ant

icip

atio

n of

this

pos

sibi

lity.

CALI

FORN

IA L

AW R

EVIS

ION

COM

MIS

SIO

N ST

AFF

MEM

ORA

NDUM

, Stu

dy J

-120

1, N

ovem

ber 2

7, 1

995,

Mem

oran

dum

95-

77, T

rial C

ourt

Unifi

catio

n: D

eleg

atio

n of

Leg

isla

tive

Auth

ority

2010

JUD

ICIA

L DA

RETh

us, w

e w

ould

be

rem

iss

in d

isch

argi

ng o

ur d

utie

s if

we

did

not s

tate

that

whi

le th

e Le

gisl

atur

e's

inte

rim

re

spon

se to

Stu

rgeo

n I d

efea

ts th

e pa

rtic

ular

cha

lleng

es

asse

rted

by

Stur

geon

in th

is li

tigat

ion,

that

inte

rim

re

med

y, if

not

sup

plan

ted

by th

e m

ore

com

preh

ensi

ve

resp

onse

SBX

211

pla

inly

con

tem

plat

es, m

ost l

ikel

y w

ill

give

ris

e to

fur

ther

cha

llen

ges

by ta

xpay

ers

or

mem

bers

of t

he b

ench

them

selv

es. A

s w

e no

ted

at th

e ou

tset

, the

issu

e of

judi

cial

com

pens

atio

n is

a s

tate

, not

a

coun

ty, r

espo

nsib

ility

.!

Stur

geon

II, l

ast p

arag

raph

, Con

clus

ion

2011

JUD

ICIA

L AC

TIO

N•

CJP

— C

omm

issio

n on

Jud

icia

l Per

form

ance

•20

11 M

emo

to K

amal

a Ha

rris

on S

BX2

11

•Se

ctio

n 5

retro

activ

e im

mun

ity in

valid

•Se

ctio

ns 2

and

4 q

uest

iona

ble

•AG

refu

sal t

o de

cide

in 2

009

and

2011

FOIA

, Let

ters

from

CJP

to A

G J

erry

Bro

wn a

nd A

G K

amal

a Ha

rris

2012

NEW

SMAK

ER(e

x-sp

okes

man

) “

…th

ere

wer

e co

urts

, a c

oupl

e of

them

, th

at w

ere

illeg

ally

div

ertin

g C

ourt

ope

ratin

g m

oney

to

pay

extr

a be

nefit

s, s

o th

e fa

rthe

r the

AO

C

[Adm

inis

trat

ive

Offi

ce o

f the

Cou

rts]

got

into

it, t

he

clea

rer i

t bec

ame

that

ther

e w

as th

e m

akin

gs o

f a

wid

espr

ead

scan

dal a

bout

!se

lf-d

eali

ng, a

nd s

elf

inte

rest

by

judg

es”;

!! (t

he re

port

er)

“in

othe

r wor

ds, !

stea

ling

on

a gr

and

scal

e by

the

judg

es, s

tate

wid

e”.

See

http

://w

ww

.fulld

iscl

osur

e.ne

t/201

2/11

/cou

rt-in

side

r-ex

pose

s-ju

dici

al- t

reac

hery

/ at “

Part

3 Pr

evie

w”

MO

NEY

LAUN

DERI

NG•

Judg

es a

re n

ot c

ount

y em

ploy

ees,

no

empl

oym

ent

cont

ract

exis

ts

•$5

0,00

0 ca

sh p

aym

ents

inte

nded

to “i

nflue

nce”

•IR

S de

term

inat

ion

need

ed o

n pa

ymen

ts

•G

ift, W

age,

Cam

paig

n Co

ntrib

utio

n, qu

id-p

ro-q

uo B

ribe

•Al

lege

d pu

blic

pur

pose

, cita

tion

of S

tuge

on n

ot a

gift

•Us

e of

pay

roll s

yste

m o

bscu

res

purp

ose

IRS

FRAU

D

•Ju

dges

are

not

cou

nty

empl

oyee

s,

•10

99-fo

rm a

ppro

pria

te, n

ot W

-2

•Pa

ymen

ts/b

ribes

laun

dere

d us

ing

med

ical

ben

efit

and

defe

rred

com

pens

atio

n de

duct

ions

CAM

PAIG

N FR

AUD

•CA

FPP

C Fo

rm 7

00 ru

les

excl

ude

listin

g of

sal

ary

•Ju

dges

repo

rt no

inco

me

repo

rted

on W

-2

•W

age

dona

tion

not s

ubje

ct to

any

cam

paig

n lim

its

•Re

tirem

ent p

ortio

n of

don

atio

n no

t sub

ject

to

cam

paig

n us

e an

d re

tain

ed fo

r per

sona

l use

•Ca

ndid

ate

uses

“fict

itious

wag

e” d

onat

ions

as

lo

an to

cam

paig

n co

mm

ittee

RACK

ETEE

RING

BRI

BES

•Ju

dici

al p

aym

ents

are

"brib

es" u

nder

CA

law

•U

nite

d St

ates

v. F

rega

,

17

9 F.3

d 79

3, 8

09–1

0

•RI

CO c

onsp

iracy

18 U

.S.C

. §19

62(d

)

•In

tang

ible

Rig

ht To

Hon

est S

ervic

es

18 U

.S.C

. §13

46

PERS

PECT

IVE

•Th

e co

unty

pay

men

ts a

re u

ncon

stitu

tiona

l,

ar

e br

ibes

and

vio

late

IRS

and

FPPC

rule

s

OR

•Ne

w av

enue

for u

nlim

ited

cam

paig

n co

ntrib

utio

ns

Cam

paig

n Co

mm

ittee

$$$

PAC

DONO

R

$65,

000!

Com

plex

Lim

its

No L

imits

$$$

DONO

R

$35,

000!

Com

plex

Lim

its

$$$

Cand

idat

e

Self-

Fund

ing!

No L

imits

W-2!

No L

imits

L.A.

CO

UNTY

Per-

sona

l

401K

Cam

paig

n Co

mm

ittee

$$$

PAC

DONO

R

$65,

000!

Com

plex

Lim

its

No L

imits

$$$

DONO

R

$35,

000!

Com

plex

Lim

its

$$$

Cand

idat

e

Self-

Fund

ing!

No L

imits

W-2!

No L

imits

$$$

SUPE

R PA

C

No L

imits

Elec

tion!

Effo

rt

No L

imits

DONO

RL.

A.

COUN

TY

Ms. Leslie DuttonRe: Public Records Act RequestJuly 31, 2012Page: 2

As to item one, we have found no contract between the Los Angeles County BOaTdofSupervisors and the Superior Court of Los Angeles covering payment of county benefits toSuperior Court judges, and do not believe that there has ever been such a contract. Prior to 1997,Los Angeles Superior Court judges and employees were treated as officers and employees of theCounty of Los Angeles for the purpose of benefits. Government Code section 69894.3 has longprovided that officers and employees of superior courts in each county with a population of over2,000,000 shall be entitled to county benefits as directed by the court. Los Angeles SuperiorCourt Local Rule 1.6(b) has long provided that employees and officers of the court shall betreated as County employees for purposes of salary and benefits in accordance with section69894.3. When the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 was passed, it specificallyprovided that such local benefits should continue. Although the Legislature's mode of soproviding was initially invalidated by the court in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167Cal.App.4th 630, the Legislature, in response, mandated the continuation of those benefits inGovernment Code section 68220. That requirement was upheld as constitbtio'nal in Sturgeon v.County of Los Angeles (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 344.

As to item 2, we have found no administrative or security policy memos, emails, oradvisory notices that have been retained by the court that were distributed to court personnelthroughout the Los Angeles court system during the period of January 2000 through July 2012,addressing security notifications and precautions that were to be taken if attorney Richard 1. Finewere to enter any court buildings. In response to my inquiry, the Court's Director of Security,who administers the agreement with the Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles for providing courtsecurity, including weapons screening and courtroom security, advised that a search of email andretained files did not result in the discovery of any such policy memos, emails, or advisorynotices. However, in response to my inquiry to the Sheriffs Department, the attachedMemorandum dated March 4,2009, was provided. Please transmit to me your check in theamount of $0.10, made payable to the Los Angeles Superior Court for the cost of this copy.

~.~Frederick R. BennettCourt Counsel

c: Presiding JudgeExecutive Officer/ClerkDirector of SecurityAdministrative Records Administrator

Mr. Ettlin: In response to your inquiries please see my responses below in blue. From: Dennis M Ettlin [mailto:dennis@ettlin.net] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:47 AMTo: Revuelta, JenniferSubject: Re: Tax withholding payments documentation for Judge James Otero Dear Ms. Revuelta,Mr. Iverson said that their was no evidence that any W-2 or 1099 was generated or sent to Judge Otero forthe period 1990-2003. Normally, I understand your statement about payments being reported on a W-2.However, Judge Otero was an employee of the State not the County, but he received money from thecounty. My main question is whether any tax document was provided to Judge Otero covering the judicialpayments from the county and secondly, whether any withholding was made by the County for Fed andCA taxes. I understand the confidentiality issue regarding a W-2, so I am really asking 1) if James Otero received any kind of tax document from the county – Yes 2) what the form number of that document might be, and – W-2 3) if the county paid any withheld taxes on behalf of James Otero for any of the years 1990-2003. –Personal withholding(s) is personal, confidential information. For now, I am not asking for amounts or copies of the appropriate documents from the County. I am notseeking information on the judges compensation from the State (I doubt you would have that).I hope this clarifies my request.Thank you,Dennis Ettlin On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:39 AM, "Revuelta, Jennifer" <jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov> wrote:

Mr. Ettlin: In response to your inquiry, cafeteria plan benefits paid as taxable cash and Professional DevelopmentAllowance payments are reported as taxable wages on an employee’s W-2. We are unable to providea W-2 or 1099 information because this is confidential information. On behalf of Mr. Iverson, I apologize for the miscommunication. Mr. James Otero is a retired judge forthe Superior Court. Sincerely,Jennifer

"Revuelta, Jennifer" <jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov>To: Ettlin DennisRE: Tax withholding payments documentation for Judge James Otero

June 17, 2013 11:02 AM

A-3

Thank you for the quick turnaround. Please clarify if the benefits are for Luis Lavin or James OteroSincerely On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:30 AM, "Revuelta, Jennifer" <jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov> wrote:

Mr. Ettlin: Per your request, the following are the “local judicial benefits” paid to Superior Court Luis A. Lavin. Ifyou have questions, please contact me by e-mail at jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov

Year

CafeteriaPlan

Benefits

401(k)/457County

Contribution

ProfessionalDevelopment

AllowanceJames Otero

1990

6,690.59 3,265.57 4,012.00

1991

15,192.52 3,474.76 1,960.00

1992

18,866.40 4,726.56 4,704.00

1993

18,866.40 4,332.68 5,162.50

1994

19,731.22 2,067.85 5,004.00

1995

20,354.56 7,442.24 5,161.50

1996

20,404.08 7,667.64 5,184.00

1997

20,404.08 7,420.97 5,331.00

1998

20,659.16 5,175.66 5,352.00

1999

21,594.24 5,409.92 5,499.00

2000

22,627.29 8,651.91 5,520.00

2001

25,114.87 11,315.72 5,814.00

2002

26,290.67 12,121.39 5,856.00

2003

6,625.11 3,054.51 990.00 Jennifer RevueltaAuditor-ControllerCountywide Payroll Division From: Iverson, Gregg M.

A-5

Dennis M Ettlin

A-10

Mr. Ettlin, I thought the information was provided to you, nonetheless the following arethe “local judicial benefits” paid to Superior Court Judge Jan G. Levine. Jan G. Levine

YearCafeteria Plan

Benefits

401(k)/457County

Contribution

ProfessionalDevelopment

Allowance2003 - - 516.002004 27,329.28 12,600.24 6,192.002005 28,256.14 13,027.59 6,528.002006 29,177.76 13,452.48 6,838.502007 32,965.52 15,198.83 7,075.502008 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,366.502009 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,404.002010 35,182.87 17,729.92 7,404.002011 35,182.87 15,661.92 7,614.002012 27,095.39 10,983.60 2,229.50

From: Dennis Ettlin [mailto:dennis@ettlin.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 8:06 PMTo: Revuelta, JenniferSubject: Fwd: Judicial Payments by Los Angeles county to Judge Jan Levine

Dear Ms. Revuelta,WIl you also be providing information for Judge Jan Levine? I did already

"Revuelta, Jennifer" <jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov>To: Ettlin DennisRE: Judicial Payments by Los Angeles county to Judge Jan Levine

October 31, 2012 9:17 AM

A-25

From: "Iverson, Gregg M." <GIVERSON@auditor.lacounty.gov>Subject: Request for Local Judicial Benefits

Date: June 9, 2011 3:25:33 PM PDTTo: "cyberidme@gmail.com" <cyberidme@gmail.com>

Dear Mr. Ettlin: I’m responding to your request for amounts paid for judicial benefits (commonly referred to as “Local Judicial Benefits”)from 1985 to 2010. I have provided the requested information below for years 1989 through 2010. I do not haverecords for years prior to 1989. Please note, all except for Kenneth H. Taylor are Los Angeles County Superior CourtJudges. Mr. Taylor is a Superior Court Commissioner. As for who pays the cost of Local Judicial Benefits, the Los Angeles County, not the Court, pays for the cost of LocalJudicial Benefits for Superior Court Judges, but the Court pays the cost for commissioners. Please email me at giverson@auditor.lacounty.gov if you have any questions. Year Cafeteria

PlanBenefits

401(k)/457CountyContributions

ProfessionalDevelopmentAllowance

Kenneth H. Taylor

2009 27,944.65 13,195.52 5,553.00

2010 45,322.16 1,162.73 7,404.00

Marjorie S. Steinberg

2001 2,106.66 - 1,220.00

2002 26,190.23 11,057.49 5,856.00

2003 26,845.62 12,485.22 6,150.00

2004 27,329.28 12,600.24 6,192.00

2005 28,256.14 13,027.59 6,528.00

2006 29,177.76 13,452.48 6,838.50

2007 32,965.52 15,198.83 7,075.50

2008 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,366.50

2009 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,404.00

2010 33,969.96 12,246.26 7,404.00

A-35

A-96

A-97

A-98

A-99

Los Angeles $53,860Orange $22,042Sonoma $21,403San Luis Obispo $19,147San Bernardino $16,413Yolo $15,905Napa $15,105Santa Clara $14,956San Diego $14,745Tuolumne $13,938San Mateo $10,960Ventura $10,146Solano $8,579Siskiyou $8,202San Francisco $8,036Kern $6,505Riverside $6,279Kings $5,862Glenn $5,632Monterey $4,033San Benito $3,291Contra Costa $3,225Sacramento $1,510Mono $1,263Alameda $972Mendocino $750Nevada $639Tulare $526San Joaquin $449Trinity $336Calaveras $275Mariposa $212Fresno $166Butte $150Placer $85Alpine $0Amador $0Colusa $0Del Norte $0El Dorado $0Humboldt $0Imperial $0Inyo $0Lake $0Lassen $0Madera $0Marin $0Merced $0Modoc $0Plumas $0Santa Barbara $0Santa Cruz $0Shasta $0Sierra $0Stanislaus $0Sutter $0Tehama $0Yuba $0

A-100

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to address the decision of the Court

of Appeal in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th630, regarding county-provided benefits for judges.

(b) These county-provided benefits were considered by the Legislaturein enacting the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, in whichcounties could receive a reduction in the county’s maintenance of effortobligations if counties elected to provide benefits pursuant to paragraph (l)of subdivision (c) of Section 77201 of the Government Code for trial courtjudges of that county.

(c) Numerous counties and courts established local or court supplementalbenefits to retain qualified applicants for judicial office, and trial courtjudges relied upon the existence of these longstanding supplemental benefitsprovided by the counties or the court.

SEC. 2. Section 68220 is added to the Government Code, to read:68220. (a) Judges of a court whose judges received supplemental judicial

benefits provided by the county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shallcontinue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court thenpaying the benefits on the same terms and conditions as were in effect onthat date.

(b) A county may terminate its obligation to provide benefits under thissection upon providing the Administrative Director of the Courts and theimpacted judges with 180 days’ written notice. The termination shall notbe effective as to any judge during his or her current term while that judgecontinues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the election of the county,when that judge leaves office. The county is also authorized to elect toprovide benefits for 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 with regard

to judges and justices and to ensure uniformity statewide, the followingshall apply for purposes of Sections 68220 to 68222, inclusive:

(a) “Benefits” and “benefit” shall include federally regulated benefits,as described in Section 71627, and deferred compensation plan benefits,such as 401(k) and 457 plans, as described in Section 71628, and may alsoinclude professional development allowances.

(b) “Salary” and “compensation” shall have the meaning as set forth inSection 1241.

SEC. 4. Section 68222 is added to the Government Code, to read:68222. Nothing in this act shall require the Judicial Council to increase

funding to a court for the purpose of paying judicial benefits or obligate thestate or the Judicial Council to pay for benefits previously provided by thecounty, city and county, or the court.

SEC. 5. Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity, orofficer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or besubject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided

� 96

— 2 —Ch. 9

A-141

14

employment as a judge is not a fundamental right (see Rittenband v. Cory (1984) 159

Cal.App.3d 410, 418-419) and there is no fundamental right to a certain level of

compensation. (See American Federation of Teachers v. Los Angeles Community

College Dist. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 942, 945, fn. 1) Thus we consider the disparity

under the rational basis test and have no difficulty finding such a basis in the Legislature's

express recognition that payment of the benefits by various counties and courts is needed

to retain qualified judicial officers. (See Sturgeon I, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 639.)

CONCLUSION

As the parties have recognized, SBX 211 both preserved the status quo ante

Sturgeon I and commenced a process by which the Legislature looks to adoption of a

comprehensive judicial compensation scheme. As we have explained, this response to

Sturgeon I meets the requirements of the Constitution and is wholly sensible under the

circumstances. The Legislature is uniquely competent to deal with the complex policy

problem of establishing a judicial compensation scheme which both assures recruitment

and retention of fully qualified judicial officers throughout the state while at the same

time providing equity between judges in different parts of the state. By the same token

our role in ensuring that the more general requirements of the Constitution have been met

is, under our system of separate governmental powers, quite limited. (See Community

Redevelopment Agency v. Abrams (1975) 15 Cal.3d 813, 831-832.) Thus, whatever

permanent remedy the Legislature eventually adopts will be entitled to the well-

established "judicial deference to the legislative branch." (Ibid.)

A-157

15

However, on its face SBX 211 is not a permanent response to either the

constitutional issues we identified in Sturgeon I or the difficult problem of adopting a

compensation scheme that deals with varying economic circumstances in an equitable

and efficient manner. Thus, we would be remiss in discharging our duties if we did not

state that while the Legislature's interim response to Sturgeon I defeats the particular

challenges asserted by Sturgeon in this litigation, that interim remedy, if not supplanted

by the more comprehensive response SBX 211 plainly contemplates, most likely will

give rise to further challenges by taxpayers or members of the bench themselves. As we

noted at the outset, the issue of judicial compensation is a state, not a county,

responsibility. We are confident that the Legislature within a reasonable period of time

will act to adopt a uniform statewide system of judicial compensation.

Judgment affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: NARES, J. HALLER, J.

A-158

TRIAL COURT OPERATIONSBudget Summaries

FY 2010-11 Proposed Budget Volume One 60.1 County of Los Angeles

Trial Court Operations

Trial Court Operations Budget Summary

2010-11 Budget MessageThe Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997,Assembly Bill (AB) 233, Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997, requirescounties to make an annual Maintenance of Effort (MOE)payment to the State for support of trial courts and to continueto fund certain court-related expenditures such as indigentdefense, collections enhancement, and local judicial benefits.The Trial Court Facilities Act, Senate Bill 1732, Chapter 1082,Statutes of 2002, authorized the transfer of responsibility forcourt facilities from the counties to the State and requires thatcounties make County Facilities Payment (CFP). Revenue fromcourt fines and fees is used to partially finance the MOEobligation to the State and other court-related expenditures.

The 2010-11 Proposed Budget reflects funding for the County’s$294.7 million MOE payment to the State, which is comprisedof $245.9 million base MOE; $37.6 million CFP; and$11.2 million representing 50 percent of any excess above theAB 233 fines and forfeitures MOE, and $93.0 million forcourt-related expenditures that are the County’s responsibility.The Proposed Budget reflects anticipated increases in costsrelated to court collections enhancement.

Changes From 2009-10 Budget

TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS BUDGET SUMMARYFY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2010-11 CHANGE FROM

CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL ESTIMATED BUDGET REQUESTED PROPOSED BUDGET

FINANCING REQUIREMENTS

SALARIES & EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $ 28,216,975.26 $ 28,865,000 $ 30,773,000 $ 31,130,000 $ 30,854,000 $ 81,000

SERVICES & SUPPLIES 86,717,568.87 75,607,000 58,946,000 79,106,000 62,150,000 3,204,000

OTHER CHARGES 282,914,026.89 294,596,000 295,938,000 295,938,000 294,650,000 (1,288,000)

GROSS TOTAL $ 397,848,571.02 $ 399,068,000 $ 385,657,000 $ 406,174,000 $ 387,654,000 $ 1,997,000

REVENUE $ 151,882,922.64 $ 143,720,000 $ 146,302,000 $ 149,215,000 $ 148,218,000 $ 1,916,000NET COUNTY COST $ 245,965,648.38 $ 255,348,000 $ 239,355,000 $ 256,959,000 $ 239,436,000 $ 81,000

BUDGETED POSITIONS $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 0.0

GrossAppropriation

($)

IntrafundTransfer

($)Revenue

($)

NetCounty Cost

($)Budg

Pos

2009-10 Final Adopted Budget 385,657,000 0 146,302,000 239,355,000 50.0

Other Changes1. Salaries and Employee Benefits: Primarily reflects

Board-approved increases in health insurance subsidies.81,000 -- -- 81,000 --

2. Services and Supplies: Reflects an increase in costs for the Court’s Cost Recovery Program fully offset by fines and forfeitures revenues.

3,276,000 -- 3,276,000 -- --

3. Intergovernmental Revenue: Reflects a reduction in services and supplies due to the elimination of the grant funding for the Drug Court program.

(72,000) -- (72,000) -- --

A-160

Cour

tsA

utho

rize

d Ju

dges

hips

Cour

tsA

utho

rize

d Ju

dges

hips

Cour

tsA

utho

rize

d Ju

dges

hips

Cour

tsA

utho

rize

d Ju

dges

hips

FRES

NO

44

ALA

MED

A

69CO

NTR

A C

OST

A

38A

LPIN

E 2

LOS

AN

GEL

ES

436

BUTT

E12

KERN

38A

MA

DO

R 2

MEN

DO

CIN

O8

CALA

VERA

S 2

KIN

GS

8CO

LUSA

2

MO

NTE

REY

20G

LEN

N

2M

ON

O

2D

EL N

ORT

E 3

RIVE

RSID

E 64

MA

RIPO

SA

2O

RAN

GE

112

EL D

ORA

DO

6

SAN

BER

NA

RDIN

O

78N

APA

6

SACR

AM

ENTO

64

HU

MBO

LDT

7SA

N F

RAN

CISC

O

51N

EVA

DA

6

SON

OM

A

19IM

PERI

AL

9SA

N M

ATE

O26

PLA

CER

12YO

LO

11IN

YO

2

SAN

TA C

LARA

79SA

N B

ENIT

O

2LA

KE

4TR

INIT

Y 2

SAN

DIE

GO

13

0LA

SSEN

2

VEN

TURA

29

SAN

JOA

QU

IN

32M

AD

ERA

10

SAN

LU

IS O

BISP

O

12M

ARI

N

10SI

SKIY

OU

4

MER

CED

10

SOLA

NO

19

MO

DO

C 2

TULA

RE

20PL

UM

AS

2TU

OLU

MN

E 4

SAN

TA B

ARB

ARA

19

SAN

TA C

RUZ

10SH

AST

A

11SI

ERRA

2

STA

NIS

LAU

S 22

SUTT

ER

5TE

HA

MA

4

YUBA

5

23 c

ourt

s15

1 Ju

dges

hips

16 c

ourt

s33

4 Ju

dges

hips

11 c

ourt

s83

7 Ju

dges

hips

8 co

urts

292

Judg

eshi

ps

Supp

lem

enta

l Jud

icia

l Ben

efits

by

Cour

tas

of J

uly

1, 2

008

Coun

ty-F

unde

d Be

nefit

sCo

urt-

Fund

ed B

enef

its

Cour

t- a

nd C

ount

y-Fu

nded

Be

nefit

sN

o Su

pple

men

tal B

enef

its

'��

A-167

Funding Source Total Cost

Benefit Available to All Judges

Imperial $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits

Inyo $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits

Kern $247,198County Total $120,258

Car allowance County $120,258 XCourt Total $126,940

Car allowance Court $118,014 XMileage allowance Court $8,926

Kings $46,899County Total $27,361

Dental County $3,270General Health Care County $23,521Vision County $570

Court Total $19,539457 Court $7,764 XBundled (Life and Supplemental) Court $1,955 XCash Supplement (Flex Plans) Court $0 XDental Court $0 XGeneral Health Care Court $0 XLife Insurance Court $73 XOther Disability Insurance Court $9,747 XVision Court $0 X

Lake $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits

Lassen $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits

Los Angeles $23,482,932401K County $3,957,130 X457 County $2,001,295 XCash Supplement (Flex Plans) County $14,454,245 XOther Allowances/Stipends (not specifically designated) County $3,070,262 X

Madera $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits

Marin $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits

Mariposa $424Life Insurance Court $424 X

Mendocino $6,000Other Allowances/Stipends (not specifically designated) County $6,000 X

Merced $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits

Modoc $0No Supplemental Judicial Benefits

'���A-169

A-176

A-177

A-185

A-186

Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 78 Filed 12/26/12 Page 28 of 43 Page ID #:957

A-241

Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 78 Filed 12/26/12 Page 30 of 43 Page ID #:959

A-243

Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 78 Filed 12/26/12 Page 31 of 43 Page ID #:960

A-244