Posted on | November 21, 2010 | 3 Comments
 |
|
New Video Exclusive…….
November 22, 2010
|
| |
|
WHO WILL STOP JUDICIAL DOUBLE BENEFITS?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Video News
10 min
|
|
Support the
Full Disclosure Network®
Non-Profit
501(c) (3)
Educational
|
|
|
|
|
San Diego, CA Watch Full Disclosure Network’s ® video coverage of unbelievable Court hearing where three Appellate Court Justices try to avoid making a decision on whether or not the Superior Court Judges in Los Angeles can continue to receive hundreds of millions of dollars illegally from the County of Los Angeles above and beyond their State salaries. Features Sterling Norris, Lead Attorney, Judicial Watch, Jones-Day Attorney Elwood Lui (former Appellate Court Justice) and Paul Orfanedes, Director of Litigation for Judicial Watch, Appellate Court Justices Gilbert Nares, Judith Haller and Presiding Judge Tricia Benke and Full Disclosure Network’s Leslie Dutton.
Judges Judging Judges:
This awkward court fight has judges pitted against judges. The Los Angeles Superior Court hired Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher one of the nation’s most prestigious lawfirms to fight to overturn the previous decision in November 2008 that found the double benefits of $300 million paid to L A Judges since 1987 were illegal. And, L A County would not take no for an answer, either. They hired Jones-Day, one of the largest lawfirms in the world, to continue the fight to give double benefits to the highest paid judges in the nation. Apparently the costly court fees for retrying the case is not an issue. There appears to be unlimited funds for the highest priced top legal beagles.
|
|
|
Read More Here |
|
|
|
| |
Real News ………….
Real Issues ……Real People…
|
|
|
HISTORY |
The California Court of Appeal 4th District in San Diego heard oral arguments on October 13, 2010 for the second time in an ongoing case known as “Sturgeon II” originally filed in 2006 as Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles The case brought by the non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch has been a hot potato bouncing back and forth from Superior Court where Judges recused themselves including the 2nd District Court of Appeas and the California Supreme Court refused to re-hear the case that resulted in Sturgeon vs County becoming case law. In an unusual move, the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges decided to intervene, after the fact, and were granted unusual permission, by another judge, to file objections to the outcome taking the case to a second round of court hearings .
|
|
T.J. Johnston & Leslie Dutton, Producers
Full Disclosure Network
337 Washington Blvd. #1
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310-822-4449 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 310-822-4449 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
|
|
Comments
November 21st, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
Surprised? No. Given what the law is in California, and that a previous case — Robinson v. Bowen — had met the same fate on the grounds, this was very predictable. It’s called p-r-e-c-e-d-e-n-t.
November 21st, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
Dear Lady Liberty,
California [People’s Democratic Republic of] has had the best judges that money could buy since the gold rush in 1849.
November 23rd, 2010 @ 2:07 am
What does the issue of California counties offering supplementary benefits to judges have to do with this birther nonsense?