Comment on this post

Weekend Update: Law and Order Report

Part One: Judges Judging Judges: Are Judicial Double Benefits Constitutional? Judges To Rule on Judges Benefits Round II

By Full Disclosure Network

The California Court of Appeal 4th District in San Diego heard oral
arguments on October 13, 2010 for the second time in ongoing case
brought by the non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch known
as “Sturgeon II” originally filed in 2006 as Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles.  The case has been a hot potato bouncing back and forth from Superior
Court where Judges recused themselves to Appellate Court and to the
California Supreme Court. Who had 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 and take the
issue to a second round battle.

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, 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 top legal beagles.


Read and view more at Leslie Dutton’s Full Disclosure Network


Part Two: California Parole Policies Reward Criminals and Endanger Citizens


By L.A. Police Protective League, Board of Directors

A new report out of Marin County Wednesday has us wondering just how far the State of California will go – and what degree of danger it will deem acceptable – to address a budget crisis of its own making. A San Francisco Chronicle news story  revealed the impending release of yet another felon who, despite his deplorable crimes against children, has been designated a “non-violent offender” and will walk out of jail early, unencumbered by the supervision of a parole agent.

If all goes according to the state’s plan, Monday will bring the early release of Winnfredwinfredwright.jpg Wright, who in 2003 was sentenced to 16 years in state prison for the death-by-starvation of his 19-month old son and the physical abuse of his 12 other children. Wright’s abuses against his children, whose ages ranged from 19 months to 16 years, included binding and whipping, and even taping their mouths shut for things like “stealing” food and making noise. The Chronicle reports that Ndigo Campisi-Nyah, the toddler who was starved to death, “…suffered a skull fracture, other broken bones, malformed legs, a concave chest and a humped back. He also was found to have symptoms of rickets brought on by starvation.” Despite the sickening nature of his crimes, Wright will soon be out early and unsupervised simply because, according to the state and CDCR’s policy, he is a “non-violent offender.” The Marin County District Attorney has, quite commendably, not let up in its efforts to have the CDCR reconsider its decision to assign Wright no supervision. But as the story reports, it’s unclear what will actually happen, since as of late Tuesday a CDCR spokesperson said that “…the inmate’s status was still being assessed and that no decision had been made as to whether his parole will be supervised or unsupervised.”

In another case, two days ago, child rapist Lawrence Joseph Brown (see Facebook page) was released andlawrencejosephbrown.jpg then quickly taken back into custody after violating the terms of his parole by being in a car with a female. His inability to follow the rules of his conditional release, however, should have come as a surprise to no one, since it had happened before. He was freed in April, but as an OC Weekly News story  recounts, Brown “…quickly violated his parole by becoming transient and masking his GPS by failing to charge the battery to avoid being monitored. On May, 6, 2010, only 10 days after being released from prison, he was violated on his parole and sent back to state prison.”

Many might also recall that soon after the state started releasing prisoners under its Non-Revocable Parole Program, Kevin Eugene Peterson, released 16 days early, wasted no time in committing four felonies: assault to commit rape, sodomy, and oral copulation; sexual battery; false imprisonment and the violation of the terms of his probation. The person he held captive and attempted to rape was a female counselor he was meeting with – 13 hours after he walked out of prison!kevineugendpeterson.jpg

State officials must examine the process they use to decide which parolees will be supervised. Clearly, a better review of past offenses needs to take place, and perhaps a little more common sense should be brought to bear on the final determinations. The “non-violent offender” designation is being applied too narrowly. Determining a person’s non-violent status by only looking at the crime for which they are currently incarcerated, and whether it is deemed a “violent felony” by the Penal Code, versus examining their entire criminal history for violent behavior, is resulting in the dumping of violent prisoners into communities where little-to-no supervision leaves them too much leeway to commit new crimes. A tragic and painful reminder of this came earlier this month when Earl Ellis Green, out on parole from state prison with minimal supervision because he was deemed a “non-violent offender,” shot and killed Riverside police officer and Iraq War veteran Ryan P. Bonaminio. Green’s long criminal history included a conviction for domestic violence, and the behavior he exhibited had even prompted his family to seek a restraining order against him, but none of this changed the decision to release him with minimal supervision.

These parolees and their dangerous, repetitive, behavior are only a few examples of how the people of California are being placed in harm’s way to save a buck. As the number of prisoners who are rashly thrown out of jail with insufficient supervision climbs, so do the odds that the majority of them will commit new crimes against residents of this state. Californians deserve a lot better from their leaders than ill-conceived “solutions” that threaten their safety.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Weekend Update: Law and Order Report

  1. Anonymous says:

    I sure hope it is not taxpayer money they are using to defend themselves.

  2. Walter Moore says:

    I’m stunned that neither the judge nor the County contacted me about representing them. Perhaps they thought I was too busy.

  3. Anonymous says:

    OMG the City is going bankrupt but here again are our loser City Council members spending more money for yet another dumb study.
    The study, expected to cost $600,000 and take six months to complete, will lay out what steps individual departments – primarily, Building and Safety, Planning and Public Works – cover in the issuance of permits and the review of plans.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Remember there are three branches of government, EXECUTIVE BRANCH, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, and JUDICIAL BRANCH, for checks and balances. Why did the Los Angeles City Council, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, attach their salary increases with the JUDICIAL BRANCH? This does not make any sense.
    Angelinos should stop complaining and instead demand that Los Angeles Council, legislative branch, place a charter amendment so their salaries are adjusted to reflect other municipalities’ salaries and back in line with the legislative branch. See L.A. Charter – Article II.
    Los Angeles Charter – Article II
    Sec. 218. Compensation of Elected Officers
    (1) Salaries. Members of the City Council shall be paid a salary equal to that prescribed by law for judges of the Municipal Court of the Los Angeles Judicial District or its successor in the event that court is dissolved or reconstituted.
    (3) Operative Date of Changes in Salaries. The salaries of elected officers shall be adjusted in the manner provided in this section upon the effective date of any change in the salaries of Municipal Court judges.

  5. anonymous says:

    Might this be more suitable for a grand jury?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Since DWP issue is a huge deal here is how the idiot council members voted. Cardenas has the funniest quote yet and so does Alarcon.
    RE: DWP council also responded to the rate hike fight by proposing a ballot measure that would give members the power to remove DWP commissioners and the utility’s top executive by a two-thirds vote. Although that plan received eight votes last week, Councilman Richard Alarcon said he and his colleagues have been lobbied by the mayor to abandon it. That change of direction irritated backers of the plan, who said the council would embarrass itself by capitulating to political pressure. “If we vote this down today, we look like a bunch of politicians,” said Councilman Tony Cardenas.
    Alarcon disagreed, saying the council has found plenty of other ways to embarrass itself.
    Supporters of the ballot plan were Cardenas and council members Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom LaBonge, Bernard C. Parks, Jan Perry and Bill Rosendahl. Opposing it were Alarcon, Huizar, Janice Hahn, Ed Reyes, Herb Wesson, Dennis Zine and council President Eric Garcetti.
    Councilman Greig Smith, who favored the plan last week, was absent.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Since DWP issue is a huge deal here is how the idiot council members voted. Cardenas has the funniest quote yet and so does Alarcon.
    RE: DWP council also responded to the rate hike fight by proposing a ballot measure that would give members the power to remove DWP commissioners and the utility’s top executive by a two-thirds vote. Although that plan received eight votes last week, Councilman Richard Alarcon said he and his colleagues have been lobbied by the mayor to abandon it. That change of direction irritated backers of the plan, who said the council would embarrass itself by capitulating to political pressure. “If we vote this down today, we look like a bunch of politicians,” said Councilman Tony Cardenas.
    Alarcon disagreed, saying the council has found plenty of other ways to embarrass itself.
    Supporters of the ballot plan were Cardenas and council members Paul Koretz, Paul Krekorian, Tom LaBonge, Bernard C. Parks, Jan Perry and Bill Rosendahl. Opposing it were Alarcon, Huizar, Janice Hahn, Ed Reyes, Herb Wesson, Dennis Zine and council President Eric Garcetti.
    Councilman Greig Smith, who favored the plan last week, was absent.

  8. Anonymous says:

    November 25, 2010 7:22 AM: What are you talking about? Is this before or after the reversal as reported in this blog?

  9. Anonymous says:

    November 25, 2010 7:22 AM: What are you talking about? Is this before or after the reversal as reported in this blog?

  10. Anonymous says:

    The council voting to hold off on placing a ballot measure that will allow city council authority to FIRE the Mayor’s commission appointees was Voted on two days ago and pushed to Dec. 7th just this week. What was posted on this blog was from Nov. 17th on the flip flopping rate payer advocate language. In other words this clowns are again showing the lack of leadership and how the Mayor is lobbying for his guys on the DWP Commission.

  11. Anonymous says:

    The council voting to hold off on placing a ballot measure that will allow city council authority to FIRE the Mayor’s commission appointees was Voted on two days ago and pushed to Dec. 7th just this week. What was posted on this blog was from Nov. 17th on the flip flopping rate payer advocate language. In other words this clowns are again showing the lack of leadership and how the Mayor is lobbying for his guys on the DWP Commission.

  12. Anonymous says:

    November 26, 2010 7:05 AM: Thanks for the update. So this is a flip, flop, flip.
    If they added power to fire commissioners it would increase their (the City Council’s power).
    Normally, the City Council would want more political power. So what is the back story on this one? Is it the Mayor and/or special interest groups?
    By yielding this power solely to the Mayor, special interests only have to focus money and pressure on one Office holder instead of 1 (Mayor) plus 8 (a Majority of the City Council).
    Of course whenever a Mayor’s appointee is before the City Council, they never ask any tough questions or drill down to any relevant issues.
    Just look at the questioning of Austin Beutner for his interim position at DWP.

  13. Anonymous says:

    November 26, 2010 7:05 AM: Thanks for the update. So this is a flip, flop, flip.
    If they added power to fire commissioners it would increase their (the City Council’s power).
    Normally, the City Council would want more political power. So what is the back story on this one? Is it the Mayor and/or special interest groups?
    By yielding this power solely to the Mayor, special interests only have to focus money and pressure on one Office holder instead of 1 (Mayor) plus 8 (a Majority of the City Council).
    Of course whenever a Mayor’s appointee is before the City Council, they never ask any tough questions or drill down to any relevant issues.
    Just look at the questioning of Austin Beutner for his interim position at DWP.

  14. Impressive!!! Bookmarked this page that has this valuable info. Will come back to see if there are any updates. You, the author, are a master. Thanks

  15. Impressive!!! Bookmarked this page that has this valuable info. Will come back to see if there are any updates. You, the author, are a master. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>