Postmus and SB Criminal Gang Masquerading as Government Are Indicted On Bribery Charges

San Bernardino County corruption (0.00 / 0)

Ramos's predecessor as DA lost the confidence of his Deputies when it was revealed by a private attorney in a criminal case that the predecessor had taken bribes.  This was all reported to the AG and to the US Attorney for the Central District, a Democrat who now heads ICE.  Nothing was done, although the predecessor ended up conceding the race with Ramos.

That's the way it works, generally, in California.  Why did this bribery scandal come out?  Who pushed it?  San Bernardino County is covered by the AG's San Diego office, a generally sleazy operation.

California is the most corrupt of the more populous states.  We have, however, a long history of do-nothing US Attorneys and do-nothing AG's.  It is ironic that New Jersey has had a very activist US Attorney for at least the past 40 years.  New Jersey's US Attorney's Office is set up to take in any information about corruption from anyone.  When the information comes in, it is acted upon.  In California, nothing happens.

What so-called progressives should do is act progressive.  One of the hallmarks of progressive movements is that they push for honesty and integrity in government, something which is always given short shrift in California.  The thinking always seems to be that as long as someone in office is voting "our" way on certain key issues they should be left alone.  This is how we end up with a state that is on the take from top to bottom.

Let us remember that just under 18 months ago, it turned out that the entire Los Angeles Superior Court (every judge) was on the take from Los Angeles County, getting almost $50,000 per judge under the table and off the public books.  The local US Attorney did nothing, of course.  The Court took $80,000 in public money from its budget, paid a lobbyist, and made certain key contributions in Sacramento to get the back-door OK for this bribery, even including immunity from criminal prosecution in the legislation.

Unless and until we insist on some integrity in government, it will never get better.  If your issue gets approved and you go home, you are part of the problem.

---

by: Doll @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:15:20 AM UTC

Enough with your LA County Hobby Horse (0.00 / 0)

I read the Court of Appeals case you keep pretending to describe (Sturgeon v. Los Angeles County).  Anyone can find it through lp.findlaw.com or through the searchable opinions at the 4th District Court of Appeals website.  Sadly, not linkable otherwise.  But some of the key findings:

- LA County had been paying Superior Court Judges some benefits since 1988, the same way that LA County paid its (other) salaried employees.  It continued to do so even after the law delegating judicial compensation to the state legislature was passed in 1996, even though it wasn't paying the salaries.  And it was doing so right up through the case in the Court of Appeals.  LA County paying those benefits WAS the status quo.  And it wasn't a secret slush fund.  It was in the LA County budget.

- The Court of Appeals was very clear that the payments weren't "bribery" or any other form of illicit conversion of public funds to private purpose.  The Court of Appeals actually spent a lot of time to get to the conclusion that the legislature should have been the one authorizing the benefits, and at the end of the opinion basically tells the legislature that they have the right to permit the county to pay the benefits and pretty much how to do it.  It was an invitation for Steinberg's bill.  

- Just as a fun bit of defense of LA County's legal position w/r/t the question of how complicated this actually is, here's a QUOTE from the CA4th opinion: "For our purposes the most significant aspect of Lockyer-Isenberg is what is not in the act: nothing on the face of the statute prevents a county from continuing to provide judicial benefits, such as those the county provides its judges."  The question is the combination of a constitutional provision from 1924 PLUS the new 1996 law -- not simple or obvious stuff.

- The legislative analysis of the bill you're complaining about in both the Assembly and the Senate is very clear that the bill is a response to Sturgeon and essentially allows counties that paid benefits before Sturgeon to keep doing so through the end of each judge's then-current term:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...

- So what if there's immunity from criminal prosecution?  It seems unnecessary to me, given that this was a purely civil matter, but if the county officials were acting in good faith (whether wise or not), it seems like immunity from prosecution is appropriate, especially with people like you throwing the word "bribe" around.

- And while we're on the subject, please show how the county payments were "bribes".  Show the quid pro quo.  Show what the county expected to get from the judges (which has to differ from what the county got from the judges before 1997, when the state took over compensation).

Just because people don't have your obsessed sense of outrage over this particular tempest-in-a-teapot doesn't mean they're not progressives.

---

by: jsw @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:39:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Missing the point (0.00 / 0)

First, the payments to judges was not reflected in the published, county budget.  Pretty much no one knew about it.  Second, the 1996 law was clearly meant to supersede all local payments.  Third, the new law did not permit the county to continue paying the benefits, it required the county to continue paying the "benefits".  This costs Los Angeles County an extra $25 million per year.  Fourth, none of the judges ever revealed the extra payments to litigants before them when the county was a party.  Finally, of course, the Court of Appeal (no "s") did everything it could to sugar coat the issue and try not to lash out at the judges.  They were protecting their fellow robes.

In 40 years, California has gone from having one of the best judiciaries in the nation to having one of the worst.  For example, our Supreme Court affirms something like 98% of all death penalty appeals.  The Florida Supreme Court affirms around 70%.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirms somehting around 75%, if memory serves.  Justice for sale is what it's known as.

You are correct that this is a continuing issue for me.  It is corruption, pure and simple, something which Californians tolerate all too much.  Indeed, that's how we got Prop. 13 in 1978.  The voters were convinced that government is inherently corrupt and that they had to defund the government to "prevent" corruption.

---

by: Doll @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 06:23:54 AM UTC

Comparing Apples to Bullshit (0.00 / 0)

Florida and Texas are both actively executing people, so the appeals process will tend towards more lenience and more stays.  Here in California we don't even have a working death chamber, and it's not clear we are going to get one for a quite a while.

But to the LA County issue, I think perhaps the "public" is less concerned than perhaps you are.  IMHO, this is just a relic of a confusing law. But corruption is in the eye of the beholder, so I'll keep an eye out for the public unrest.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 15:34:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]