If we could put together a petition to repeal SBX211 (retro active immunity) given to judges for taking bribes from the county and given to all governmental employee's that gave the bribes, Then you would put yourself in a very stong possition for further negotiations.  LET ME PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY.

1. judges get paid a state salary of $178,789.00 a year with medical and retirement benefits up to 75% of their salary from the state. 

2. Los Angeles County is currenty giving the judges an additional $57,688.00 per year per judge. there are 460 judges that equals to $26,536,480.00 per year. 

3. in the case of sturgeon vs Los Angeles County those payments were found to be unconstitutional / illegal. after that decission the judges paid a lobbyist to pass SBX211 ( retro active immunity from prosecution)

4. There is no bigger user of the court then L.A.County, put it this way, if you and I were in court and my name is L.A. County and your name is OWS and I hand the judge $57,688.00 and I tell him I'm concerned about his retirement and I want to give you some suplimental benefitts. THAT IS A BRIBE. 

5. If we demand to repeal SBX211 and demand that  corperations and governmental agencie's are held to the same standards of the LAW that everyone else is held to the LAW. then we could exspect juctice and fair play.

6. demand that the $26 and a half million spent on suplamental benefitts be appropriated towards a fair and open banking commitee. ( don't worry about those judges they allready well compensated by the STATE as per the CA constitution.)

7. here is a list of reasons for the petition to repeal SBX211.

A. SBX211 does not restore due process

B. SBX211 violates Article 1 section 9

C. SBX211 violates the 14th amendment (no equal protections)

D. SBX211 violate checks and balances between legislative and Judicial powers.

E. Judges do not disclose the county payments at the onset of any trial where the county is either a party to the case or has a financial interest. (Judges violate Judicial codes of ethics)

F. Judges refuse to recuse themselves when requested under CCP170

G. Judges find themselves unbiased and then file an order striking statement.

ADDITIONAL FOOD FOR THOUGHT BELOW

Robert kennedy spoke out against retro active immunity..."QUOTE" (The very idea of "retroactive immunity" ... is so radical, so repugnant to the most basic principles of the "rule of law," that only one prior attempt can be found in recent history (at least from my research): the efforts by some in Congress (in 1965) to enact a law retroactively legalizing the mergers by six large banks which clearly -- as a federal court found -- were illegal under our nation's antitrust laws. 

  The banks knew when they merged that they were almost certainly violating anti-trust laws. But they did it anyway. And when courts began ruling that their behavior was illegal, they ran to Congress to demand that a law be passed granting them amnesty, claiming that the consequences would be ruinous if they were held accountable under the law. )  But the very concept of retroactive amnesty, the idea that corporations could break the law and then have Congress pass a special law legalizing their lawbreaking conduct, was so profoundly offensive to Sen. Robert Kennedy (who had been the Attorney General when the banks broke the law with their mergers), as well as then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, that they engaged in extraordinary efforts to try to put a stop to this Congressional travesty.when the banks broke the law with their mergers), as well as then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, that they engaged in extraordinary efforts to try to put a stop to this Congressional travesty. Robert Kennedy could not stop them. 

SECTION FROM SBX211 

 This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of this bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.