WHAT ABOUT JUDICIAL BENEFITS
In the State of California we have judges breaking the law every day by sitting on cases where they have lost their right to do so due to taking "bribes" in the form of local judicial benefits from their counties. YES! Those are bribes according to Federal Law and are void CCP Sec. 473(d), a violation of CCP Sec. 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii), and Code of Judicial Ethics, Cannons 2A, #E (1) and (2), and 4D(1), and an Obstruction of Justice.
As stated in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4 630 (2008), rev. denied 12/23/08, [counties] began making payments to State Superior Court judges in the late 1980s. The Sturgeon case held that these payments violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution.
If the judge did not reveal such payments and recuse themselves, the judge could be facing a bribery charge. After the Sturgeon decision, the legislature enacted Senate Bill SBx2-11, which recognized that the County payments to judges were criminal. Senate Bill SBx2-11 gave retroactive immunity, effective 5/21/09, from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to a “governmental entity, officer, or employee of a governmental entity,”including judges who were paid or received “judicial benefits.” The retroactive immunity did not extend to the judge’s actions of presiding over cases in which the county who paid them was a party. Nor, did it extend to county payments received after 5/21/09.
At all times, judges who accepted “bribes” from an interested party were biased. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,” Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 616, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). Therefore, a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice.
Further, the judge receiving the payment may be prosecuted for violating the intangible right to honest services under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. (decided 6/24/2010), Slip Opinion pages 48-49, that § 1346 encompasses bribery and
The judges and the county and its attorneys have never disclosed to this day that the countys have made payments to judges. This is fraud on the court.
U.S. Supreme Court Cases Mandate That the Order Voiding and Annulling All Orders and Judgments be Entered Based Upon Fraud Upon the Court .
The U.S. Supreme Court, which the Superior Court is bound to follow, stated in U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64 (1878):
There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.
The Court continued at page 66: Fraud vitiates everything, and a judgment equally with a contract . . .(citing Wells, Res Adjudicata, Section 499).
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court [JUDGES AREOFFICERS OF THE COURT)] so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kennerv. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice,2d ed., p. 512, 60.23.
The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." THE JUDGMENT IS VOID!
The U.S. Supreme Court further stated in Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353-354 (1920): Courts are constituted by authority, and they cannot [act] beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void!
I am filing motions against such judges next week:
People v. Stephens CASE NO.: MWV 903720 San Bernardino County
(Judge S. Sabet has received over $300,000 in judicial benefits.)
People v. Stephens CASE NO.: INF054715 Riverside County
(There are several cases I shall be challenging including one
involving Cathedral City, and ALL home owner board members.)
There are several more cases I shall be filling motions against as well.
~Sharon Stephens
