SenatorPro-TemSBX211

8/14/2019 SenatorPro-TemSBX211

1/7

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM SPOKESMAN JIM EVANS INTHE OFFICE OF SENATOR PRO-TEM DARYL STEINBERG

-----Original Message-----From: Leslie Dutton [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:10 PMTo: Evans, JimSubject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11Importance: High

Jim: thank you for the response. Due to the technical legal nature of the questions and toprotect our credibility as a news source, Full Disclosure Network prefers to credit thelegal authorities who are presenting the opinions you provided here. If you are the onethat prepared the answers to these questions and legal opinions, then we want to sayso. Are you an attorney? If not, we would like to identify what legal authority you relied

upon to provide the answers to the questions Was it the legislative counsel? TheJudicial Council staff? I think our report would have great credibility if we quote theactual source of the opinion, in the absence of a formal opinion from the AttorneyGeneral.

Thank you again. We will hold off till we get confirmation from you. Leslie

Hi Leslie,The answers are from the Pro Tems office. And I am the only person(aside from the Pro Tem himself and our press secretary) who isauthorized to speak for the Pro Tem. Thanks.

Jre

----- Original Message -----From: Evans, JimTo: Leslie DuttonSent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:46 PMSubject: RE: Questions Regarding SBX2 11

Leslie, Its fine to simply call me spokesman.

As far as your latest question:

The immunity clause applies retroactively only. There's noneed to apply it prospectively because the statute makes lawfulthat which everyone in the world thought was already legalbefore the Sturgeon decision.Jre


2/7

PAGE TWO EMAIL CORRESPONENCE

-----Original Message-----From: Leslie Dutton [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:23 PMTo: Evans, Jim

Subject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11Importance: High

Thank you Jim, I also need your official title or postion for attribution. Thankyou

Kind regards,Leslie Dutton

-----Original Message-----From: Leslie Dutton [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:39 PM

To: Evans, JimSubject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11Importance: High

Thank you Jim for your prompt response, I left out an importantquestion that needs to be included.

Is there any immunity covering present payments of supplementalbenefits which occur under the first paragraph (Government CodeSection 68220) commencing as of May 21, 2009, the effective date ofSBX2 11?

I have read that the immunity to be retroactive only and not applying to

the present benefits because of the use of the words "prior to" theenactment date.

Thank you again and Kind RegardsLeslie DuttonFull Disclosure Network310-822-4449

----- Original Message -----From: Evans, JimTo: Leslie DuttonSent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:14 PMSubject: RE: Questions Regarding SBX2 11

Leslie. See the responses. You can attribute tome. As spokesman Jre


3/7

An enacted statute has the force of law regardless whether aparticular provision appears in a code book or not. (See e.g.Reese v. Kizer(1988), 46 Cal.3d 996, 999-1000.)

As the Legislative Sponsor for this bill, has Senator

Steinberg's office requested a legal opinion from the AttorneyGeneral regarding the missing immunity clause? If not, willyou request the Attorney General to for such adetermination so that the intent of this legislation is madepublic?

No, such a request is unnecessary because the immunity clausewas validly contained in the legislation.

Also, attached is a copy of the California Appellate Courtdecision People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; it would beimportant to ask the the Attorney General's office fora determination (opinion) as to whether or not the

embezzlement of public funds as described in this case underPen. Code, 424 and any other sections of the penal codeare enforceable in the circumstances described in SBX2 11 inSections 5,6,7 regarding government officials and CaliforniaJudges.

The citation you provided (54 Cal.App.3d 43) corresponds to thecase of People v. Hames. The proper citation for the case ofPeople v. Sperlis 54 Cal.App.3d 640. Regardless, it isunnecessary to seek an Attorney General opinion regardingcriminal liability because the legislation expressly immunizes thegovernment and others from prosecution under the narrowcircumstances described in Section 5 of SBX2 11.

Here are the questions regarding the background on thisLegislation. Your prompt response to this media inquiry willbe appreciated, as the answers are to be included in theseries we are currently producing SBX2 11 and theGovernment Code:

1) Why are paragraphs 5, 6, 7 not included in theGovernment Code?

Uncodified language is often used when it seeks to address anisolated and short-lived issue. The threat of litigation seeking toimpose liability relating to locally provided judicial benefits issuch an issue.

2) Can Immunity be conferred to the Judges and governmentofficials without paragraphs 5,6,7 provision being included inthe Government Code?

Yes.


4/7

3) Where was the decision made to not include paragraphs5,6,7 in the Government Code? By the Judical Council? Incommittee? On the Floor? At the Governor's desk?

During the drafting process with the Office of Legislative

Counsel.

5) Was the Governor aware, when he signed the legislation,that paragraphs 5,6,7 were not to be included in theGovernment Code? Was the Senator aware of this fact?

You should direct questions about the Governor to his office.Senator Steinberg was aware of how the bill was drafted.

6) Did the Judicial Council intend the legislation to be passedwithout including those paragraphs in the Government Code?''

You should direct this question to the Judicial Council.

-----Original Message-----From: Leslie Dutton [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:58 AMTo: Evans, JimSubject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11

Thanks for the response.

Leslie Dutton----- Original Message -----From: Evans, JimTo: Leslie Dutton ; Trost, AliciaSent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:51 AMSubject: RE: Questions Regarding SBX2 11

Hi Leslie, Im working on the request.Thanks. Jim

-----Original Message-----From: Leslie Dutton

[mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:09 AMTo: Trost, Alicia; Evans, JimCc: Dan Walters; Victoria Kim; Troy Anderson; TeriWhitcraft; [email protected]: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11Importance: High


5/7

Jim EvansOffice of California Senator Daryl Steinberg:

Alicia Trost has forwarded to you, our original mediarequest (below) with specific questions, for

a response. Your attention is appreciated, in a timelymanner, as we are in production on our seriescovering Senate Bill SBX2 11 and need thebackground information requested here as soon aspossible. First and foremost, is our interest in havinga copy of an Attorney General opinion. We hope tohear from you as to whether you already have suchan opinion and if not, when we could expect to obtainone. I look forward to hearing from you today. At thesuggestion of Alicia Trost, we have also sent a copyof this request to Tracy Kenny of the GovernmentAffairs Office at the California Judicial Council , whoauthored Senate Bill SBX2 11.

Kind Regards,

Leslie DuttonFull Disclosure Network310-822-4449----- Original Message -----From: Trost, AliciaTo: [email protected]: [email protected] ;[email protected] ;[email protected] ;[email protected]

Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:32 AMSubject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11

I have a morning flight today and will be out allweek. I sent your email to my [email protected], I asked that he get back toyou. He can be reached via email or the press unit916-651-4188.--------------------------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From : Leslie Dutton

To: Trost, AliciaCc : Tracy Kenny ;Victoria Kim ; Troy

Anderson ; TeriWhitcraft Sent: Tue Sep 15 14:25:43 2009Subject : Questions Regarding SBX2 11

Alicia Trost


6/7

Press Deputy ToSenator Daryl Steinberg,

Dear Alicia Trost:

The Full Disclosure Network is an EmmyAwarding winning public affairs cabletelevision program based in Los Angeles.We are in production of a special seriescovering Judicial Benefits and CourtCorruption. Specifically we need to knowwhether the adoption of the statute (SenateBill SBX2 11), without being placed in thegovernment code is sufficient to conferimmunity on government officials andCalifornia Judges particularly for payments

made after July 1, 2008 where immunitymay not necessarily apply.

As the Legislative Sponsor for this bill, hasSenator Steinberg's office requested a legalopinion from the Attorney Generalregarding the missing immunity clause? Ifnot, will you request the AttorneyGeneral to for such a determination so thatthe intent of this legislation is made public?

Also, attached is a copy of the CaliforniaAppellate Court decision People v.Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; it would beimportant to ask the Attorney General'soffice for a determination (opinion) as towhether or not the embezzlement of publicfunds as described in this case under Pen.Code, 424 and any other sections of thepenal code are enforceable in thecircumstances described in SBX2 11 inSections 5,6,7 regarding governmentofficials and California Judges.

Here are the other questions regarding thebackground on this Legislation. Yourprompt response to this media inquiry willbe appreciated, as the answers are to beincluded in the series we are currently


7/7

producing SBX2 11 and the GovernmentCode:

1) Why are paragraphs 5, 6, 7 not included

in the Government Code?

2) Can Immunity be conferred to theJudges and government officials withoutparagraphs 5,6,7 provision being includedin the Government Code?

3) Where was the decision made to notinclude paragraphs 5,6,7 in theGovernment Code? By the JudicalCouncil? In committee? On the Floor? At

the Governor's desk?

5) Was the Govenrnor aware, when hesigned the legislation, that paragraphs 5,6,7were not to be included in the GovernmentCode? Was the Senator aware of thisfact?

6) Did the Judicial Council intend thelegislation to be passed without includingthose paragraphs in the GovernmentCode?''

Leslie C . DuttonProducerFull Disclosure Network337 Washington Blvd., #1Marina del Rey, CA 90292310-822-4449

cc: Teri Whitcraft ABC 20/20Victoria Kim, L.A. TimesTroy Anderson, Daily NewsTracy Kenny, Judicial Council Govmt.

Affairs

SenatorPro-TemSBX211

Documents

Transcript of SenatorPro-TemSBX211