December 21, 2013

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa

49th District, California
United States House of Representatives
2347 Rayburn House Ofce Building
Washington, DC 20515

c/o Amy Walker
1800 Thibodo Road, #310
Vista, CA 92081

Dear Representative:
I am a constituent, retired economist and satellite engineer. I am concerned about
judicial bias in the California Courts. The judicial partnership and collaboration with
the county bureaucracies is greatly damaging our families and my two children.
I am requesting assistance on two federal matters. Both involve alleged campaign
payments to judges by county ofcials. Either the IRS is ignoring widespread mis-
application of wage and salary rules or the counties have established a new mechanism
for unlimited campaign nancing.
The rst federal issue concerns the failure of the Internal Revenue Service to properly
classify payments to Californias Superior Court judges by 35 counties as campaign
contributions instead of wage and salary payments. The judges are not county
employees and any tax-favored treatment of those county payments is fraudulent. Use
of the county payroll system also leads to mis-representation on state Fair Political
Practices reports like the Form-700.
Dennis Ettlin
27222 Paseo Lomita
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
T 949-542-3036
C 310-795-9507
dennis@ettlin.net
The second federal issue is a consequence of the rst issue. Federal judges who were
previously Superior Court judges in those 35 counties, most likely, failed to properly
disclose the campaign funds, from the counties in which they served, on their
application for a federal judgeship (Items 30(b) and 31). This failure to properly
disclose outside payments conceals a large potential judicial bias and also makes the
District Court judges parties to a sophisticated county racketeering (RICO) enterprise
which makes payments to judges in exchange for favorable treatment.
I am requesting that your ofce investigate the failure of the IRS to properly classify
and collect the appropriate current taxes due on the annual $50,000 payments to every
judge, every year in Los Angeles County. Lesser amounts are paid in other counties.
I am also requesting your ofce to investigate the ethics and legality of my using the
same technique of what I call ctitious wage donations. I would like to make
contributions to political candidates and campaigns by writing a payroll check to the
candidate of my choice and sending that candidate/staffer a W-2 at the end of the year.
As payroll, there is no limit on the amount, the payments are not reportable to
election monitoring organizations and the IRS would not release data on either side of
the transaction.
In a similar fashion, I would like to make charitable donations by writing a payroll
check to the organization of my choice and sending that organization a W-2 at the end
of the year. The gift/donation would 100% tax-deductible as wages paid.
I have attached a summary presentation and supporting material to this request. I
greatly appreciate your time reviewing this request. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Dennis Ettlin

CC:
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
P.O.Box 589
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0589
Dennis Ettlin
27222 Paseo Lomita
San Juan Capistrano 92675
Cell 310-795-9507
Aug 19,1947
Internal Revenue Service, District Courts
NONE
SEE ATTACHED LETTER AND DOCUMENTS
IRS
SUPERIOR COURTS
December 17, 2013
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A


C
O
U
N
T
Y

S
U
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
L

J
U
D
I
C
I
A
L

B
E
N
E
F
I
T
S
I
N
N
O
V
A
T
I
V
E

C
A
M
P
A
I
G
N

F
I
N
A
N
C
I
N
G

O
R

S
I
M
P
L
E

B
R
I
B
E
J
U
D
I
C
I
A
L

P
A
Y
M
E
N
T
S

J
u
d
g
e
s

a
r
e

s
t
a
t
e

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

J
u
d
g
e
s

a
r
e

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

c
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
s

e
v
e
r
y

s
i
x

y
e
a
r
s

3
5

o
f

5
8

c
o
u
n
t
i
e
s

t
r
e
a
t

j
u
d
g
e
s

a
s

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

T
h
e

s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s

a
r
e

e
i
t
h
e
r

I
l
l
e
g
a
l

B
r
i
b
e
s
,

o
r

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e

C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y

J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

s
a
l
a
r
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

d
i
f

c
u
l
t

t
o

o
b
t
a
i
n

1
9
8
5

S
B
1
2
4
8

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d

u
s
e

o
f

L
.
A
.

C
o
u
n
t
y

p
a
y
r
o
l
l

s
y
s
t
e
m

f
o
r

p
a
y
i
n
g

c
o
u
n
t
y

j
u
d
g
e
s

1
9
8
8

L
.
A
.

C
o
u
n
t
y

c
o
n
v
i
n
c
e
d

L
.
A
.

S
u
p
.

C
o
u
r
t

t
o

u
s
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

f
u
n
d
s

t
o

p
a
y

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

j
u
d
g
e
s

1
9
9
7

L
o
c
k
y
e
r
-
I
s
e
n
b
e
r
g

T
r
i
a
l

C
o
u
r
t

F
u
n
d
i
n
g

A
c
t

2
0
0
0

P
r
o
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

2
2
0

m
e
r
g
e
d

c
o
u
r
t
s

L
.
A
.

C
O
U
N
T
Y

P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s

p
a
y
r
o
l
l

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

t
o

s
t
a
t
e

f
o
r

j
u
d
g
e
s

S
t
a
t
e

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r

r
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
s

c
o
u
n
t
y

o
n
l
y

f
o
r

s
t
a
t
e

s
a
l
a
r
i
e
s

S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

B
e
n
e

t
s

a
r
e

t
h
e

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s

m
a
d
e

b
y

L
.
A
.

C
o
u
n
t
y

t
o

t
h
e

j
u
d
g
e
s

C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

$
5
0
,
0
0
0

e
v
e
r
y

j
u
d
g
e
,

e
v
e
r
y

y
e
a
r

$
2
0
,
0
0
0

M
e
d
i
c
a
l
,

$
2
5
,
0
0
0

4
0
1
K
,

$
5
,
0
0
0

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e

o
f

b
i
a
s

w
h
e
n

c
o
u
n
t
y

h
a
s

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

i
n

c
a
s
e
L
.
A
.

S
U
P
E
R
I
O
R

C
O
U
R
T

L
.
A
.

S
u
p
e
r
i
o
r

C
o
u
r
t

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
s

a
r
e

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

o
f

l
o
c
a
l

S
u
p
e
r
i
o
r

C
o
u
r
t
,

n
o
t

s
t
a
t
e

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

L
.
A
.

S
u
p
e
r
i
o
r

C
o
u
r
t

p
a
y
s

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
s

a
n
d

s
e
l
e
c
t

c
o
u
r
t

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

f
r
o
m

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

f
u
n
d
s

t
o

m
a
t
c
h

c
o
u
n
t
y

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

j
u
d
g
e
s
C
H
A
L
L
E
N
G
E
S

2
0
0
8

S
t
u
r
g
e
o
n

I
,

J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

W
a
t
c
h

2
0
0
9

S
B
X
2

1
1
,

J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

a
n
d

C
A

J
u
d
g
e
s

A
s
s
n

2
0
0
9

R
i
c
h
a
r
d

I
.

F
i
n
e
,

w
h
i
s
t
l
e
b
l
o
w
e
r

d
i
s
b
a
r
r
e
d

2
0
1
0

S
t
u
r
g
e
o
n

I
I
,

J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

W
a
t
c
h

2
0
1
1

E
t
t
l
i
n
-
C
o
o
p
e
r
-
L
o
c
a
t
e
l
l
i
,

1
0

F
a
m
i
l
y

L
a
w

c
a
s
e
s

2
0
1
3

E
t
t
l
i
n
,

L
.
A
.

S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s

a
n
d

A
G

K
a
m
a
l
a

H
a
r
r
i
s
1
9
9
5

L
E
G
I
S
L
A
T
I
V
E

D
A
R
E
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

c
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
y

a

p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
h
a
t

S
B

1
6
2

w
i
l
l

b
e

h
e
l
d

t
o

b
e

a
n

i
n
v
a
l
i
d

d
e
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r

c
o
u
r
t

a
n
d

m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

c
o
u
r
t

j
u
d
g
e
s
,


a

c
a
s
e

c
a
n

b
e

m
a
d
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
i
s

w
i
l
l

n
o
t

o
c
c
u
r
.


T
h
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

t
h
a
t

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

i
f

i
t

i
s

h
e
l
d

i
n
v
a
l
i
d

a
r
e

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
.

T
h
e

s
t
a
f
f

b
e
l
i
e
v
e
s

s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

d
o
n
e

i
n

a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
i
s

p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A

L
A
W

R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N

C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

S
T
A
F
F

M
E
M
O
R
A
N
D
U
M
,

S
t
u
d
y

J
-
1
2
0
1
,

N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2
7
,

1
9
9
5
,

M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m

9
5
-
7
7
,

T
r
i
a
l

C
o
u
r
t

U
n
i

c
a
t
i
o
n
:

D
e
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
2
0
1
0

J
U
D
I
C
I
A
L

D
A
R
E
T
h
u
s
,

w
e

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

r
e
m
i
s
s

i
n

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
i
n
g

o
u
r

d
u
t
i
e
s

i
f

w
e

d
i
d

n
o
t

s
t
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

w
h
i
l
e

t
h
e

L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
'
s

i
n
t
e
r
i
m

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

S
t
u
r
g
e
o
n

I

d
e
f
e
a
t
s

t
h
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s

a
s
s
e
r
t
e
d

b
y

S
t
u
r
g
e
o
n

i
n

t
h
i
s

l
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,

t
h
a
t

i
n
t
e
r
i
m

r
e
m
e
d
y
,

i
f

n
o
t

s
u
p
p
l
a
n
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

m
o
r
e

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

S
B
X

2
1
1

p
l
a
i
n
l
y

c
o
n
t
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
s
,

m
o
s
t

l
i
k
e
l
y

w
i
l
l

g
i
v
e

r
i
s
e

t
o

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s

b
y

t
a
x
p
a
y
e
r
s

o
r

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

b
e
n
c
h

t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
.

A
s

w
e

n
o
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

o
u
t
s
e
t
,

t
h
e

i
s
s
u
e

o
f

j
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

a

s
t
a
t
e
,

n
o
t

a

c
o
u
n
t
y
,

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
.

S
t
u
r
g
e
o
n

I
I
,

l
a
s
t

p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
,

C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
2
0
1
1

J
U
D
I
C
I
A
L

A
C
T
I
O
N

C
J
P

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
n

J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

2
0
1
1

M
e
m
o

t
o

K
a
m
a
l
a

H
a
r
r
i
s

o
n

S
B
X
2

1
1

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

5

r
e
t
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e

i
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

i
n
v
a
l
i
d

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

2

a
n
d

4

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e

A
G

r
e
f
u
s
a
l

t
o

d
e
c
i
d
e

i
n

2
0
0
9

a
n
d

2
0
1
1
F
O
I
A
,

L
e
t
t
e
r
s

f
r
o
m

C
J
P

t
o

A
G

J
e
r
r
y

B
r
o
w
n

a
n
d

A
G

K
a
m
a
l
a

H
a
r
r
i
s
2
0
1
2

N
E
W
S
M
A
K
E
R
(
e
x
-
s
p
o
k
e
s
m
a
n
)

t
h
e
r
e

w
e
r
e

c
o
u
r
t
s
,

a

c
o
u
p
l
e

o
f

t
h
e
m
,

t
h
a
t

w
e
r
e

i
l
l
e
g
a
l
l
y

d
i
v
e
r
t
i
n
g

C
o
u
r
t

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

m
o
n
e
y

t
o

p
a
y

e
x
t
r
a

b
e
n
e

t
s
,

s
o

t
h
e

f
a
r
t
h
e
r

t
h
e

A
O
C

[
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

O
f

c
e

o
f

t
h
e

C
o
u
r
t
s
]

g
o
t

i
n
t
o

i
t
,

t
h
e

c
l
e
a
r
e
r

i
t

b
e
c
a
m
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
r
e

w
a
s

t
h
e

m
a
k
i
n
g
s

o
f

a

w
i
d
e
s
p
r
e
a
d

s
c
a
n
d
a
l

a
b
o
u
t


s
e
l
f
-
d
e
a
l
i
n
g
,

a
n
d

s
e
l
f

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

b
y

j
u
d
g
e
s

;


(
t
h
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
r
)

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

w
o
r
d
s
,


s
t
e
a
l
i
n
g

o
n

a

g
r
a
n
d

s
c
a
l
e

b
y

t
h
e

j
u
d
g
e
s
,

s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

.
S
e
e

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
f
u
l
l
d
i
s
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
1
2
/
1
1
/
c
o
u
r
t
-
i
n
s
i
d
e
r
-
e
x
p
o
s
e
s
-
j
u
d
i
c
i
a
l
-

t
r
e
a
c
h
e
r
y
/

a
t

P
a
r
t

3

P
r
e
v
i
e
w

M
O
N
E
Y

L
A
U
N
D
E
R
I
N
G

J
u
d
g
e
s

a
r
e

n
o
t

c
o
u
n
t
y

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
,

n
o

e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t

e
x
i
s
t
s

$
5
0
,
0
0
0

c
a
s
h

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

t
o

i
n

u
e
n
c
e

I
R
S

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

n
e
e
d
e
d

o
n

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s

G
i
f
t
,

W
a
g
e
,

C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
,

q
u
i
d
-
p
r
o
-
q
u
o

B
r
i
b
e

A
l
l
e
g
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
,

c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

S
t
u
g
e
o
n


n
o
t

a

g
i
f
t

U
s
e

o
f

p
a
y
r
o
l
l

s
y
s
t
e
m

o
b
s
c
u
r
e
s

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
I
R
S

F
R
A
U
D

J
u
d
g
e
s

a
r
e

n
o
t

c
o
u
n
t
y

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
,

1
0
9
9
-
f
o
r
m

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,

n
o
t

W
-
2

P
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
/
b
r
i
b
e
s

l
a
u
n
d
e
r
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

m
e
d
i
c
a
l

b
e
n
e

t

a
n
d

d
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
C
A
M
P
A
I
G
N

F
R
A
U
D

C
A

F
P
P
C

F
o
r
m

7
0
0

r
u
l
e
s

e
x
c
l
u
d
e

l
i
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

s
a
l
a
r
y

J
u
d
g
e
s

r
e
p
o
r
t

n
o

i
n
c
o
m
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

o
n

W
-
2

W
a
g
e

d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n

n
o
t

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

a
n
y

c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

l
i
m
i
t
s

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n

n
o
t

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

u
s
e

a
n
d

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

f
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e

u
s
e
s

c
t
i
t
i
o
u
s

w
a
g
e

d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
s




l
o
a
n

t
o

c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
R
A
C
K
E
T
E
E
R
I
N
G

B
R
I
B
E
S

J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s

a
r
e

"
b
r
i
b
e
s
"

u
n
d
e
r

C
A

l
a
w

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

v
.

F
r
e
g
a
,




1
7
9

F
.
3
d

7
9
3
,

8
0
9

1
0

R
I
C
O

c
o
n
s
p
i
r
a
c
y






1
8

U
.
S
.
C
.

1
9
6
2
(
d
)

I
n
t
a
n
g
i
b
l
e

R
i
g
h
t

T
o

H
o
n
e
s
t

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s



























1
8

U
.
S
.
C
.

1
3
4
6
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E

T
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
y

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s

a
r
e

u
n
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
,




a
r
e

b
r
i
b
e
s

a
n
d

v
i
o
l
a
t
e

I
R
S

a
n
d

F
P
P
C

r
u
l
e
s

O
R

N
e
w

a
v
e
n
u
e

f
o
r

u
n
l
i
m
i
t
e
d

c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
$
$
$
P
A
C
D
O
N
O
R
$
6
5
,
0
0
0

C
o
m
p
l
e
x

L
i
m
i
t
s
N
o

L
i
m
i
t
s
$
$
$
D
O
N
O
R
$
3
5
,
0
0
0

C
o
m
p
l
e
x

L
i
m
i
t
s
$
$
$
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
S
e
l
f
-
F
u
n
d
i
n
g

N
o

L
i
m
i
t
s
W
-
2

N
o

L
i
m
i
t
s
L
.
A
.

C
O
U
N
T
Y
P
e
r
-
s
o
n
a
l
4
0
1
K
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n

C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
$
$
$
P
A
C
D
O
N
O
R
$
6
5
,
0
0
0

C
o
m
p
l
e
x

L
i
m
i
t
s
N
o

L
i
m
i
t
s
$
$
$
D
O
N
O
R
$
3
5
,
0
0
0

C
o
m
p
l
e
x

L
i
m
i
t
s
$
$
$
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
S
e
l
f
-
F
u
n
d
i
n
g

N
o

L
i
m
i
t
s
W
-
2

N
o

L
i
m
i
t
s
$
$
$
S
U
P
E
R

P
A
C
N
o

L
i
m
i
t
s
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

E
f
f
o
r
t
N
o

L
i
m
i
t
s
D
O
N
O
R
L
.
A
.

C
O
U
N
T
Y
Ms. Leslie Dutton
Re: Public Records Act Request
July 31, 2012
Page: 2
As to item one, we have found no contract between the Los Angeles County BOaTdof
Supervisors and the Superior Court of Los Angeles covering payment of county benefits to
Superior Court judges, and do not believe that there has ever been such a contract. Prior to 1997,
Los Angeles Superior Court judges and employees were treated as officers and employees of the
County of Los Angeles for the purpose of benefits. Government Code section 69894.3 has long
provided that officers and employees of superior courts in each county with a population of over
2,000,000 shall be entitled to county benefits as directed by the court. Los Angeles Superior
Court Local Rule 1.6(b) has long provided that employees and officers of the court shall be
treated as County employees for purposes of salary and benefits in accordance with section
69894.3. When the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 was passed, it specifically
provided that such local benefits should continue. Although the Legislature's mode of so
providing was initially invalidated by the court in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167
Cal.App.4th 630, the Legislature, in response, mandated the continuation of those benefits in
Government Code section 68220. That requirement was upheld as constitbtio'nal in Sturgeon v.
County of Los Angeles (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 344.
As to item 2, we have found no administrative or security policy memos, emails, or
advisory notices that have been retained by the court that were distributed to court personnel
throughout the Los Angeles court system during the period of January 2000 through July 2012,
addressing security notifications and precautions that were to be taken if attorney Richard 1. Fine
were to enter any court buildings. In response to my inquiry, the Court's Director of Security,
who administers the agreement with the Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles for providing court
security, including weapons screening and courtroom security, advised that a search of email and
retained files did not result in the discovery of any such policy memos, emails, or advisory
notices. However, in response to my inquiry to the Sheriffs Department, the attached
Memorandum dated March 4,2009, was provided. Please transmit to me your check in the
amount of $0.10, made payable to the Los Angeles Superior Court for the cost of this copy.
~.~
Frederick R. Bennett
Court Counsel
c: Presiding Judge
Executive Officer/Clerk
Director of Security
Administrative Records Administrator
Mr. Ettlin:

In response to your inquiries please see my responses below in blue.

From: Dennis M Ettlin [mailto:dennis@ettlin.net]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:47 AM
To: Revuelta, Jennifer
Subject: Re: Tax withholding payments documentation for Judge James Otero

Dear Ms. Revuelta,
Mr. Iverson said that their was no evidence that any W-2 or 1099 was generated or sent to Judge Otero for
the period 1990-2003. Normally, I understand your statement about payments being reported on a W-2.
However, Judge Otero was an employee of the State not the County, but he received money from the
county. My main question is whether any tax document was provided to Judge Otero covering the judicial
payments from the county and secondly, whether any withholding was made by the County for Fed and
CA taxes.
I understand the confidentiality issue regarding a W-2, so I am really asking
1) if James Otero received any kind of tax document from the county Yes
2) what the form number of that document might be, and W-2
3) if the county paid any withheld taxes on behalf of James Otero for any of the years 1990-2003.
Personal withholding(s) is personal, confidential information.

For now, I am not asking for amounts or copies of the appropriate documents from the County. I am not
seeking information on the judges compensation from the State (I doubt you would have that).
I hope this clarifies my request.
Thank you,
Dennis Ettlin


On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:39 AM, "Revuelta, Jennifer" <jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov> wrote:
Mr. Ettlin:

In response to your inquiry, cafeteria plan benefits paid as taxable cash and Professional Development
Allowance payments are reported as taxable wages on an employees W-2. We are unable to provide
a W-2 or 1099 information because this is confidential information.

On behalf of Mr. Iverson, I apologize for the miscommunication. Mr. James Otero is a retired judge for
the Superior Court.

Sincerely,
Jennifer

"Revuelta, Jennifer" <jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov>
To: Ettlin Dennis
RE: Tax withholding payments documentation for Judge James Otero

June 17, 2013 11:02 AM
A-3
Thank you for the quick turnaround. Please clarify if the benefits are for Luis Lavin or James Otero
Sincerely

On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:30 AM, "Revuelta, Jennifer" <jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov> wrote:
Mr. Ettlin:

Per your request, the following are the local judicial benefits paid to Superior Court Luis A. Lavin. If
you have questions, please contact me by e-mail at jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov

Year
Cafeteria
Plan
Benefits
401(k)/457
County
Contribution
Professional
Development
Allowance
James Otero
1990

6,690.59 3,265.57 4,012.00
1991

15,192.52 3,474.76 1,960.00
1992

18,866.40 4,726.56 4,704.00
1993

18,866.40 4,332.68 5,162.50
1994

19,731.22 2,067.85 5,004.00
1995

20,354.56 7,442.24 5,161.50
1996

20,404.08 7,667.64 5,184.00
1997

20,404.08 7,420.97 5,331.00
1998

20,659.16 5,175.66 5,352.00
1999

21,594.24 5,409.92 5,499.00
2000

22,627.29 8,651.91 5,520.00
2001

25,114.87 11,315.72 5,814.00
2002

26,290.67 12,121.39 5,856.00
2003

6,625.11 3,054.51 990.00

Jennifer Revuelta
Auditor-Controller
Countywide Payroll Division


From: Iverson, Gregg M.
A-5
A-10
Mr. Ettlin,

I thought the information was provided to you, nonetheless the following are
the local judicial benefits paid to Superior Court Judge Jan G. Levine.

Jan G. Levine
Year
Cafeteria Plan
Benefits
401(k)/457
County
Contribution
Professional
Development
Allowance
2003 - - 516.00
2004 27,329.28 12,600.24 6,192.00
2005 28,256.14 13,027.59 6,528.00
2006 29,177.76 13,452.48 6,838.50
2007 32,965.52 15,198.83 7,075.50
2008 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,366.50
2009 33,969.96 15,661.92 7,404.00
2010 35,182.87 17,729.92 7,404.00
2011 35,182.87 15,661.92 7,614.00
2012 27,095.39 10,983.60 2,229.50



From: Dennis Ettlin [mailto:dennis@ettlin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 8:06 PM
To: Revuelta, Jennifer
Subject: Fwd: Judicial Payments by Los Angeles county to Judge Jan Levine

Dear Ms. Revuelta,
WIl you also be providing information for Judge Jan Levine? I did already
"Revuelta, Jennifer" <jrevuelta@auditor.lacounty.gov>
To: Ettlin Dennis
RE: Judicial Payments by Los Angeles county to Judge Jan Levine

October 31, 2012 9:17 AM
A-25
From: "Iverson, Gregg M." <GIVERSON@auditor.lacounty.gov>
Subject: Request for Local Judicial Benets
Date: June 9, 2011 3:25:33 PM PDT
To: "cyberidme@gmail.com" <cyberidme@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Ettlin:

Im responding to your request for amounts paid for judicial benefits (commonly referred to as Local Judicial Benefits)
from 1985 to 2010. I have provided the requested information below for years 1989 through 2010. I do not have
records for years prior to 1989. Please note, all except for Kenneth H. Taylor are Los Angeles County Superior Court
Judges. Mr. Taylor is a Superior Court Commissioner.

As for who pays the cost of Local Judicial Benefits, the Los Angeles County, not the Court, pays for the cost of Local
Judicial Benefits for Superior Court Judges, but the Court pays the cost for commissioners.

Please email me at giverson@auditor.lacounty.gov if you have any questions.


Year Cafeteria
Plan
Benefits
401(k)/457
County
Contributions
Professional
Development
Allowance
Kenneth H. Taylor
2009

27,944.65 13,195.52 5,553.00
2010

45,322.16 1,162.73 7,404.00


Marjorie S. Steinberg
2001

2,106.66 - 1,220.00
2002

26,190.23 11,057.49 5,856.00
2003

26,845.62 12,485.22 6,150.00
2004

27,329.28 12,600.24 6,192.00
2005

28,256.14 13,027.59 6,528.00
2006

29,177.76 13,452.48 6,838.50
2007

32,965.52 15,198.83 7,075.50
2008

33,969.96 15,661.92 7,366.50
2009

33,969.96 15,661.92 7,404.00
2010

33,969.96 12,246.26 7,404.00

A-35
A-96
A-97
A-98
A-99
Los Angeles $53,860
Orange $22,042
Sonoma $21,403
San Luis Obispo $19,147
San Bernardino $16,413
Yolo $15,905
Napa $15,105
Santa Clara $14,956
San Diego $14,745
Tuolumne $13,938
San Mateo $10,960
Ventura $10,146
Solano $8,579
Siskiyou $8,202
San Francisco $8,036
Kern $6,505
Riverside $6,279
Kings $5,862
Glenn $5,632
Monterey $4,033
San Benito $3,291
Contra Costa $3,225
Sacramento $1,510
Mono $1,263
Alameda $972
Mendocino $750
Nevada $639
Tulare $526
San Joaquin $449
Trinity $336
Calaveras $275
Mariposa $212
Fresno $166
Butte $150
Placer $85
Alpine $0
Amador $0
Colusa $0
Del Norte $0
El Dorado $0
Humboldt $0
Imperial $0
Inyo $0
Lake $0
Lassen $0
Madera $0
Marin $0
Merced $0
Modoc $0
Plumas $0
Santa Barbara $0
Santa Cruz $0
Shasta $0
Sierra $0
Stanislaus $0
Sutter $0
Tehama $0
Yuba $0
A-100
Raw data
A-171 Total Expense
divided by
A167 Number of judges
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature nds and declares all of the following:
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to address the decision of the Court
of Appeal in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th
630, regarding county-provided benets for judges.
(b) These county-provided benets were considered by the Legislature
in enacting the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, in which
counties could receive a reduction in the countys maintenance of effort
obligations if counties elected to provide benets pursuant to paragraph (l)
of subdivision (c) of Section 77201 of the Government Code for trial court
judges of that county.
(c) Numerous counties and courts established local or court supplemental
benets to retain qualied applicants for judicial ofce, and trial court
judges relied upon the existence of these longstanding supplemental benets
provided by the counties or the court.
SEC. 2. Section 68220 is added to the Government Code, to read:
68220. (a) Judges of a court whose judges received supplemental judicial
benets provided by the county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shall
continue to receive supplemental benets from the county or court then
paying the benets on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on
that date.
(b) A county may terminate its obligation to provide benets under this
section upon providing the Administrative Director of the Courts and the
impacted judges with 180 days written notice. The termination shall not
be effective as to any judge during his or her current term while that judge
continues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the election of the county,
when that judge leaves ofce. The county is also authorized to elect to
provide benets for all judges in the county.
SEC. 3. Section 68221 is added to the Government Code, to read:
68221. To clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies in terms with regard
to judges and justices and to ensure uniformity statewide, the following
shall apply for purposes of Sections 68220 to 68222, inclusive:
(a) Benets and benet shall include federally regulated benets,
as described in Section 71627, and deferred compensation plan benets,
such as 401(k) and 457 plans, as described in Section 71628, and may also
include professional development allowances.
(b) Salary and compensation shall have the meaning as set forth in
Section 1241.
SEC. 4. Section 68222 is added to the Government Code, to read:
68222. Nothing in this act shall require the Judicial Council to increase
funding to a court for the purpose of paying judicial benets or obligate the
state or the Judicial Council to pay for benets previously provided by the
county, city and county, or the court.
SEC. 5. Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity, or
ofcer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be
subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benets provided
96
2 Ch. 9
A-141

14

employment as a judge is not a fundamental right (see Rittenband v. Cory (1984) 159
Cal.App.3d 410, 418-419) and there is no fundamental right to a certain level of
compensation. (See American Federation of Teachers v. Los Angeles Community
College Dist. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 942, 945, fn. 1) Thus we consider the disparity
under the rational basis test and have no difficulty finding such a basis in the Legislature's
express recognition that payment of the benefits by various counties and courts is needed
to retain qualified judicial officers. (See Sturgeon I, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 639.)
CONCLUSION
As the parties have recognized, SBX 211 both preserved the status quo ante
Sturgeon I and commenced a process by which the Legislature looks to adoption of a
comprehensive judicial compensation scheme. As we have explained, this response to
Sturgeon I meets the requirements of the Constitution and is wholly sensible under the
circumstances. The Legislature is uniquely competent to deal with the complex policy
problem of establishing a judicial compensation scheme which both assures recruitment
and retention of fully qualified judicial officers throughout the state while at the same
time providing equity between judges in different parts of the state. By the same token
our role in ensuring that the more general requirements of the Constitution have been met
is, under our system of separate governmental powers, quite limited. (See Community
Redevelopment Agency v. Abrams (1975) 15 Cal.3d 813, 831-832.) Thus, whatever
permanent remedy the Legislature eventually adopts will be entitled to the well-
established "judicial deference to the legislative branch." (Ibid.)
A-157

15

However, on its face SBX 211 is not a permanent response to either the
constitutional issues we identified in Sturgeon I or the difficult problem of adopting a
compensation scheme that deals with varying economic circumstances in an equitable
and efficient manner. Thus, we would be remiss in discharging our duties if we did not
state that while the Legislature's interim response to Sturgeon I defeats the particular
challenges asserted by Sturgeon in this litigation, that interim remedy, if not supplanted
by the more comprehensive response SBX 211 plainly contemplates, most likely will
give rise to further challenges by taxpayers or members of the bench themselves. As we
noted at the outset, the issue of judicial compensation is a state, not a county,
responsibility. We are confident that the Legislature within a reasonable period of time
will act to adopt a uniform statewide system of judicial compensation.
Judgment affirmed.



BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:



NARES, J.



HALLER, J.

A-158
TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS
Budget Summaries
FY 2010-11 Proposed Budget Volume One 60.1 County of Los Angeles
Trial Court Operations
Trial Court Operations Budget Summary
2010-11 Budget Message
The Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997,
Assembly Bill (AB) 233, Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997, requires
counties to make an annual Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
payment to the State for support of trial courts and to continue
to fund certain court-related expenditures such as indigent
defense, collections enhancement, and local judicial benefits.
The Trial Court Facilities Act, Senate Bill 1732, Chapter 1082,
Statutes of 2002, authorized the transfer of responsibility for
court facilities from the counties to the State and requires that
counties make County Facilities Payment (CFP). Revenue from
court fines and fees is used to partially finance the MOE
obligation to the State and other court-related expenditures.
The 2010-11 Proposed Budget reflects funding for the Countys
$294.7 million MOE payment to the State, which is comprised
of $245.9 million base MOE; $37.6 million CFP; and
$11.2 million representing 50 percent of any excess above the
AB 233 fines and forfeitures MOE, and $93.0 million for
court-related expenditures that are the Countys responsibility.
The Proposed Budget reflects anticipated increases in costs
related to court collections enhancement.
Changes From 2009-10 Budget
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2010-11 CHANGE FROM
CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL ESTIMATED BUDGET REQUESTED PROPOSED BUDGET
FINANCING REQUIREMENTS
SALARIES & EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $ 28,216,975.26 $ 28,865,000 $ 30,773,000 $ 31,130,000 $ 30,854,000 $ 81,000
SERVICES & SUPPLIES 86,717,568.87 75,607,000 58,946,000 79,106,000 62,150,000 3,204,000
OTHER CHARGES 282,914,026.89 294,596,000 295,938,000 295,938,000 294,650,000 (1,288,000)
GROSS TOTAL $ 397,848,571.02 $ 399,068,000 $ 385,657,000 $ 406,174,000 $ 387,654,000 $ 1,997,000
REVENUE $ 151,882,922.64 $ 143,720,000 $ 146,302,000 $ 149,215,000 $ 148,218,000 $ 1,916,000
NET COUNTY COST $ 245,965,648.38 $ 255,348,000 $ 239,355,000 $ 256,959,000 $ 239,436,000 $ 81,000
BUDGETED POSITIONS $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 50.0 $ 0.0
Gross
Appropriation
($)
Intrafund
Transfer
($)
Revenue
($)
Net
County Cost
($)
Budg
Pos
2009-10 Final Adopted Budget 385,657,000 0 146,302,000 239,355,000 50.0
Other Changes
1. Salaries and Employee Benefits: Primarily reflects
Board-approved increases in health insurance subsidies.
81,000 -- -- 81,000 --
2. Services and Supplies: Reflects an increase in costs for
the Courts Cost Recovery Program fully offset by fines
and forfeitures revenues.
3,276,000 -- 3,276,000 -- --
3. Intergovernmental Revenue: Reflects a reduction in
services and supplies due to the elimination of the grant
funding for the Drug Court program.
(72,000) -- (72,000) -- --
A-160
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
#
%
(
"
$
)
*
+
,

.
#
,
/
+
&
(
)
0
&
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
#
%
(
"
$
)
*
+
,

.
#
,
/
+
&
(
)
0
&
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
#
%
(
"
$
)
*
+
,

.
#
,
/
+
&
(
)
0
&
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
#
%
(
"
$
)
*
+
,

.
#
,
/
+
&
(
)
0
&
!
"
#
$
%
&

(
(
)
*
)
+
#
,
)

-
.
/
&
%
0
"
)

/
&
$
0
)

1
2
)
*
3
4
%
#

5
*
&
$

)
%
6
#
*
#
$

(
1
-
7
8
0
0
#
9
5
:
#
"
%
1
2
)
+
)
,
&
"

5
+
#
%
,
&
/
4
%
&
2
/
)
*
)
;
#
"
)
$

5
:
4
%
6
$

2
/
&
*
8
$
)

5
+
&
%
0
#
"
#
<
5
=
6
*
#
%
%

5
+
&
%
&

5
,
#
*

%
&
"
0
#

1
"
4
;
#
"
$
4
,
#

-
(
+
)
"
4
3
&
$
)

5
&
"
)
%
6
#

9
9
5
#
*

,
&
"
)
,
&

-
$
)
%

7
#
"
%
)
"
,
4
%
&

>
2
%
)
3
)

-
$
)
/
"
)
+
#
%
0
&

-
(
?
8
+
7
&
*
,
0

>
$
)
%

!
"
)
%
/
4
$
/
&

@
9
%
#
;
)
,
)

-
$
&
%
&
+
)

9
.
4
+
3
#
"
4
)
*

.
$
)
%

+
)
0
#
&
5
-
3
*
)
/
#
"

9
5
<
&
*
&

9
9
4
%
<
&

5
$
)
%
0
)

/
*
)
"
)
>
.
$
)
%

7
#
%
4
0
&

5
*
)
:
#

(
0
"
4
%
4
0
<

5
$
)
%

,
4
#
6
&

9
1
=
*
)
$
$
#
%

5
;
#
%
0
8
"
)

5
.
$
)
%

A
&
)
B
8
4
%

1
5
+
)
,
#
"
)

9
=
$
)
%

*
8
4
$

&
7
4
$
3
&

9
5
+
)
"
4
%

9
=
$
4
$
:
4
<
&
8

(
+
#
"
/
#
,

9
=
$
&
*
)
%
&

9
.
+
&
,
&
/

5
0
8
*
)
"
#

5
=
3
*
8
+
)
$

5
0
8
&
*
8
+
%
#

(
$
)
%
0
)

7
)
"
7
)
"
)

9
.
$
)
%
0
)

/
"
8
C
9
=
$
?
)
$
0
)

9
9
$
4
#
"
"
)

5
$
0
)
%
4
$
*
)
8
$

5
5
$
8
0
0
#
"

@
0
#
?
)
+
)

(
<
8
7
)

@
1
2

3
"
#
$
%
&
4
5
4

.
#
,
/
+
&
(
)
0
&
4
6

3
"
#
$
%
&
2
2
7

.
#
,
/
+
&
(
)
0
&
4
4

3
"
#
$
%
&
8
2
9

.
#
,
/
+
&
(
)
0
&
8

3
"
#
$
%
&
1
:
1

.
#
,
/
+
&
(
)
0
&

$
D
E
E
F
G
H
G
I
J
K
F

A
D
L
M
N
M
K
F

7
G
I
G
O
M
J
P

Q
R

/
S
D
T
J
K
P

S
O

A
D
F
R

9
U

5
=
=
2
!
"
#
;
%
<
=
>
#
;
,
+
,

?
+
;
+
@
)
%
&
!
"
#
$
%
=
>
#
;
,
+
,

?
+
;
+
@
)
%
&
!
"
#
$
%
=

A
;
,

!
"
#
;
%
<
=
>
#
;
,
+
,

?
+
;
+
@
)
%
&
B
"

C
#
0
0
D
+
E
+
;
%
A
D

?
+
;
+
@
)
%
&

A
-
1
6
7
Funding
Source
Total Cost
Benefit
Available to
All Judges
Imperial $0
No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Inyo $0
No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Kern $247,198
County Total $120,258
Car allowance County $120,258 X
Court Total $126,940
Car allowance Court $118,014 X
Mileage allowance Court $8,926
Kings $46,899
County Total $27,361
Dental County $3,270
General Health Care County $23,521
Vision County $570
Court Total $19,539
457 Court $7,764 X
Bundled (Life and Supplemental) Court $1,955 X
Cash Supplement (Flex Plans) Court $0 X
Dental Court $0 X
General Health Care Court $0 X
Life Insurance Court $73 X
Other Disability Insurance Court $9,747 X
Vision Court $0 X
Lake $0
No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Lassen $0
No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Los Angeles $23,482,932
401K County $3,957,130 X
457 County $2,001,295 X
Cash Supplement (Flex Plans) County $14,454,245 X
Other Allowances/Stipends (not specifically designated) County $3,070,262 X
Madera $0
No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Marin $0
No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Mariposa $424
Life Insurance Court $424 X
Mendocino $6,000
Other Allowances/Stipends (not specifically designated) County $6,000 X
Merced $0
No Supplemental Judicial Benefits
Modoc $0
No Supplemental Judicial Benefits

A-169
A-176
A-177
A-185
A-186
Case 2:09-cv-0l9l4-JFW-CW Document 78 Filed l2/26/l2 Page 28 of 43 Page lD #:957
A-241
Case 2:09-cv-0l9l4-JFW-CW Document 78 Filed l2/26/l2 Page 30 of 43 Page lD #:959
A-243
Case 2:09-cv-0l9l4-JFW-CW Document 78 Filed l2/26/l2 Page 3l of 43 Page lD #:960
A-244