Professor Emeritus Daniel H.

Gottlieb
Mathematics Consultant,
3516 via Dolce
Marina del Rey
CA 90292
dhg7@mac.com Mathematics Consultant
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~gottlieb/

Leslie Dutton
Full Disclosure Network
337 Washington Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA
Date 12/6/09
Re VERIFYING FELONY COUNT

Dear Leslie,

I have checked the document you gave me on estimating the number of

felonies committed by the County’s judiciary and County Supervisors and
State’s judiciary. I have found the arithmetic absolutely correct. The reasoning
is a model of clarity. Every estimate and assumption is given clearly and fairly,
so that anyone who disagrees with the procedure can make a quick
objection, both in uncovering what he considers an error and in explaining
where the disagreement is. In fact, I will send this study around to the County
Departments as a template of what a fair and accurate accounting is. Every
step of the account is complete with an explanation of the reasoning behind it
and a mention of the assumptions made where necessary. The use of the
information given in Ronald George’s speech in estimating the state wide
felonies is very clear and leads to a good approximation. The sources of the
numbers are easily found from their clear citations. The last citation is a State
study of the Court system. It actually gives the number of State Judges and
Commissioners on page 140 in table 12a. The estimate of judges. Apparently
the author never saw these figures. But the estimate agrees closely with the
number of judges given by the table and is off by about 20% for the
page 1 out of 6
commissioners. Nevertheless, despite the ballpark figures given by Judge
George’s speech, the author’s analysis looks more real than the precise
numbers in the overlooked table, which obviously used some sort of
unexplained estimation procedure.

I would like to send this report to the various County Departments and the
Supervisors as an example of what a clear accounting looks like, as opposed
to what is given in County EIRs and County traffic studies, development rights
transfer accounting, slip sizing studies, and parking studies as well as debris
transport studies. Let me know if that is OK.

I will write comments on the report below.

Sincerely,

Daniel H. Gottlieb

page 2 out of 6
 FELONY REPORT

This correctly quotes the Wikipedia reports that there are presently 431 judges in LA County, and
citation. 140 Commissioners.
This agrees with Wikipedia and
571 LA Judges / Commissioners receiving payments
almost agrees with Table 12b in x 12 Payments per year
the Judicial Council’s report
linked below. 572 instead of 571 6,852
This assumes that the number
x 22 Number of years (since early 1988)
of judges/commisioners
remained constant. In fact the
150,744
judges state-wide increased by x 6 Number of persons involved per payment
50 from 2007 to 2008, though
they were not funded. (1 recipient, 5 supervisors authorizing each)
904,464
What do these crimes consist x 3 Number of crimes per payment (bribery,
of? I will give definitions in the misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice
CONCLUSION below.
At the level of approximation
2,713,392 Almost . THREE . MILLION . FELONIES .
in this report, the assumption of ... just in LA County.
constant amount of judges per
year seems reasonable.

The analysis here is superb.

At his State of the Judiciary speech in September 2009, Ronald George
mentioned that there are “more than 1600” California judges who’ve agreed
to the one-day-per-month salary waiver (and they had about a 98% sign-up
In fact it may be more
rate on that) during the budget “crisis”. Therefore, there are approx. 1,632
accurate than the precise figure judges in California.
of 1,614.0 given in table 12a on
page 140, (computer page
156/159), in the link below. More If the same ratio of judges to commissioners in LA County applies across
accurate because the Judicial the state (33%), we have a total of about 528 commissioners in the state.
report uses an undisclosed
method of counting partial judges
which is why there is a a point Now we must subtract the judges and commissioners in San Francisco
zero at the end of 1,
County, Mendocino County, and Yolo County who’ve never received any
This citation means the linked
payments. The 2009 Court Statistics Report (pg 42) states that there are a
one below. It is on computer page total of 92 judges and commissioners in those counties. (70 judges and
58/159
commissioners
Yes, this seems suspicious,
reported for San Francisco County seems awfully low.) http://
even more so since the number of www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/csr2009.pdf
judges is 5 less then is reported
in table 12a on page 140,
computer page 156/159

page 3 out of 6
 Back to the math:

1,632 Estimated total number of California judges

+ 528 Commissioners

2,160

- 92 San Fran / Mendocino / Yolo Counties’

judges and commissioners

2,068
x 12 Payments per year
24,816
x 22 Number of years (since early 1988)
545.952
x 6 Number of persons involved per payment

Assumption: Each County has

(1 recipient, 5 supervisors authorizing each)
5 Supervisors. I Know LA does.
3,275,712
x 3 Number of crimes per payment (bribery,
misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice
What ever innaccuracies
occured by incorrect assumptions 9,827,136 Almost . TEN . MILLION . FELONIES .
or incorrect data do not
signifantly change the gross
conclusion. So what if there are
only 9 million felonies.
The count also does not include all the judges who received payments and
Actually, according to the
have since retired or passed away, or the county supervisors who approved
methodology, the count should those payments.
be including these people.

We also have to wonder if the following, who’ve refused to help in any way,
are aiding and abetting the payment scheme:

CA Fair Political Practices Commission

CA Commission on Judicial Performance

END OF REPORT

page 4 out of 6
CONCLUSIONS

In order to complete my analysis of the FELONY REPORT document, I

append these comments from an attorney about the crimes of
misappropriation, obstruction of Justice, and bribery. --- DHG

After reviewing the data of the estimated number of felonies that have
occurred in connection with the illegal payments to the Judges, one can
make the conclusion that in Los Angeles County alone, it would appear that
the Judges have looted the treasury . It appears that every time a judge
accepted and cashed an illegal paycheck they misappropriated public
funds. And complicit in that act is anyone who participated as a co-
principal by authorizing and approving misappropriation of public funds.
 
 
HERE ARE THE BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS:
 
MISAPPROPRIATION:
Is the unauthorized, improper, or unlawful use of funds or other
property for any purpose other than that for which intended.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE:
Obstructing justice, impeding or obstructing those who seek justice
in a court, or impede those who have duties or powers of
administering justice therein. The act by which one or more persons
attempt to prevent, or do prevent, the execution of lawful process.
The term applies also to obstructing the administration of justice in
any way, as by hindering witnesses from appearing, assaulting a
process server, influencing jurors, obstructing court orders or
criminal investigations of any act, conduct, or directing agency
pertaining to pending proceedings "intended to prey on human frailty,
and to deflect and deter the court from the performance of its duty,
and drive it into a compromise with its own unfettered judgment, by
placing it, through the medium of knowingly false assertion, in wrong
position before a public which has little opportunity to investigate the
facts and ascertain the truth" regardless of results, "clearly

page 5 out of 6
constitutes "an obstruction to the administration of justice," and is
contemptuous and within the inherent power of the court to punish.
United States vs. Craig (D. C.), 266 Fed., 230; Michaelson vs. United
States, 266 U. S., 42, 65; 69 Law. ed., 162, 167; 35 A. L. R., 451; 45 Sup.
Ct. Rep., 18; Little vs. State, 90 Ind., 338; 46 Am. Rep., 224; Rey vs.
State, 186 Ind., 396; 114 N. E., 866; Dale vs. State, 198 Ind., 110; 49 A.
L. R., 647; 150 N. E., 781.

BRIBERY:
The offering , giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for
the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of
his or her public duties. The corrupt tendering or receiving of a price
for official action. The receiving or offering any undue reward by or to
any person concerned in the administration of public justice or a
public officer to influence his behavior in office. Any gift, advantage,
or emolument offered, given, or promised to, or asked or accepted by,
any public officer to influence his behavior in office. Any direct or
indirect action to give, promise, or offer anything of value to a public
official or witness, or an official's witnesses solicitation of something
of value is prohibited as a bribe or illegal gratuity.

page 6 out of 6