|
|
Holding Government Accountable
click here for
witness list & posted written testimony
THE DISPOSITIVE EVIDENCE, handed
up at the February 6, 2013 budget hearing in support of CJA's
opposition to the judicial pay raises: REFERRED-TO CORRESPONDENCE
ABOUT THE JUDICIARY'S BUDGET,
CJA's January 29, 2013 letter to Chief Administrative Judge A. Gail Prudenti - "RE: (1) Clarifying the Judiciary’s Budget for Fiscal Years 2013-2014 & 2012-2013: (a) The dollar amounts sought by the Judiciary for judicial salary increases; (b) The dollar amounts sought by the Judiciary for “compensation and non-salary benefits for judges and justices of the unified court system”, exclusive of salary; and (2) Production of the Judiciary’s findings of facts and conclusions of law with respect to CJA’s October 27, 2011 Opposition Report and People’s lawsuit based thereon against New York State’s three governmental branches and highest constitutional officers ,CJA, et al. v. Cuomo, et al., to void the three-phase judicial salary increases"
CJA's February 4, 2013 e-mail to Judiciary
-- "Subject: Awaiting Your
Answers: Questions Regarding the Judiciary's Budgets for Fiscal Years
2013-2014 and 2012-2013"
CJA's February 1, 2013 letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo
-- "RE:
Discharging Your Constitutional Duty with Respect to the Judiciary
Budget Request for Funding of the Judicial Salary Increases
Recommended by the August 29, 2011 'Final' Report of the Special
Commission on Judicial Compensation
CJA's January 30, 2013 letter to
Senate
Finance Committee
As to the constitutional requirement of itemization in the budget -- & the power & duty of the Legislature to reject a budget whose lack of itemization prevents meaningful review Supreme Court decision in Pines, et al. v. New York State "'While the Constitution requires itemization of the State budget and appropriation bills to implement the budget (Saxton v. Carey, 44 N.Y.2d 545, 548...(1978) citing People v. Tremaine, 281 N.Y.1, 5...[1939]), there is no constitutional definition of itemization (Saxton, 44 N.Y.2d at 550, quoting and essentially adopting Judge Breitel's dissent in Hidley v. Rockefeller, 28 N.Y.2 439...[1971]). Consequently, it has been held that, ...the degree of itemization necessary in a particular budget is whatever degree of itemization is necessary for the Legislature to effectively review that budget. Should the Legislature determine that a particular budget is so lacking in specificity as to preclude meaningful review, then it will be the duty of that Legislature to refuse to approve such a budget... (Saxton, 44 N.Y.2d at 550). ...If the legislature determines that a budget is not sufficiently itemized then it should decline to adopt it; however, once adopted the logical inference can be drawn that the legislature found the budget to be sufficiently itemized and capable of implementation." See cases -- Saxton v. Carey; People v. Tremaine (II); Hidley v. Rockefeller -- NOTE: the quality
of "justice" in NY's courts:
the fraudulence of the Supreme
Court decision in Pines v NYS, imposing a liability of $51 million upon the
State for judicial salary raises purportedly passed by the Legislature in
2009
click here for:
the Judgment:
January 30, 2012 joint budget hearing on "public protection":
transcript excerpts: (1)
Chief Administrative Judge Prudenti's passing mention of
"process for adjusting judicial salaries"; pp. 25-27 exchange with Senator
Bonacic on "more itemization from the Judiciary in line items"
February 9, 2011 joint budget hearing on "public protection": transcript excerpt: Chief Administrative Judge Pfau's thanks Legislature for "judicial compensation law that was recently enacted, with the salary commission"; explanation of Judiciary budget; exchanges with Senator Bonacic; Senator Nozzolio; and Senator DeFrancisco on greater itemization
February 8, 2010 joint budget hearing on "public protection":
note: also see: Assembly 6-month expenditure reports
ON THE STATUTORY LINK BETWEEN JUDICIAL
SALARIES
* * * click here for: MENU OF CJA's JUDICIAL COMPENSATION WEBPAGES
J
|
|
|
CJA Ho
|