Oklahoma Scam Starting to Unravel

[heyday]

The Oklahoma Judicial Retirement Fund is created by 20 O.S. 1103 (1979). It is a separate fund within the State Treasury. Id. There are two sources of income for the Oklahoma Judicial Retirement Fund. First, under 20 O.S. 1103, five percent (5%) of the salary of each justice or judge who is a member of the Uniform Retirement System for Justices or Judges is withheld and deposited in the fund. Eight percent (8%) is contributed by participants who elect survivors' benefits for their spouses. Second, ten percent (10%) of the amount collected and deposited in local court funds is remitted quarterly to the Administrative Director of the Courts and placed in a clearing account (20 O.S. 1309 (1979)) and thereafter remitted to the Oklahoma Judicial Retirement Fund (20 O.S. 1308 (1980)). The Board of Trustees of the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System is charged with managing the Oklahoma Judicial Retirement Fund. 20 O.S. 1108 (1971).

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?CiteID=53280

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrowl

The general law governing executions against real property in Oklahoma is found in Chapter 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 12 O.S. 731 et seq. (1971). When the party in whose favor a judgment is entered is the State of Oklahoma, acquisition and disposal of property subject to execution in satisfaction of the judgment is controlled by 12 O.S. 775 (1971), which provides:

"In all civil actions wherein the State of Oklahoma, as plaintiff, has heretofore or may hereafter recover judgment, and where, in any such action an execution has or may be issued, the State of Oklahoma, through the officer or officers on whose relation the action was brought, may bid at such execution sale, and buy said property offered for sale, for any amount not to exceed the amount of the judgment in such action, said amount to be credited upon the judgment.

"And further, when such property offered for sale at execution is bought by the State of Oklahoma, said property may be sold for the State by the officer or officers upon whose relation the State was party plaintiff, and further provided that at such execution sales the attorney or attorneys representing the State of Oklahoma may bid for the State, not to exceed the amount of the judgment, provided, however, that said bid is not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) higher than the next best bid, and if there be no other bidder, then not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00).

"And further provided that in disposing of such property so acquired, if it be personal property the officer or successor of the officer upon whose relation the State of Oklahoma was plaintiff may sell said property by executing a good and sufficient Bill of Sale, to be attested by the Secretary of State. And in disposing of real property so acquired or any interest or equity therein, the officer or successor in office on whose relation the State was party plaintiff may execute in the name of the State of Oklahoma by said officer a good and sufficient deed, to be attested by the Secretary of the State of Oklahoma. Provided, however, that in no event shall any sale be valid under this Act for any amount less than the amount for which said property was originally bid in by the State. The funds obtained upon the sale of any such property shall be placed in the fund for which the judgment was obtained." (Emphasis added)

¶5 It follows that the District Attorney prosecuting the forfeiture rather than the Oklahoma State Board of Public Affairs, has the duty and responsibility to foreclose the lien against the properties acquired through bail bond forfeitures and to sell such properties. The District Attorney is, after all, the officer upon whose relation the matter must be prosecuted under 12 O.S. 775 (1971).

¶6 12 O.S. 775 also directs that the proceeds of such sales be paid in the same manner as other funds seized pursuant to bond forfeitures. Forfeitures are required to be deposited with the District Court Clerk by 59 O.S. 1330 (1971), which provides in pertinent part:

"If there is a breach of the undertaking, the court before which the cause is pending shall declare the undertaking and any money that has been deposited as bail, forfeited and the proceeds thereof paid into the clerk of the court...."

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?CiteID=53466

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF MANDAMUS

[702 P.2d 1056]

¶1 On April 22, 1985, the petitioner filed with this Court an application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus directed to the Honorable Robert A. Layden, District Judge of Pittsburg County. Petitioner asks this Court to direct respondent to furnish him with a psychiatrist for use in his upcoming trial in Pittsburg County District Court, Case No. F-84-136. On May 16, 1985, we directed a response from the District Attorney of Pittsburg County. We received a response on June 4, 1985 from Robert W. Cole, Assistant Attorney General, who answered on behalf of the District Attorney.

¶2 Petitioner has alleged in his pleadings that he has a long history of psychiatric problems, and that his sanity at the time of the offense will be a significant factor at trial. In its response, the State concedes that it would be appropriate in this case to furnish petitioner with access to a competent psychiatrist, pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). In light of petitioner's allegations and the Attorney General's concession, we agree that petitioner must be furnished access to a competent psychiatrist.

¶3 The respondent Judge has stated his belief that our statutes fail to provide for expenditure of funds for defense employment of experts; therefore, he is without statutory authority to order those funds necessary to meet the requirements of Ake v. Oklahoma, supra. Title 20 O.S. 1981 § 1301 [20-1301], provides that the Court Fund of each county "shall be used from year to year in defraying the expenses of holding court in said county." Section 1304 notes that "[c]laims against the court fund shall include only such expenses as may be lawfully incurred for the operation of the court in the county." Included in the term "expenses" is "attorney fees for indigents in the trial court and on appeal." 20 O.S. 1981 § 1304 [20-1304](b)(8). In Ake v. Oklahoma, supra, the Supreme Court recognized that fundamental fairness entitles a defendant to the basic tools for an adequate defense, including funds to employ a competent psychiatrist as a defense expert. We therefore hold today that expenses incurred in the employment of defense experts may be properly paid from the Court Fund pursuant to 20 O.S. 1981 § 1304 [20-1304](b)(8). Under proper procedure, expert defense witnesses may receive reasonable payment from the Court Fund for professional services rendered. Accord Op.Atty.Gen. No. 74-115.

[NICE TRY, TIGHTWAD BANDIT "Judge"]

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...sp?CiteID=6246

----------------------------------------------------

[heyday]

Now, can any realistic claim be made that Judges are impartial referees in court proceedings that might effect court funds? I say not no, but hell no, and with the following cite rest my case:

A.

THE CONTROVERSY

¶2 The Board of Law Library Trustees of Oklahoma County (Trustees) brought a declaratory judgment action1 against both the Court Clerk of Oklahoma County and the state's administrative director of the courts (together called defendants). Relying upon the terms of 20 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 1202 ,2 the Trustees claimed they are entitled to a portion of small claims' fees [825 P.2d 1287] collected in Oklahoma County between April 8, 1986 and May 15, 1987.3 The critical barrier interposed to the Trustees' quest for relief was a chief justice's explicit directive by which all clerks of the district court were instructed not to transfer to the Law Library Fund any court costs collected in small claims.4 The legal correctness of this very directive, which remained in force from April 8, 1986 to May 20, 1987, was central to the nisi prius contest now before us for review.5



B.

PLEADINGS AND PROCEDURE

¶3 The petition alleges that in refusing to transfer the requested funds during the period in question both the clerk and the administrative director "were acting without legal authority, and were in violation of the Oklahoma Statutes. . . ."6 (Emphasis added.) Defendants moved to dismiss for want of district court cognizance to rule upon the validity of a chief justice's directive, as well as for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court, which sustained the motions based on its conclusion that the defendants "acted properly under the pertinent statutes . . ., decline[d] to take a position contrary to the clear and unambiguous administrative directive of the Chief Justice. . . ." Judgment went to the defendants.

¶4 Trustees appeal and challenge both the chief justice's authority to direct the court clerk to withhold the payments here in question and the correctness of the clerk's action in refusing to transfer the funds. Trustees maintain their claim is not against the court fund but rather against the court clerk and "indirectly against the Administrative Director of the Courts" because the "funds collected by the Court Clerk are ultimately transferred to the Director." We hold that the action brought by the Trustees should have been dismissed because (1) their claim is not cognizable in the ordinary course of adjudicative process7 affordable by the district court's judicature; (2) the relief sought is clearly dehors the purview of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, 12 O.S. 1981 § 1651 et seq.; and (3) since the court clerk's rejection of the Trustees' demand stood rested on a chief justice's directive, their claim in suit was coram non judice.

II.

THE VERY NATURE OF THE TRUSTEES' DEMAND LIES DEHORS THE DISTRICT COURT'S ADJUDICATIVE COGNIZANCE

¶5 A demand for payment from the court found, which rests solely on provisions [825 P.2d 1288] of a statute regulating the court fund,8 the county law library funds or some other aspect of court-managed funds9 and thus lacks independent underpinning in the private law of obligations, is a public-law claim to be pressed not by district court litigation but rather directly against the court fund's governing board.10 The demand is incapable of conversion into a "cause of action" for the district court's process of ordinary judicature. A public-law-based court fund claim moves along a procedural track vastly different from an "action" on a claim governed by the Pleading Code, 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2001 et seq., and by the rules of practice applicable to the ordinary process of adjudication.11



¶6 A claim like that the Trustees attempted to press below must first be presented to the court fund board,12 and if denied, the claimant may then demand a post-rejection hearing before that board.13 Mandamus in the Supreme Court constitutes the only available corrective relief from the board's denial of a claim.14

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?CiteID=15170

[charlesa6]

Yea, thanks for the link and info.

[masterduke]

Plus these "retirement funds" are structured in a 501C3 Tax exempt non-profit entity. Yeah Right? Non profit? I don't think so. In the city where I live , City hall was unable to pay various bills(???)lights, payroll, etc. So the district court judges kicked in to help keep the lights on, etc. By dipping into their "retirement fund" to help float the "bankrupt" city hall. How can you take a tax exempt fund and loan/give it to a for profit city corporation and not have incurred a tax liablity? And how can the city hall accept that money without incurring liablity for fraudulent conversion schemes since ALL government municipalties maintain, in essence, 2 sets of books concerning their corporate bookkeeping, one for the public(which will show how much they are losing, etc. the other a "2nd set of books" which lists all of their stock investments, employee retirement pensions, etc. Which is always growing and profitable. Also known as the Comprehensive Financial Statement. If an indiviual or group do this sort of creative bookkeeping activity you go to prison! So this asks even more questions about these dirty rats and their 'legal' theft of citizens assests for their own unjust enrichment. Almost forgot, as one participant(judge) said in court, "Its called capitalism. Welcome to America". Dirty Rats.............

[heyday]

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?citeid=29958



¶7 While in a general sense the functions of a municipal corporation are all of a public nature, it nevertheless acts in a dual capacity, the one governmental and the other proprietary, or "quasi private." In its governmental capacity a municipality acts mainly as an arm of the state for the convenient administration of the government in the incorporated territory, for the public good on behalf of the state rather than for itself. In its proprietary, private, or quasi-private capacity a municipality acts mainly for its own ends, purposes, and benefits separately from or in addition to the burdens and benefits imposed or conferred upon it by the state government. Such is the theory. But in practice the distinction sometimes becomes shadowy. Often, indeed, it is difficult to say that the municipality is acting in either capacity to the exclusion of the other. For the purposes of this appeal, however, we may assume, without deciding, that street lighting is a proprietary function.

¶8 Plaintiff urges that:

"In the exercise by a municipality of its so-called proprietary or quasi-private powers It is held to the same degree of liability for its contracts and undertakings as is a private corporation."

¶9 But we may say, as a matter of general law, that even private corporations are not ordinarily held liable on contracts which are in direct violation of the Constitution, or statutes, or public policy,--the reason being, not that the defendant has a meritorious defense, but that the plaintiff's purported cause of action has no foundation, in that said contract is unenforceable at the instance of either party suing thereon.


From their own mouth

[masterduke]

It must be great to be able to make it up as ya go along?

[heyday]

Originally Posted by masterduke

It must be great to be able to make it up as ya go along?

Yep, it must!
I am going to add research to this, for convenience when, in the future, I plan on constructing a Notice to Oklahoma Judges...

§51-121. Declaration of policy.
In order to extend to employees of the state and its political subdivisions and of the instrumentalities of either, and to the dependents and survivors of such employees, the basic protection accorded to others by the old-age and survivors insurance system embodied in the Social Security Act, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Legislature, subject to the limitations of this act, that such steps be taken as to provide such protection to employees of the state and local governments on as broad a basis as is permitted under applicable federal law. It is also the policy of the Legislature that the protection afforded employees in positions covered by a retirement system on the date an agreement under this act is made applicable to service performed in such position, or receiving periodic benefits under such retirement system at such time, will not be impaired as a result of making the agreement so applicable or as a result of legislative enactment in anticipation thereof.
Added by Laws 1949, p. 375, § 1, emerg. eff. June 1, 1949. Amended by Laws 1955, p. 277, § 1, emerg. eff. June 6, 1955.

§51-122. Definitions.
For the purposes of this act:
(a) The term "wages" means all remuneration for employment as defined herein, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash, except that such terms shall not include that part of such remuneration which, even if it were for "employment" within the meaning of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, would not constitute "wages" within the meaning of that Act;
(b) The term "employment" means any service performed by an employee in the employ of the state, or any political subdivision thereof, or any instrumentality of either, for such employer, except (1) service which in the absence of an agreement entered into under this act would constitute "employment" as defined in Section 209 of the Social Security Act; or (2) service by (a) an employee of the state, or by an employee of any political subdivision or instrumentality of either the state or a political subdivision if so provided in the plan submitted under Section 125 of this title by such subdivision or instrumentality (or joint coverage unit of which it is a member), in any class or classes of positions filled by popular election and any class or classes of positions the compensation for which is on a fee basis; or (3) until the end of the sixth full calendar month following the close of the second regular session of the State Legislature held after the enactment of this act, services (A) in the employ of the state, or (B) in the employ of a political subdivision or instrumentality when so provided by such subdivision or instrumentality in a plan submitted under Section 125, which are covered by a nonfederal pension, annuity, retirement, or similar fund or system which has been or is hereafter established by any such employer prior to the effective date of an agreement entered into pursuant to Section 123 of this title; unless and until a referendum has been held on the question of whether service in positions covered by such retirement system should be excluded from or included under an agreement under Section 123 of this title or a plan submitted under Section 125 of this title, as provided for in Section 218(d) (3) of the Federal Social Security Act, and a majority of the eligible employees voting in such referendum vote in favor of including service in such positions under such an agreement or plan, in which event, such services (A) in the employ of the state, or (B) in the employ of a political subdivision or instrumentality when so provided by such subdivision or instrumentality in a plan submitted under Section 125 of this title, shall constitute "employment"; provided, however, that in no event shall service in any policeman's or fireman's position be considered as "employment" within the meaning of this act, unless and until the Federal Social Security Act be amended to allow coverage of service in such a position;
(c) The term "employee" includes an officer of a state, political subdivision, or instrumentality;
(d) The term "state agency" means the Oklahoma Public Welfare Commission, created by Section 3, Article XXV of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma;
(e) The term "federal agency" means in each case such federal officer, department, or agency as is charged on behalf of the federal government, by or under the applicable federal law, with the particular federal function referred to in this act in connection with such terms;
(f) The term "political subdivision" includes any county, township, municipal corporation, school district, or other independent governmental entity of equivalent rank;
(g) The term "instrumentality," when referring to an instrumentality of a state or political subdivision, includes only a juristic entity which is legally separate and distinct from the state or such subdivision and whose employees are not by virtue of their relation to such juristic entity employees of the state or such subdivision;
(h) The term "applicable federal law" refers to such provisions of federal law (including federal regulations and requirements issued pursuant thereto), if and when enacted, as provide for extending the benefits of Title II of the Social Security Act to employees of states, political subdivisions, and their instrumentalities;
(i) The term "Social Security Act" means the Act of Congress approved August 14, 1935, Chapter 531, 49 Stat. 620, officially cited as the "Social Security Act," as such Act has been and may from time to time be amended; and
(j) The term "Federal Insurance Contributions Act" means subchapter A of Chapter 9 of the Federal Internal Revenue Code as such Code has been and may from time to time be amended.
Added by Laws 1949, p. 375, § 2, emerg. eff. June 1, 1949. Amended by Laws 1955, p. 277, § 2, emerg. eff. June 6, 1955.



§51-124. Contributions by state employees.
(a) Every employee of the state whose services are covered by an agreement entered into under Section 123 shall be required to pay for the period of such coverage, into the Contribution Fund established by Section 126, contributions, with respect to wages (as defined in Section 122 of this title), equal to the amount of the employee tax which would be imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act if such services constituted employment within the meaning of that Act. Such liability shall arise in consideration of the employee's retention in the service, or his entry upon such service, after the enactment of this act.
(b) The contribution imposed by this section shall be collected by the state by deducting the amount of the contribution from wages as and when paid, but failure to make such deduction shall not relieve the employee from liability for such contribution.
(c) If more or less than the correct amount of the contribution imposed by this section is paid or deducted with respect to any remuneration, proper adjustments or refund if adjustment is impracticable shall be made, without interest, in such manner and at such times as the state agency shall prescribe.
Added by Laws 1949, p. 377, § 4, emerg. eff. June 1, 1949. Amended by Laws 1955, p. 279, § 4, emerg. eff. June 6, 1955.

[heyday]

§51-123. Agreements with federal agencies and agencies of other states.
(a) Federal-State Agreement. The state agency, with the approval of the Governor, is hereby authorized, upon enactment of applicable federal law, to enter on behalf of the state into an agreement, or a modification or modifications thereof, with the federal agency, consistent with the terms and provisions of this act, for the purpose of extending the benefits of the federal old-age and survivors insurance system to employees of the state or any political subdivision thereof, or of any instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, with respect to services specified in such agreement, which constitute "employment" as defined in Section 122 of this title. Such agreement may contain such provisions relating to coverage, benefits, contributions, effective date, modification and termination of the agreement, administration, and other appropriate provisions as the state agency and federal agency shall agree upon, but, except as may be otherwise required by or under applicable federal law as to the services to be covered, such agreement or modification thereof shall provide in effect that:
(1) Benefits will be provided for employees whose services are covered by the agreement or modification thereof (and their dependents and survivors) on the same basis as though such services constituted employment within the meaning of Title II of the Social Security Act.
(2) The state will pay to the federal agency, at such time or times as may be prescribed by the applicable federal law or by regulations of the federal agency, contributions with respect to wages (as defined in Section 122 of this title), equal to the sum of the taxes which would be imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act if the services covered by the agreement or modification thereof constituted employment within the meaning of that Act.
(3) Such agreement or modification thereof shall be effective with respect to services performed after a date specified therein but shall in no event cover (A), in the case of state employees, any service performed prior to the beginning of the first calendar month after the date on which such agreement or modification thereof is entered into, or (B), in the case of employees of a political subdivision or of an instrumentality of either the state or a political subdivision, any service performed prior to the beginning of the first calendar month after the approval of the plan submitted under Section 125, except that a modification entered into after December 31, 1954, may be effective with respect to services performed after December 31, 1954, or after a later date specified in such modification.
(4) All services which constitute employment as defined in Section 122 and are performed in the employ of the state by employees of the state shall be covered by the agreement or modification thereof.
(5) All services which (A) constitute employment as defined in Section 122, (B) are performed in the employ of a political subdivision or in the employ of an instrumentality of either the state or a political subdivision, and (C) are covered by a plan which is in conformity with the terms of the agreement or modification thereof and has been approved by the state agency under Section 125 shall be covered by the agreement or modification thereof.
(6) As modified, the agreement shall include all services described in either paragraph (4) or paragraph (5) of this subsection and performed by individuals to whom Section 218(d) (3) (C) of the Social Security Act is applicable, and shall provide that the service of any such individual shall continue to be covered by the agreement in case he thereafter becomes eligible to be a member of a retirement system.
(b) Interstate Agreements. The state agency is hereby authorized to enter on behalf of the state into an agreement, consistent to the extent practicable with the terms and provisions of subsection (a) and other provisions of this act, with the appropriate agency or agencies of any other state or states and with the federal agency, whereby the benefits of the federal old-age and survivors insurance system shall be extended to employees of any instrumentality jointly created by this state and such other state or states.
(c) Retirement System as Separate Systems. Pursuant to Section 218(d)(6) of the Social Security Act, the Teachers' Retirement System shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to constitute a separate retirement system with respect to the state and a separate retirement system with respect to each political subdivision having positions covered thereby.
Added by Laws 1949, p. 376, § 3, emerg. eff. June 1, 1949. Amended by Laws 1953, p. 219, § 1, emerg. eff. June 8, 1953; Laws 1955, p. 278, § 3, emerg. eff. June 6, 1955.