Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.
| (i)Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above or IRC section (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| Total | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .... | 679,516 | 633,951 | 407,703 | 449,124 | 596,664 | 2,766,958 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....... | 0 | |||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | 0 | |||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 679,516 | 633,951 | 407,703 | 449,124 | 596,664 | 2,766,958 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 960,046 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 1,806,912 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 679,516 | 633,951 | 407,703 | 449,124 | 596,664 | 2,766,958 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 12,421 | 13,385 | 16,171 | 14,165 | 17,719 | 73,861 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 0 | |||||
| 11 | Total support Add lines 7 through 10. | 2,840,819 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose...... | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513.. | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5. | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons... | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e | Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): | |||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions) | |||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2014 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2014 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2014 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2014: | ||||
| a From 2009.......X | ||||
| b From 2010.......X | ||||
| c From 2011.......X | ||||
| d From 2012.......X | ||||
| e From 2013....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2009 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2014 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2014, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2014. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2015. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a From 2010.......X | ||||
| b From 2011.......X | ||||
| c From 2012.......X | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Part I: Additional Information | Listing of unusual grantsFYE 7/31/15: Unusual grant: Restricted endowment of $1,000,000 |
| Software ID: | 14000265 |
| Software Version: | 2014v5.0 |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Client Note 1 | Client Note 1 - Form 990, Part III Q4 AttachmentPublic interest law firm: Attachment of legal cases participated in during the year. Rulings favoring the Foundations positions are listed as WINS and unfavorable rulings are LOSSES. Rulings which have left the issue unsettled are DRAWS:Glossip v. Gross: WIN 6/29/15. A 5-4 U. S. Supreme Court decision to reject the claim of three condemned murderers that Oklahomas execution process is unconstitutional because it might cause pain. One of the murderers in this case hired a contract killer to beat a man to death with a baseball bat. Another bent his 9-month-old daughter backwards, killing her because her crying interrupted his video game. The third stabbed a female food service supervisor to death while he was serving a 130- year prison sentence for multiple armed robberies. CJLF joined the case to argue that the Constitution does not guarantee a pain-free execution, but lethal injection only requires a level of anesthesia to prevent extreme pain. The Foundation also argued that when murderers challenge an execution method as unconstitutional they are required to present an alternative method that does comply with the Constitution. The Court's decision adopted both of these points.Ohio v. Clark: WIN 6/18/15. Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court decision to reinstate an Ohio child abuser's conviction. The Ohio Supreme Court had held that allowing the teachers who discovered the victim's injuries to testify about what the child told them violated the criminal's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. The case involved the 2010 conviction of Darius Clark for the beating of his girlfriend's three-year-old son and two-year-old daughter. When preschool teachers noticed bruises on the little boy's face, they asked him who hurt him. When he responded that Clark had hit him, they reported the incident to child protective services who located the boy and his sister and took them to a hospital where other injuries to both children were discovered. On appeal, Clark won a decision announcing that the testimony of the teachers at this trial was unconstitutional. When the state appealed that ruling, CJLF joined the case to argue that a statement made to a first responder, whether a policeman or someone else, is not the same as a statement taken by an investigator building a case against a known suspect. The statement to the investigator is "testimonial" as that term is used by the Supreme Court, and the statement to the first responder, or in this case, a teacher, is not. The Supreme Court's decision agreed.Elonis v. United States: DRAW 6/1/15. U. S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who posted threats on Facebook to brutally murder his estranged wife and a female FBI agent. In 2010, after his wife left him, and he was fired from his job for sexually harassing a female employee, Anthony Elonis began posting threats to murder his wife on his Facebook page, including a statement that he would not stop until "your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts." After Elonis refused an interview with a female FBI agent, he posted about slitting her throat. Following his conviction in 2011 for transmitting threats, Elonis appealed, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional because it was not proven that he specifically intended to threaten his victims. CJLF joined the Supreme Court review of the case to argue that, while there was no high court precedent on this issue, nine of the eleven federal circuit courts have held that the transmission of threats is a general intent crime, requiring only that a reasonable person would recognize his statements as threats. The Court's ruling held that the criminal transmission of threats requires a state of mind somewhere above negligence. The Court did not address whether recklessness would be sufficient, either under the statute or the First Amendment. If it is, the law would be largely unchanged, as a practical matter. Because the key issues remain undecided, we count this as a draw.Winchell & Alexander v. Beard: WIN 6/2/15. CJLF lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court on behalf of two families to end the nine-year delay in the executions of five of their loved ones' murderers. Initially, the California Attorney General responded with a brief asking to have the case dismissed. Representing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Attorney General Kamala Harris argued that the agency had limitless discretion to take as long as it chooses to come up with an execution protocol for the murderers on California's death row. The Attorney General also argued that the families of murder victims did not have a legal right (standing) to compel the government to carry out the sentences for the murderers of their loved ones. On February 9, Superior Court Judge Shellyanne Chang rejected the state's petition in a decision finding that the state is obligated to adopt an execution protocol in a reasonable period of time and that victims' families have standing to seek a court order to force compliance. The Attorney General's petition to have the judge's decision overturned was denied by the Court of Appeal in early March. In May, to avoid a public trial on what we would demonstrate was intentional delay, the Attorney General requested a settlement. In June, the state agreed to develop and announce a new single-drug protocol within four months. If it fails, the judge can order compliance.Jennings v. Stephens: DRAW 1/14/15. U. S. Supreme Court ruling allowing a condemned cop killer to raise on appeal an allegation challenging his conviction on federal habeas corpus even though it had been rejected by a lower court. The case involved the conviction of Robert Lee Jennings for murdering a Houston police officer during a 1988 robbery. After his conviction and sentence had been upheld by the state's highest court on direct appeal, Jennings raised allegations challenging the competence of his trial attorney before a federal district court on habeas corpus. The court denied one of his allegations, but accepted others. When the federal appeals court refused to hear the denied allegation on appeal, the Supreme Court agreed to review that holding. CJLF joined the case seeking a decision requiring that all allegations included in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel be considered together as one claim on appeal, even if a lower court denies some of them. A decision requiring this would have simplified and shortened the post-conviction review of death penalty cases. In its ruling, the court chose not to confront the "claim" issue, but allowed the defendant to raise his rejected allegation.Hall v. Florida: LOSS 5/27/14. U. S. Supreme Court decision announcing that, when determining the IQ of a murder defendant who claims he is ineligible for the death penalty because he is mentally retarded, states should not use a rigid cutoff score that does not account for a margin of error. The case involved a murderer's claim that the IQ requirement for mental retar- dation should be expanded from a score of below 70 to a range of 67 to 75. In 1981, Freddie Lee Hall, and an accomplice, kidnapped a 21-year-old pregnant woman from a grocery store parking lot and drove her into the woods where she was raped, beaten, and shot to death. After two decades of appeals upholding Hall's conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court decided in another case that executing the mentally retarded was unconstitutional. At that time, the Florida Legislature had already adopted a nationally accepted standard, which included an IQ below 70 to qualify. Hall, whose lowest admissible IQ score was 71, asked the Supreme Court to broaden the range to include him. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Hall's appeal, CJLF accepted the Florida Attorney General's request to join the case. CJLF argued that standards for mental retardation should be left up to the states. Otherwise, well-deserved sentences for clearly guilty murderers will be held up for years as these issues are endlessly reviewed.People v. Moffett: DRAW 5/5/14. California Supreme Court ruling that a California law, which allows murderers between the ages of 16 and 18 years old to be eligible for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), does not violate the U. S. Supreme Court's June 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama. The case involves a criminal (a few days short of his 18th birthday) who committed an armed robbery along with an accomplice. During their attempted escape, the accomplice shot and killed a police officer. Andrew Moffett was convicted of the murder of Officer Larry Lasater, which is a death penalty offense for murderers over 18. Because of his age, he received a sentence of LWOP. During sentencing, the judge noted that she was exercising her discretion to give this sentence, rather than life with parole, due to the circumstances of |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 1a: Explanation of Delegated Broad Authority to Committee | There were 13 voting members of the board during the year. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 11b: Form 990 Review Process | Director reviews 990 prior to filing |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 12c: Explanation of Monitoring and Enforcement of Conflicts | This organization has few outside contractors therefore, they are able to review all new contracts as they may enter into it, to be assured it is not with an entity that any of their Board or employees have an interest in. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 15a: Compensation Review & Approval Process - CEO, Top Management | At least annually, the Board reviews salaries and benefits paid to all employees (including officers and key employees), and votes on bonuses or salary increases accordingly. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 15b: Compensation Review and Approval Process for Officers and Key Employees | At least annually, the Board reviews salaries and benefits paid to all employees (including officers and key employees), and votes on bonuses or salary increases accordingly. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 19: Other Organization Documents Publicly Available | Governing documents, policies and financial statements may be viewed upon request at the Foundation's office located at 2131 L Street, Sacramento, California. |
| Software ID: | 14000265 |
| Software Version: | 2014v5.0 |