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 (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) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any unusual grants.) .... | 633,951 | 407,703 | 449,124 | 596,664 | 365,353 | 2,452,795 |
| 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 | 633,951 | 407,703 | 449,124 | 596,664 | 365,353 | 2,452,795 |
| 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).. | 857,685 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 1,595,110 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 633,951 | 407,703 | 449,124 | 596,664 | 365,353 | 2,452,795 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 13,385 | 16,171 | 14,165 | 17,719 | 32,755 | 94,195 |
| 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. | 2,546,990 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (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) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (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 | ||||
| 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 2015 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-2015 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2015 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2015 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2015: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2010 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2015 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2015, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2015. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2016. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c Excess from 2013....... | ||||
| d From 2014....... | ||||
| e From 2015....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | 15000324 |
| Software Version: | 2015v3.0 |
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 ATTACHMENT:Montgomery v. Louisiana: 1/25/16. U.S. Supreme Court ruling announcing that the Court's 2012 decision in the Miller v. Alabama ruling applies retroactively. The 2012 ruling announced that laws providing a mandatory life-without-parole (LWOP) sentence for juvenile murderers whose crimes would carry a death sentence if they were adults was unconstitutional, but the court did not apply the law to older cases. CJLF joined the case to argue that the court's ruling announced a change in procedure rather than substance and that the petitioner, 17-year-old cop-killer Henry Montgomery, received a fair trial and was properly sentenced for his crime in 1963. LOSS Kansas v. Jonathan Carr/Kansas v. Reginald Carr, Jr./Kansas v Gleason: 1/20/16. U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing a Kansas Supreme Court decision, which had overturned the death sentences of three murderers. Jonathan and Reginald Carr were convicted and sentenced to death for a December 2000 home invasion burglary, sexual assault,kidnapping, and murder of three young men and a young woman, and the rape and attempted murder of a second young woman during a six-day crime spree. Sidney Gleason received a death sentence for the murders of a female accomplice in an earlier robbery and her boyfriend. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld their convictions, but overturned their death sentences, announcing that a commonly used instruction given to the sentencing jury might confuse jurors into voting for a death sentence even though they don't believe it is the appropriate punishment. CJLF argued on behalf of the National District Attorneys Association and the California District Attorneys Association to encourage a decision to overturn the Kansas court's absurd ruling. WINJones v. Davis: 11/12/15. Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturning a federal judge's 2014 ruling, which voided the death sentence of rapist/murderer Ernest Dewayne Jones because delays in enforcing the law in California meant that executing murderers "will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary." Jones, a habitual rapist, was convicted on overwhelming evidence and sentenced to death for the 1992 rape and murder of his girlfriend's mother. CJLF had joined the appeal of the judge's ruling to argue that much of the delay in death penalty cases is the result of repeated and lengthy reviews by the federal courts and cannot be blamed on the state. Also, the judge's ruling created a new rule of law on habeas corpus, which violates U. S. Supreme Court precedent. WINConnecticut v. Santiago: 8/25/15. Divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruling announcing that an April 2012 law, which prospectively abolished the death penalty but allowed the execution of murderers currently on the state's death row, violates the state constitution. The court's four-judge majority accepted condemned murderer Eduardo Santiago's claim that by abolishing future executions, the Legislature affirmed that capital punishment serves no penological interest and should therefore apply retroactively. CJLF was asked to join the case by Dr. William Petit, who survived a brutal 2007 home invasion robbery that resulted in the sexual assault and murder of his wife and two daughters. The two habitual felons convicted of these crimes were sentenced to death prior to the law's enactment. CJLF argued that applying a law retroactively would violate the Legislature's constitutional authority to determine the scope of the laws it enacts. LOSSGlossip v. Gross: 6/29/15. A 5-4 U. S. Supreme Court decision rejecting the claim ,of three condemned murderers that Oklahoma's 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 13 0-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. WINOhio v. Clark: 6/18/15. Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision reinstating 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 his 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. WINWinchell & Alexander v. Beard: 6/3/15. CJLF lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court on behalf of two families to end the nine-year delay in the executions of the murderers of five of their loved ones. 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, 2015, 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 2015. In May, to avoid a public trial on what CJLF would demonstrate was intentional delay, the Attorney General requested a settlement. In June 2015, the state agreed to develop and announce a new, single-drug protocol within/our months. The new protocol was announced in November 2015. WINElonis v. United States: 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,Anthony Elonis's wife left him. Later, he was fired from his job for sexually harassing a female employee. Elonis then 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. DRAW |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 1a: Explanation of Delegated Broad Authority to Committee | There were 12 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: | 15000324 |
| Software Version: | 2015v3.0 |