Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 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) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 365,353 | 542,575 | 499,833 | 552,493 | 439,368 | 2,399,622 |
| 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 | 365,353 | 542,575 | 499,833 | 552,493 | 439,368 | 2,399,622 |
| 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).. | 1,059,955 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 1,339,667 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 365,353 | 542,575 | 499,833 | 552,493 | 439,368 | 2,399,622 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 32,755 | 32,097 | 34,392 | 37,519 | 36,014 | 172,777 |
| 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 | 2,572,399 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (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) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (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 2019 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-2019 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2019 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2019: | ||||
| a From 2014....... | ||||
| b From 2015....... | ||||
| c From 2016....... | ||||
| d From 2017....... | ||||
| e From 2018....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2014 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2019 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2019, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2019. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2020. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2015..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | 19009920 |
| Software Version: | 2019v5.0 |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Client Note 1 | Client Note 1 - FORM 990, PART III Q4 ATTACHMENT: Cases litigated during current year. No fees sought or recovered.DHS v Thuraissigiam: 6/25/2020. US Supreme Court decision overturning a March 2019 Ninth Circuit ruling granting constitutional rights to an illegal alien caught walking across the US border. The case involves an illegal from Sri Lanka arrested 25yards inside the California/Mexico border. The alien asked for asylum, claiming that he was a persecuted minority in his home country who had been beaten for his political beliefs. After the claim was determined not credible, he was ordered deported. Represented by the ACLU, the alien appealed to the federal district court in San Francisco. That court rejected the claim that he was entitled to sue the government because federal law sharply limits judicial review of the deportation of certain recent arrivals, including those in Thuraissigiam's situation. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court announcing that the federal law limiting habeas corpus review was unconstitutional. CJLF has joined the case to argue that the Ninth Court was flat wrong. Congress, not the courts, holds the power to determine if an illegal alien who steps across the border and seeks asylum is entitled to the constitutional rights afforded to US citizens and persons who have established residence here. The high court upheld the statute as applied to this case, although on different reasoning. DRAWMathena v Malvo: 2/26/2020. US Supreme Court case reviewing a 2018 ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that voided the four life sentences given to Lee Boyd Malvo, one of the notorious DC snipers. In that ruling, the Fourth Circuit held that Supreme Court decisions announced after Malvo's conviction prohibited the trial court from sentencing him to life without parole (LWOP) under the law in effect in Virginia at the time. In 2002, 17-year old Malvo and John Muhammad terrorized the Washington metropolitan area, indiscriminately murdering 12 people and critically injuring 6 others over a 6-week period. Malvo personally killed 3 of the victims. He robbed several other victims after they were killed by Muhammad. The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama prohibited a mandatory LWOP decision for murders under the age of 18-years old. Later in Montgomery v Louisiana, the Court held that an LWOP sentence would be permitted for the "rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption." CJLF joined the case to argue that in Malvo's case the LWOP sentence was not mandatory and that the murders he helped commit easily met the "irreparable corruption" exception. In February, the Court dismissed the case after Virginia passed a law prohibiting LWOP for juvenile murderers. DRAWHernandez v Mesa: 2/25/2020. US Supreme Court decision to reject a lawsuit seeking to hold a US Border Patrol agent personally liable for the shooting of a Mexican juvenile on the Mexican side of the border. The case stems from a border patrol agent's attempt to arrest a Mexican national trying to sneak across the border in El Paso, Texas. As the agent detained the suspect, a group of juveniles on the Mexican side began pelting him with rocks. The agent responded by firing at the juveniles, killing Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, a known smuggler of aliens across the US border. Sergio's parents, who are also Mexican citizens, filed a federal lawsuit claiming that their son's US constitutional rights were violated by the border patrol agent and that they are entitled to hold him personally liable for the excessive force he used. CJLF joined the case to argue that Mexican citizens killed or injured in Mexico by the actions of a US agent, have no US constitutional rights unless Congress passes a law giving rights to them. The Court's 5-4 decision adopted that argument to dismiss the lawsuit. WINMcKinney v Arizona: 2/25/2020. US Supreme Court decision which utilized CJLF arguments to reject a condemned double-murderer's claim that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing. James McKinney was sentenced to death after he and an accomplice intentionally killed two people during a 1991 spree of residential burglaries. In 1993, a jury found him guilty, and the judge identified and weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors and sentenced McKinney to death. In 2002, the US Supreme Court changed the rules, announcing in Ring v Arizona that a jury, rather than a judge, must make the finding of at least one aggravating factor that makes a case eligible for capital punishment, but did not apply this change retroactively. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit overturned McKinney's sentence, ruling that the sentencing judge did not properly weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in reaching the final sentencing decision. After the Arizona Supreme Court reweighed the sentencing factors and reaffirmed the death sentence, the US Supreme Court accepted McKinney's appeal for review. CJLF joined the case to argue that the Arizona Supreme Court's reweighing procedure was valid. Ring requires a jury only for the finding that makes a case eligible to be considered for the death penalty. Whether the weighing of the factors and final decision of the sentence is done by judges or juries is a matter of state law. Expanding Ring as McKinney requests, would invite hundreds of challenges of lawful sentences in settled cases. The Court's 5-4 decision utilized arguments made only by CJLF in this case. WINEllis v Harrison: 1/15/2020. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case involving a murderer's claim that racial prejudice rendered his attorney incompetent. After a district court rejected the claim, the appeals court invited CJLF to file argument in the case because California's Attorney General Xavier Becerra decided not to defend the conviction. In 1989, habitual felon Ezzard Ellis shot two young men waiting in a crowded McDonald's drive-thru, in order to steal their car. One of the victims died. Years after his conviction, Ellis claimed that the racial prejudice of his defense attorney, which he did not know about during his trial or sentencing, tainted his case requiring that his conviction be overturned. CJLF argued that in order for a defendant to sustain such a claim he must show that some defect in the performance of his trial attorney injured his defense. The murderer had not done this. The court's January 2020, two-paragraph order disposed of the case without resolving the legal issue presented. The court held that the Attorney General's change of position alone was sufficient to reverse the decision of the district court. Although this decision is contrary to long-established practice, only the Attorney General can appeal to the US Supreme Court, which he has not done. DRAWJohnson v City of Ferguson. 6/17/2019. Federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling dismissing a lawsuit by Dorian Johnson against the City of Ferguson, Missouri, and Officer Darren Wilson for violating his rights. In August 2014, Officer Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown as Brown was attacking him. Brown had just robbed a convenience store, after which Officer Wilson saw the pair walking down the middle of a street in Ferguson. Johnson claimed that when Officer Wilson stopped his patrol car and ordered them to the sidewalk, he had unlawfully seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Although the Obama Justice Department and a federal grand jury found that Johnson had lied about what transpired before and after the shooting, motions to dismiss the lawsuit were rejected by the federal district court and a divided Eighth Circuit panel. When the circuit agreed to reconsider the panel's ruling en banc, CJLF filed an amicus curiae brief on the behalf of the National Police Association arguing that by Johnson's own admission he was not ordered to stop and was not prevented from leaving. Citing its 1991 US Supreme Court victory in California v Hodari D., CJLF argued that the facts Johnson described of his encounter in the middle of the street with Officer Wilson do not constitute a seizure. The Court agreed. WINPeople v Arredondo. 12/16/2019. California Supreme Court case involving a challenge to the conviction of a Los Angeles sex offender found guilty of molesting his girlfriend's three young daughters for eight years. When Jason Arredondo began the assaults, the girls were eight, six and five. He was arrested in 2013 after he molested one of the girls' friends during a sleepover who then reported it to a school counselor. At trial, the oldest sister was afraid to testify with Arredondo staring at her so the judge had a computer monitor, which was already attached to the witness stand, elevated a few inches so that she could not see his face. He was convicted of all charges and sentenced to life in prison. After the court of appeal upheld his conviction, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear his claim that the trial judge had violated his right to confront his ac |
| 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: | 19009920 |
| Software Version: | 2019v5.0 |