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) 2017 | (b) 2018 | (c) 2019 | (d) 2020 | (e) 2021 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 499,833 | 552,493 | 439,368 | 690,836 | 775,954 | 2,958,484 |
| 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 | 499,833 | 552,493 | 439,368 | 690,836 | 775,954 | 2,958,484 |
| 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) .. | 1,678,809 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 1,279,675 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2017 | (b) 2018 | (c) 2019 | (d) 2020 | (e) 2021 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 499,833 | 552,493 | 439,368 | 690,836 | 775,954 | 2,958,484 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 34,392 | 37,519 | 36,014 | 30,821 | 31,474 | 170,220 |
| 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 | 3,128,704 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2017 | (b) 2018 | (c) 2019 | (d) 2020 | (e) 2021 | (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) 2017 | (b) 2018 | (c) 2019 | (d) 2020 | (e) 2021 | (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 on 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 0.015 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 0.035 | 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 | 1 | |
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
2 | |
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | 3 | |
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | 4 | |
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI) | 5 | |
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | 6 | |
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | 7 | |
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
8 | |
| 9 Distributable amount for 2021 from Section C, line 6 | 9 | |
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | 10 | |
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2021 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2021 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2021 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2021 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2021: | ||||
| a From 2016....... | ||||
| b From 2017....... | ||||
| c From 2018....... | ||||
| d From 2019....... | ||||
| e From 2020....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2021 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2016 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2021 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2021 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2021, 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 2021. 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 2022. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2021..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | 21013475 |
| Software Version: | 2021v4.1 |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Statement Note 1 | FORM 990, PART III Q4 ATTACHMENT: Cases litigated during current year. No fees sought or recovered.In re Alexander: 9/16/21. Federal Ninth Circuit review of a CJLF petition on behalf of the families of five murder victims asking the court to vacate 24 invalid stays of execution, prohibit the district court from granting any additional stays, and lift restrictions on California's preparations for executions. For 15 years, a federal district court in San Francisco has blocked executions of every death-sentenced murderer in California who has exhausted his appeals and become eligible for execution. The original 2006 order stayed the execution of Michael Morales - sentenced to death for the 1981 kidnapping, rape and brutal murder of a high school cheerleader on the claim that the state's three-drug protocol amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Since 2006, two precedent-setting US Supreme Court decisions provided the state with opportunities to challenge the stays, but the state has failed to take action. CJLF filed its petition in the Ninth Circuit in January 2019 after the district court rejected a similar petition filed by district attorneys and refused to consider the Foundation's protocol, the federal case was dismissed, and the court stay was removed. This left nothing to be decided in the Ninth Circuit, and the petition was dismissed. DRAWPeople v. McDaniel: 8/26/21. Unanimous California Supreme Court decision rejecting a Los Angeles gang enforcer's claim that his death sentence was unconstitutional. One of Donte McDaniel's victims was shot so many times in the face his head collapsed. He also killed a 52-year old woman, and attempted to kill two younger women who were left permanently disabled. On direct appeal, McDaniel argued that his death sentence was invalid because the jury did not use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to find the aggravating circumstances or to select the death sentence. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is required in the law for finding of guilt. CJLF joined the case to argue that nothing in California law or state legal history requires jurors meet that standard for finding aggravating circumstances or sentencing. Nobody can explain how a jury would even go about sentencing a murderer to death beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court agreed, citing CJLF and utilizing our arguments in the majority opinion. A decision to uphold the murder's claim in this case would have overturned every death sentence given to the state's worst murders over the last 43 years. WINIn re Friend: 6/28/21. Unanimous California Supreme Court ruling interpreting a provision of Proposition 66 that was intended to bring a clear end to most capital cases to instead allow extended re-litigation. The case involved a death-sentenced murderer's request that the court severely water down voter-enacted limits to repeated appeals. A jury found habitual felon John Friend guilty of the 1984 robbery and stabbing murder of bartender Herbert Pierucci. At trial, witnesses testified about Friend's plan to rob the bartender, placed him at the murder scene with a knife, and testified about hearing his admission to killing Pierucci for roughly $300. Friend's conviction and sentence were upheld by the California Supreme Court in July 2009. His habeas corpus challenge was reviewed and denied in 2015. In 2016, state voters adopted Proposition 66, prohibiting state courts from reviewing successive habeas corpus petitions except in cases where there is strong evidence questioning the defendant's guilt. Friend had no credible claim of innocence, so he argued that the initiative's prohibition of successive petitions does not include petitions where the defendant adequately explains why some new claims were not included in the first petition. The California Attorney General supported the murderer's interpretation. CJLF argued in opposition to that misinterpretation, but the Supreme Court accepted it. LOSSBorden v. United States: 6/10/21. A US Supreme Court 5-4 plurality ruling announcing that violent crimes that could possibly be committed recklessly will no longer be considered "violent" for Federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) purposes no matter how clearly intentional the crime was. In 2017, habitual felon Charles Borden was caught with a handgun during a traffic stop in Tennessee. Because Borden had three prior convictions for aggravated assault, he qualified for a ten-year prison sentence under the ACCA. Borden pleaded guilty to having the gun but claimed that because one of his priors was for "reckless" aggravated assault it should not count as a violent felony. CJLF joined the case to argue that aggravated assault, be it reckless or intentional, qualifies as a violent crime under federal law. LOSSJones v. Mississippi: 4/22/21. A US Supreme Court 6-3 decision rejecting a juvenile murderer's claim that his life-without-the-possibility-of-parole (LWOP) sentence was a violation of his constitutional rights. In 2004, less than one month after his grandparents took him in, 15-year old Brett Jones stabbed his 67-year old grandfather eight times, killing him. After hiding the body and cleaning up the blood, he was arrested while trying to leave town. At trial, Jones claimed that he killed his grandfather in self-defense. The jury found him guilty of deliberate-design murder and he was sentenced to LWOP. Six years later, the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that a mandatory LWOP sentence for a juvenile murderer was unconstitutional. Jones was re-sentenced under the new rules and again received LWOP. The following year, the Supreme Court handed down a new juvenile sentencing requirement in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which the Court claimed was actually included in the Miller Decision. Jones argued that he is now entitled to another re-sentencing. CJLF joined the case to argue that the Court clearly misinterpreted Miller to justify a new rule not required by the Constitution. The high court utilized CJLF's arguments and research in its decision. WINIn re Humphrey: 3/25/21. California Supreme Court ruling announcing that the decision to set bail for a habitual felon must be based on his ability to pay it, not public safety. The case involves a repeat felon charged with robbery after he followed an elderly man into his San Francisco apartment and robbed him. At the bail hearing, Humphrey asked to be released without bail because of his ties to the community. The judge refused, setting bail at $350,000. On appeal, Humphrey won a ruling ordering the trial judge to base the decision regarding bail on his ability to pay. When the Supreme Court agreed to review that ruling, CJLF joined the case to argue that making cash bail contingent on a suspect's ability to pay violates state law that allows for the consideration of the safety of the public and the victim, the seriousness of the alleged crime, the suspect's criminal record, and the likelihood that he or she will flee. Then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin both encouraged the court to interpret state law to require "ability to pay" as a factor when setting bail. Only the bail industry and CJLF encouraged the court to follow the law. LOSSO.G. v. Superior Court: 2/25/21. California Supreme Court ruling announcing that a law (SB 1391) passed by the state Legislature in 2018, which prohibits the very worst under-16 murderers from being tried in adult court, conforms with a 2016 ballot measure that allows juvenile murders to be tried in adult court. Any criminals, including murderers, who are convicted in juvenile court can only be imprisoned until age 25. In this case, O.G. a 15-year old street gang member, murdered two people, one with a gun and another with a knife, to gain respect from his fellow gang members. When the Ventura County District Attorney requested that the killer be tried in adult court, the presiding judge agreed, questioning the validity of SB 1391. The murderer appealed, and a unanimous panel of the Second District Court of Appeal held that SB1391 violated Jerry Brown's 2016 Proposition 57, which allows the prosecution of juveniles in adult court. Proposition 57 specified that it could not be amended by the Legislature unless the amendment furthers the intent of the initiative. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the murderer's appeal, CJLF filed an argument stressing that the intent of Proposition 57 was to give judges the discretion to order the prosecution of a violent juvenile in adult court. SB 1391 ignores that intent by taking away that discretion. Then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed argument in the case supporting the murderer's claim. In its unanimous ruling, California Supreme Court held that SB 1391 "is fully consistent with and furthers" the intent and purpose of Proposition 57. LOSSDeck v. Jennings (formerly Deck v. Steele): 10/19/20. Unani |
| 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: | 21013475 |
| Software Version: | 2021v4.1 |