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) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 552,493 | 439,368 | 690,836 | 775,954 | 603,012 | 3,061,663 |
| 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 | 552,493 | 439,368 | 690,836 | 775,954 | 603,012 | 3,061,663 |
| 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) .. | 1,918,653 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 1,143,010 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in)
![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 552,493 | 439,368 | 690,836 | 775,954 | 603,012 | 3,061,663 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 37,519 | 36,014 | 30,821 | 31,474 | 58,369 | 194,197 |
| 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 | 3,255,860 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (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) 2018 | (b) 2019 | (c) 2020 | (d) 2021 | (e) 2022 | (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 2022 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-2022 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2022 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2022 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2022 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI).
See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2022: | ||||
| a From 2017....... | ||||
| b From 2018....... | ||||
| c From 2019....... | ||||
| d From 2020....... | ||||
| e From 2021....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2022 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2017 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2022 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2022 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2022, 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 2022. 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 2023. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2021..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2022..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | 22015553 |
| Software Version: | 2022v5.0 |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Form 990, Part VI, Section A, Line 1a | There were 12 voting members of the board during the year. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Line 11b | Director reviews 990 prior to filing |
| Form 990, Part VI, Section B, Line 12c | 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, Section B, Line 15a | 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, Section B, Line 15b | 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, Section C, Line 19 | Governing documents, policies and financial statements may be viewed upon request at the Foundation's office located at 2131 L Street, Sacramento, California. |
| Statement Note 1 | FORM 990, PART III Q4 ATTACHMENT: Cases litigated during current year. No fees sought or recovered.Brown c. Davenport: 4/21/2022. A US Supreme Court 6-3 decision to reinstate the conviction and life sentence of Michigan killer Ervine Davenport. Davenport, who is 6'5X and weighs 300 lbs., admitted to strangling Annette White, 5'2X and 103 lbs., in 2007, but he claimed he did so in self-defense. White's semi-nude body was found in a field the morning after her death. Overwhelming evidence convinced a jury to convict Davenport in 2008. During the trial, Davenport was partially shackled, which is unconstitutional, but after the trial every juror stated that the shackles did not influence their unanimous decision. On appeal and habeas corpus, Davenport claimed that the shackles prejudiced the jury, but the state courts and federal district court all found this to be harmless error. The federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that all the lower courts used the wrong standard to find the error harmless. CJLF joined the case to argue that federal law and Supreme Court precedent requires that the federal courts give great deference to state court findings of harmless error, and that a clear violation of existing law and precedent must be found in order to overturn a state court decision. The Sixth Circuit failed to do this and improperly applied the wrong standard. The Supreme Court agreed utilizing CJLF arguments in its decision. WINRamirez v. Collier: 3/24/2022. US Supreme Court ruling upholding a Texas murderer's claim that the state is violating his rights by refusing to allow a minister to touch him and pray aloud in the execution chamber while he receives a lethal injection. The federal District Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claim. Ramirez was convicted of the 2004 stabbing murder of a man and the robbery of a woman at knife-point. At issue was whether there is a limit to religious accommodations for condemned murderers required by the Constitution and federal statues. CJLF argued that there should be a limit, and the Court should settle on what that should be. CJLF also noted that raising this type of claim at the last minute after decades of review on direct appeal and habeas corpus is an abuse of the legal process. The absence of clergy holding hands with a murderer did not meet this standard when execution methods were hanging, electrocution or gas chamber, and it should not apply today when the method of execution is painless euthanasia. The Court disagreed, staying the execution until Texas amends its policy to accommodate the murderer's request. LOSSUnited States v. Tsarnaev: 3/4/2022. US Supreme Court decision reinstating the death sentence of one of the Boston Marathon bombers. Muslim terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, along with his brother, set off two pressure-cooker bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon, killing three people and maiming hundreds of others. Tsarnaev also killed a young MIT police officer while attempting his escape. On appeal, Tsarnaev claimed that the trial judge's questioning of potential jurors regarding pretrial publicity violated his rights. The First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and overturned his sentence. CJLF joined the case to argue that the trial judge followed a 1991 Supreme Court decision specifying the requirements for questioning potential jurors and noted the appeals court did not have the authority to add new requirements. Tsarnaev also claimed the trial judge erred in excluding marginally relevant evidence that his brother might have been involved in an earlier unrelated murder. CJLF argued that the judge properly rejected that evidence. The high court adopted these arguments in its 6-3 decision, which will help prevent other criminals in high profile cases from second-guessing a trial judge who did a good job. WINIn re Mohammad Mohammad: 1/3/2022. Unanimous California Supreme Court decision announcing that contrary to a state appeals court ruling, California's 2016 Proposition 57 does not allow early parole for criminals convicted of violent felonies. The case involved a criminal convicted in 2012 of nine violent crimes and six nonviolent crimes. While the initiative was advertised as permitting early parole eligibility for state prisoners "convicted of a nonviolent felony offense" after completing the full term of their primary offense, a state appeals court held that, because Mohammad had a non-violent crime along his convictions, Proposition 57 requires that he be eligible for early release. CJLF joined the case to argue that the ballot measure's language was ambiguous on this point and that the lower court had misinterpreted the initiative to create this absurd result. CJLF urged the Supreme Court to look at the proponents' arguments supporting the initiative and the ballot materials to determine the intent of the voters. THe court agreed, overturning the lower court ruling and holding that the voters' intent was that only nonviolent criminals would be eligible for early parole. WINShinn v. Ramirez & Jones: 5/23/2022. A US Supreme Court 6-3 decision overturning two Ninth Circuit rulings that announced new delays in the death sentence of an Arizona double murderer and overturned the conviction of a man found guilty of killing a 4-year old girl. At issue in Shinn v. David Ramirez & Barry Jones was whether the attorneys for the murderers could introduce new evidence on federal habeas corpus that they failed to present during years of state court review, which is prohibited under federal law. A jury convicted habitual felon David Ramirez on strong evidence of the 1989 stabbing murders of his girlfriend and her 15-year old daughter. He raped the daughter before killing her. Barry Jones was convicted of the 1994 sexual assault and murder of his girlfriend's 4-year old daughter. Both defendants tried to introduce new evidence on federal habeas corpus years after their convictions and sentences were upheld. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of both murders on appeal, announcing that the US Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in Martinez v. Ryan allowed the new evidence. CJLF joined the US Supreme Court review to argue that federal law clearly restricts the introduction of new claims and evidence that could have been presented during the state court review of the convictions and sentences. To the extent that the Martinez decision might be interpreted to conflict with that restriction, the federal statute prevails. The Supreme Court agreed. WINNazir v. Superior Court: 6/2/2022. Unanimous California Court of Appeal decision upholding a Los Angeles trial judge's refusal to follow LA District Attorney George Gascon's request to drop sentencing enhancements for a criminal facing 35 felony counts. In May 2020, LA District Attorney Jackie Lacey charged Rehan Nazir with multiple felonies, including use of firearms, false imprisonment, extortion and burglary involving several victims. In November, LA County voters replaced Lacey with George Gascon, who immediately announced that he would drop sentencing enhancements for any defendant facing trial. When Nazi's case came before a judge, the deputy prosecuting him asked him to dismiss several sentencing enhancements that would increase his sentence upon conviction. The judge refused, noting that doing so was not in the interest of justice. Nazir appealed. Because Gascon's office would not defend the judge's decision, the Court of Appeal invited CJLF and the California District Attorneys Association to defend it. Among those joining on the criminal's side were California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, CJLF argued that the state law vests wide discretion with judges to dismiss or preserve charges in criminal cases and a local district attorney's policy alone does not override it. THe COurt of Appear agreed, uti8lizing CJLF arguments in its decision. WINPeterson v. California Board of Parole Hearings: 6/3/2022. Sacramento Superior Court decision blocking the release on parole of murderer Lawrence Cottle and holding as unconstitutional the state law that had allowed his parole. Cottle, a street gang member, shot and killed Alan Peterson in 1996 during a five-day crime spree. Because of his age, California Proposition 115 (passed in 1990) gave the judge the discretion to sentence Cottle to either life without parole (LWOP) or 25years to life. The judge sentenced him to LWOP. In 2017 Jerry Brown signed SB 394 into law, which made juvenile murderers serving LWOP eligible for parole during their 25th year of incarceration. But, the Legislature passed SB 394 amending Prop. 115, without meeting the required two-thirds vote of both houses. In 2021, after learning that her father's murderer was eligible for parole under SB 394, Laura Peterson asked CJLF to take legal action to block Cottle's release. In the lawsuit on her behalf, CJLF argued that SB 394 is unconstitutional. The judge reject |
| Software ID: | 22015553 |
| Software Version: | 2022v5.0 |