Judge Steffen’s appointment, announced yesterday, was effective yesterday as well, and will expire on December 5, 2016, when the elected successor to Judge Fecarotta is sworn into office.
This will be Judge Steffen’s second tour of duty in the judiciary. Judge Steffen, a finalist in the 2009 round of associate judge selection, was first appointed to a 13th Subcircuit vacancy in early 2010. Her bid to retain that seat fell short in the 2012 primary.
Anonymous said…“Attention all supreme court appointed hack-judges. Don’t sweat the small stuff. For this election cycle (and all others to come) run a lean, penny-pinching campaign to try to keep your jobs. Especially those of you appointed in sub-circuits where the local leadership was not consulted first. And don’t worry one bit about losing those elections. I repeat, don’t worry your privileged little heads off one bit. The fact that you got an appointment is superior testament of your “family and friends” connections to the supremes. And, just like the subject of this blog article, Ketki Shroff Steffen, (and may other losers) you’ll get appointment, after appointment, after appointment, until you reach your pension goals. Enjoy the holiday season, spend time with your family and don’t worry about anything as trivial as popular elections. As Always, E.P.
Anonymous said…“Judge Steffen comes from a good Republican family. Not many Democrats up there on the North Shore. So when when her once Republican husband, Robert Steffen, became the Democratic Committeeman of Barrington Township, more than a few eyebrows were lifted and champagne glasses hit the floor. So why would Mr. Steffen want to join those progressive Democrats? I suggest the answer is LOVE. He LOVES his wife and wants her to fulfill her dream of being a judge. And what better way of doing that? Get in club – which is exactly what he did. So yes E.P. – you are correct – the family and friends plan strikes again and the Supreme Court Justices once again demonstrate that merit is not a factor in their appointment process. But with this particular appointment I would like to think that the Justices, and in particular, Justice Theis, was moved by Mr. Steffen’s selfless act of LOVE. This is a true love story. ”
My comment: love for money. Justice Theis regularly abuses her position of public trust to help well-connected election losers obtain judicial seats, specially who pay top $$$ to IL Democratic party.
Anonymous said… “I really did think that LOVE was no longer in the air within the legal community. That the judiciary was a carbon copy of corporate America. That every decision was a cold, calculated and stratigic move designed only to further careers and/or augment pensions. Thank you Anonymous at 8:26 PM for letting us all know that LOVE can indeed be biracial, bilingual, bisexual, bicultural and now even bipartisan. Romance Rules! As for Anonymous at 4:58, you need to buy better booze. Signed, a hopelessy romantic, E. P.”
I have personal and very negative experience with Judge Ketki Shroff Steffen who fix foreclosures -related evictions cases in favor of predatory banks; and appears to the hearing about 15 minutes late and unprepared.
Ketki Shroff Steffen has a glaring conflict of interests to preside over foreclosures-related evictions since her well-connected husband works for several Title Insurance Companies, one of which, First American Title, issues FAKE Title policies for foreclosed properties, specially by Wells Fargo bank.
While running for a judge, Ketki Shroff Steffen made following statements”
“Treat others and you would have them treat you. This means that respect and dignity must be dispensed equally with justice, fairness and commonsense but never disregard the law and our constitution due to personal bias or feelings“. This is not true.
Ketki Shroff Steffen completely disregards all applicable laws and the Constitution when she enforces void Orders in cases filed by fake plaintiffs who lack any standing; and lectures ProSe candidates who try to oppose – without review of their motions.
Ketki Shroff Steffen late appearances to the hearing (I personally observe how Ketki Shroff Steffen came to the hearing at about 15 minutes late, instantly wore her robe; and started the hearing without getting prepared for it, which is a disrespect to the litigants who had to wait for her appearance; and deal with an unprepared judge.
My actual Complaint with IL Board of Elections against Judge Ketki Shroff Steffen:
December 14, 2015
IL Board of Elections
2329 S. MacArthur Blvd.
Springfield, IL 62704
RE: Complaint against Municipal Judge Ketki Shroff Steffen for the following judicial misconduct: (1) Violating of Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments rights of a U.S. citizen; (2) Violations of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (3) committing honest services fraud; (4) acting corrupt; (5) trespassing the law; (6) violating the Oath of the Office; (7) violating of Canons of Judicial Ethics; (8) aiding and abetting fraud upon the Court; (9) dereliction duties owed to IL public; (10) lacking professional competence; (11) lacking fitness and violations of work discipline. Request to verify under which rationale Judge Steffen was appointed for the second tour of duty.
Dear Honorable IL Board of Elections,
Please find a complaint against Municipal Department Judge Ketki Shroff Steffen for judicial misconduct injurious to the administration of justice, disrespect of the law, and her lack of professional fitness for her current Office. In addition, I am submitting this Complaint to Judicial Inquiry Board, IL Supreme Court, Chicago Bar Association, ISBA, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Chicago Appleseed Fun, Center of Public Integrity, other appropriate authorities and demand immediate removal of unethically elected judge Steffen, who did not earn her judicial seat but was appointed through personal connections, in violation of IL Constitution Article VI. I also reserve my right to bring a separate claim in the Court, as provided by Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 1985, 1986, 18 USC 242 against Judge Ketki Shroff Steffen. Judges are public servants of the State of Illinois on tax payer-funded payroll. Should a judge regularly derelicts his duties the public has the right to demand removal of such a judge from the bench.
Background. On November 6, 2015, Attorney Colin Winters representing fake plaintiff Deutsche Bank, who is actually Wells Fargo Bank, filed a frivolous eviction case against. The only evidence attached to the Complaint was a VOID order entered by Judge Jean M. Prendergast Rooney on February 15, 2015m which was obtained by Wells Fargo fraud upon the Court and in violation of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; Government Orders to Cease and Desist of April 13, 2011, July 20, 2011, Consent Judgement of April 4, 2012, and National Mortgage Settlement.
Service of process in case 15-M1-722542 on all parties was not obtained as required by 735 ILCS 5/202. On December 4, 2015, this case was scheduled before Honorable Judge Diana Rosario. After I filed Interrogatories and asked for disclosures of any conflict of interests, Judge Rosario recused herself. Case was transferred to Honorable Ketki Shroff Steffen. According to the Court schedule, as of today, December 14, 2015, Judge Steffen is assigned to Traffic Division Court in Room 400, but she was sitting in the Municipal Court Eviction Department Room 1402 for my hearing.
I arrived to the Court about 15 minutes before the hearing for 9:30am. This Court opens at 8:30am; any judge with a hearing at 9:30am should be at their post by 9:00am. Honorable Ketki Shroff Steffen arrived at 9:38am and started the hearing after 9:40am, visibly unprepared. Tardiness is a violation of this Court’s work ethics, equating annually into $13,000-$18,000 in waste of taxpayer money. Worth to mention, the judges’ $184,000 annual taxpayers-funded paycheck presumes that she will be at work on time, and be fully prepared for the hearing. I can tell that Judge Steffen did not read my Motion filed in case 15-M1-722542 and delivered to her clerk as a courtesy in advance.
I approached the bench and informed Judge Ketki Shroff Steffen that Deutsche Bank has no standing to sue anyone in this case since this case is fraud upon the Court filed by Wells Fargo bank. I explained to Judge Steffen that the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the burden of establishing standing rests on the plaintiff. FW/PBS Incorporated v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990). Plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim and each request for relief. Monsanto Company v. Geerston Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2754 (2010) (Plaintiffs must demonstrate standing to pursue each form of relief sought); Davis, 554 U.S. at 734; City of Los Angeles v. Lyons City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983). There is no “supplemental” standing – one claim does not create standing to assert claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. at 353. (May 15, 2006). I provided Judge Steffen strong evidence that DBNT has no right to bring this eviction cases for their lack of standing, thus their standing must be verified, and this is the Judge direct duty under the law and Canons of Ethics.
Lawyer Winters argued that my foreclosure case was “adjudicated on merits”, and that I cannot participate in the hearing in my eviction case due to the Order entered by Judge Rooney. I argued that Order obtained in foreclosure case , on February 15, 2013, was procured by fraud and in violation of all applicable state and federal laws, defective service of process, and based on false statements. This Order is null and void from its insertion, thus not legally enforceable. A void Judgment is one which has no legal force or effect. Its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). Void Judgment from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. A judgment is a “void judgment” if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.
Judge Ketki Shroff Steffen then attacked my standing to be a party in eviction case 15-M1-722542. Without heeding my argument, she declared that case 11-CH-28887 was already decided on merits. Steffen said I “must have standing to participate as a party” and advised me that “otherwise anyone can file anything they want.”
To humiliate me before my opponents she advised me that I cannot “take a second bite from the same apple.” I replied that I know people who regularly take a second bites in our court system. Judge Steffen laughed and replied “not in this country.”
This was extremely offensive, hateful language. First of all, the US has an extensive body of case law that upholds the standard that a judgment obtained without standing by a court which lacks jurisdiction is a void Judgment. A void judgment is ione that has no legal force or effect, and may be disputed by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999). Void Judgment from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. A judgment is a “void judgment” if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. Second of all, such a statement was intended to belittle me via an attack on my ethnic background. I am a proud US Citizen and I have lived in the US for long enough to know that such discriminatory statements must not be tolerated in public discourse, especially by the Judge.
Despite my arguments and the fact that lawyer Winters did not attach a single document proving Deutsche Bank’ standing, Judge Steffen took no steps to verify bank’s standing, even though she is clearly required to by the Constitution and US Supreme Court decisions. When she demanded from me to establish standing, Judge Steffen must asked the same question from the plaintiff first. Otherwise, anyone from her courtroom can file an eviction case against me.
Judge Steffen trespassed Constitutional requirements, disrespected Supreme Court rulings and allowed lawyer Winters to proceed with service of process by posting a Note on the door, which is a violation of Due Process, IL Constitution, Rules of Civil Procedures 5/2-202 and 5/2-203. A lawyer must conduct diligent service of process by Sheriff and Special Process Server, 2-202(a)(5), upon the Motion. If unable to serve, Notice of Publication must be given for three consecutive weeks, upon the Motion. All other additional forms of Service must be requested upon the Motion. Lawyer Winters failed to comply with the law or file any Motions verbally requesting alternative form of service, like posting a Note. Judge Steffen, acting without jurisdiction as she had not established all parties’ standing, readily accepted lawyer Winters’ verbal demand to serve by notice on the door, which is a violation of all applicable laws and Canons of Judicial Ethics and Deprivation of Civil Rights under color of Law. To add insult to injury, Judge Steffen used intimating language against me in hopes of preventing me from fighting against this bogus case.
According to the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct:
Rule 62(A). A Judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Rule 63(A). Adjudicative Responsibilities. A Judge does not have any discretion, but a duty, to know the law and comply with the law, when the law has been rules upon by a higher Court. People V. Gersch, 135 Ill. 2d 384, 553 N.E 2d 281 (1990); Agricultural Transp. Ass’n v. Carpentier, 2 Ill. 2d 19, 116 N.E. 863 (1963). Any act contrary to the above would be an action without lawful authority, a violation of the constitution and the judge’s oath. A judge has no discretion to engage in a war against the Constitution. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958). The judge would be acting without subject-matter jurisdiction, and as stated below, would be engaged in an act of treason.
Rule 63(B)(3) states: “A judge having knowledge of a violation of these canons on the part of a judge or a violation of Rule 8.4 of the rules of Professional Conduct on the part of the lawyer shall take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures. Judge Steffen failed her duty to discipline lawyers who violated Law in her Court. A judge does not have discretion on whether or not follow Supreme Court Rules, but a duty to follow. People v. Gersh, 135 Ill. 2d 384 (1990).
Apparently Judge Ketki Shroff Steffen has no respect to the Constitution, the law, or for judges of higher Courts. She prefers to rule by the rule of man/woman, rather than the rule of law. Moreover, based on review of her election record, Judge Steffen is an unethically appointed corrupt judge who has a conflict of interests with the Plaintiff, which she failed to disclose despite my request.
In light of these events, I request a review of Judge Steffen’s performance, her unethical election and lack of integrity and professional competence, and state the following violations in support of her removal from the Court:
Violating of Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments rights of a U.S. citizen. Since none of Defendants were ever served on process and Plaintiff never provided proof of standing to sue, therefore this Court never obtained subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Judge Steffen abused her discretion when she acted without jurisdiction, failed to respect the Law, in the manner inconsistent with Canons of Judicial Ethics, and failed to uphold integrity and independence of the judiciary. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Steffen trespassed our Due Process rights when she arbitrary decided against us without any evidence in support. In entering decision, without appropriate Motion, in favor of the Plaintiff who lacks standing, Judge Steffen enabled fraud upon the Court committed by Wells Fargo bank (the real party in case 15-M1-722542) racketeering activity and money laundering; and extortion under color of law (Hobbs Act) which is a violation of the Constitution and 18 USC 242.
Violation of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. §App. 501, et.seq. Judge Steffen failed to review my Motion where I clearly explained Wells Fargo violations related to SCRA protecting veterans from wrongful foreclosures and respect my rights. To the contrary, she took the bank’s side, without any validation on the merits or compliance of the law and aided and abetted Wells Fargo continues fraud upon the Court and extortion under Color of Law (RICO Act and Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951)
Honest Services Fraud. Under 18 U.S.C. §1346. Judge Steffen is an appointed public official who acts under the colors of the law and Oath of the Office. 18 USC 1346 been applied in cases of public corruption as well as in cases in which private individuals breached their duties to the public. Judge Steffen owes me duties for honest services under public policy, Canons of Ethics. Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with and aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge’s engagement in these activities. Judge Steffen foresaw or reasonably should have foreseen that his actions could cause harm to the victim, yet she accepted and favorably decided a case based on fraud, while acting under the colors of law. Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court “could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, – it had no authority to make that finding.” The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928).
Acting in corrupt manner. Judge Steffen committed wrongdoing in her power and authority through means that are illegitimate, immoral, or incompatible with ethical standards. Judge Steffen was not only in her official stead for the hearing, but she also has a faulty election record. Judge Steffen was originally appointed in 2010 by a Supreme Court Order, but then lost her 2012 election. Under IL Constitution, judges shall not be given a second chance after they lost, yet the Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly placed candidates rejected by voters on the bench. Judge Steffen, who has political family connections, appears to be a beneficiary to such court corruption in our system. She clearly acts unqualified for her post: the Plaintiffs were blindly awarded their demands without any evidence in support of their claims. Judge’s enthusiasm for accepting Plaintiff’s baseless case suggests that she has ulterior motives and will stand to benefit from my loss.
Violation of the Oath of the Office. In Illinois, Sections 705 ILCS 205/4 and 705 ILCS 35/2 requires lawyers and judges to take an oath of their Office ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of [..] court, according to the best of my ability.’ The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. Judge Steffen violated the Law of the Land when she trespassed my Constitutional Rights in his Court.
Abuse of power that enables racket and fraud. Case 15-M1-722542 is filed by criminal Wells Fargo bank and its predatory lawyers who operate a highly centralized enterprise that manipulates the Cook County Courts for money laundering and racketeering activities. I have experienced these practices first-hand. My case is not exemption. Steffen, acting leniently to licensed lawyers is instrumental to other cases where criminal banks abuse individual owners with bogus evictions. Predatory banks find support in Judge Steffen’s court, whose family is closely involved in the real estate business and closely connected to major Title Companies.
Enabling perjury. Judge Steffen never questioned lawyer Winters’ claims, even when he lacked any evidence to prove Deutsche Bank’s standing in this case. At the time of filing, Winters swore under oath that all statements in this case are true and correct. By swearing and filing a false Complaint with the Court, Attorney Winters committed perjury, readily accepted by Judge Steffen. Which is a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§1985 and 1986.
Enabling civil Conspiracy and contempt. Judge Steffen accepted and favorably decided lawyer Winters false statements even though she knew that the statements are false. Steffen never asked for any evidence in support to bank’s claim. Therefore, Judge Steffen enabled civil conspiracy and contempt in his Court. Attorney Winters acted as accomplice to his clients, Wells Fargo bank. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement is liable in civil contempt per 735 ILCS 5/2-203(c). When that occurs, a criminal conspiracy could be charged against all of them, and could result in accomplice liability. A judge, who fails to verify the validity of an attorney’s evidence, violates the Canons of Judicial Ethics and puts the judiciary in disrepute.
Aiding and abetting abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Judge Steffen didn’t question this case for validity or evidence in support. Judge Steffen’s readiness to accept any frivolous cases and favorably decide it for plaintiff’s lawyers enabled attorney Winters to commit tort of malicious prosecution and abuse of process when he pursued wrongful eviction based on a void order. The tort of malicious prosecution permits a victim of tortious conduct to recover damages when a proceeding was initiated without probable cause; with malice; solely to commit a wrongful act in violation to the law or a person’s legal rights; at ill will and wickedness of heart. Abuse of process can be considered fraudulent or malicious manipulation of the process itself, while in malicious prosecution the wrongful act is the actual filing of the suit for improper and malicious reasons. I repeat: Deutsche Bank in its own words denied any involvement in foreclosures thus they have no standing to sue me. Judge Steffen demanded validation of standing from ME, but never asked the same question from the Deutsche Bank lawyer. This is a violation of the Constitution and my civil rights to receive professional and qualified services in the Court.
Acting Professionally Incompetent. According to the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must protect the public by insuring the integrity of the judicial system. I was not able to find such integrity in Judge Steffen’s Court, in which she enabled attorneys and their clients’ fraud upon the Court while lacks her own professional capacity to decide on complex foreclosure/securities matter which Judge Steffen apparently handled for the first time in this Court.
I restate Judge Steffen’s misconduct to conclude: she acted without jurisdiction and failed to respect the law by allowing the Plaintiff to bring a fraudulent case into Court without standing to sue. She did not fulfill her basic judicial obligations, including elementary tasks such as reading a party’s Complaint and demanding accompanying evidence. She clearly favored the Plaintiff’s attorneys. Furthermore, she lacks necessary professional competence due to her lack of experience in foreclosures and securities law.
Justice in the Courts should not be discretionary. It is mandatory to apply justice equally to all parties in the Court according to well-established practices. For the reasons stated above, I ask for a review of Judge Steffen’s professionalism and strongly recommend the removal of Judge Steffen from the bench.
 42 U.S.C. 1983 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
 42 U.S.C. 1985 Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights. (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges.
 42 U.S.C. 1986. Action for neglect to prevent deprivation of civil rights and priviliges. Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein.
 42 U.S.C. 1986. Action for neglect to prevent Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action.
 18 U.S.C. 242. Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
 Held: “Plaintiffs have not established their standing to challenge the state franchise tax credit. Because they have no standing to challenge that credit, the lower courts erred by considering their claims on the merits.”
 Under Federal Rule 60, applicable to all States, Sec. 12 of Restatement (Second) of Judgements, and numerous binding precedents from all jurisdictions, consider void judgement as originally null, void and can be attacked at any time in any Court. Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972); Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt, 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980); Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1951).
 18 U.S.C. 1951″extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
In 1988, Congress enacted a new law that specifically criminalized schemes to defraud victims of “the intangible right of honest services. The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that the federal “honest services fraud” statute (18 U.S.C. § 1346) establishes a uniform standard of conduct governing every public official nationwide and that the prosecution need not prove an independent violation of state law in order to secure a conviction. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit joined four other circuits in rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s adoption of a “state law limiting principle” requiring proof that a public official violated a state law in order to sustain a federal honest services fraud conviction, and a similar Third Circuit requirement that a public official’s conduct violate a fiduciary duty specifically established by state or federal law.