L A Times Endorsements Ignore Judicial Crimes: Spark Debate Challenge #VB90
October 17, 2010Comments are closed.
Los Angeles, CA Full Disclosure Network®presents a Video News Blog featuring video clips from in-depth interviews covering the L A Times endorsements of Judges who have received retroactive criminal immunity for crimes involving “theft” totaling approximately $300 million in illegal , double pension benefits. These benefits have been held to be illegal in the 2008 Sturgeon vs. County of L.A. decision where the Judges were found to have taken the illegal payments from L A County that began in 1987 and are still being paid to date. DVDs of the full one-hour program to be shown on Cable TV and streamed on the Internet are to be available soon.
Court Critic Dr. Richard I Fine is challenging the endorsed Judicial candidates to debate and to explain their integrity and qualifications to continue sitting as a California Judge. Fine was jailed by State Superior Court Judge David Yaffe after he challenged him for taking illegal benefits (approximately $500,000) from the County of Los Angeles who was a party to the case before him. Fine spent 18 months in solitary “Coercive Confinement”, the Judge in his release order explained the jail time was “to serve as a deterrent to other lawyers” who might try to expose court corruption. Yaffe resigned from office on October 3, 2010, before his term expired and after he released Fine who had never been charged with or convicted of a crime.
The L A Times is asking voters to confirm Judges who took the illegal pension benefits without disclosing such on the Economic Disclosure forms 700 or to the litigants in their courtroom. Read the endorsement list from the L A Times Voter Guide Section published on Sunday, October 10, 2010 as shown on here.
- Judges Muster Power, City Attorney To Stop Citizen Challenge To Their Corruption #VB103
- 6th Judge Steps Down On Richard Fine Case: Judicial Wall Of Resistance Broken #VB98
- Ken Reich on L.A. Times Coverage of Israel – Palestinian Conflict #337-338
- Are Judicial Double Benefits Constitutional? Judges To Rule on Judges Benefits Round II #VB92