State Bar Documents Reveal Judges Silencing Attorneys: Full Disclosure Network Video® Report #VB104

September 27, 2011Comments are closed.

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® is presenting an 8-minute video update covering former U. S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D. who was disbarred and jailed for 18 months in solitary coercive confinement after attempting to disqualifyJudge David P. Yaffe, a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge for taking $860,000 illegally from L.A. County. Before releasing Dr. Fine from the L.A. County jail on September 17, 2010, on the eve of Kol Nidre, the day before Yom Kippur, Judge Yaffe unexpectedly announced his own resignation from office. Yet the battle to resolve the questions surrounding Dr. Fine’s incarceration still remain, as does the controversy over the massive luxury apartment complex on L A. County owned land in Marina del Rey.

State Bar Review “Opinion” and Notice of Disciplinary Charges Lack Evidence

The State Bar acknowledged they did not submit any evidence to support its charges against Dr. Fine (see Review Department Opinion, footnote on page 24). The State Bar Court had alleged that Richard Fine’s cases raised the issue of certain judges taking illegal payments from the County of Los Angeles while being a litigant in the case (see Notice of Disciplinary Charges, #15-18). According to Dr. Fine’s First Amended Complaint Case No. CV-10-0048 his complaints against California Judges were protected under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and the litigation privilege.

Ninth Circuit Deputy Clerk Issues Order To Show Cause: Judge Signature Missing

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Deputy Clerk named Cyntharee K. Powells issued an Order To Show Cause (OSC) on 8-3-11 that was not signed by a Judge and solicited responses to Richard Fine’s motion to regain his license. She wrote

“the questions on which the decision in the appeal depends may
be so insubstantial as to not justify further proceedings.”

And, Deputy Clerk Powell requested the parties to respond. Here is the Richard Fine response dated 8-24-11 to the Order to Show Cause (OSC) raising major Constitutional questions. Attorneys for the State Bar responded on August 30, 2011. In Richard Fine’s Response to that filing he notes the State Bar at page 6, lines 9-11 shows the entire State Bar proceeding was a fraud as he had never been charged with bringing frivolous cases against judges based upon the illegal payments to the judges.

State Bar Attempts to Block Fine’s Challenge To Judicial Criminal Immunity (SBX2-11)

The State Bar’s response to the Deputy Clerk’s OSC argued that Dr. Fine should not have to challenge the issue of SBX2-11 which was passed by the California Legislature in 2009. SBX2-11 granted retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for all California judges (not just the ones challenged by Dr. Fine) This little known legislation was sponsored by the California Judicial Council. The Judicial Council was under Court Order to prepare a comprehensive 2009 report that found 90 percent of all California Judges were receiving illegal payments from the Counties. Dr. Fine filed this Judicial Notice on SBX2-11 with the Court on 8-24-11 calling the Court’s attention to the California Commission on Judicial Performance unanimous opposition the Constitutionality ofSBX2-11. He requested the California Attorney General’s opinion on the illegal judicial payments and retroactive criminal immunity to judges. In the 2008 Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, decision, the judicial payments from the County of Los Angeles were found to be illegal. Over $350 million was illegally paid to Los Angeles County judges alone, according to Judicial Watch, the public interest legal organization representing Sturgeon the plaintiff.

State Bar a Vehicle For Corruption?

Professor Emeritus Daniel Gottlieb, Ph.D. who reviewed hours of audio tapes from the State Disbarment proceedings against Dr. Fine, appears in the Full Disclosure video. Dr. Gottlieb offers his observation that the State Bar President at the time was Sheldon Sloan who was representing developers who were opposing Richard Fine in Court and the disbarment proceeding that appeared to be retaliation prompted by Sloan’s clients developers Jerry and Pat Epstein in the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. v. County of Los Angeles case. Dr. Gottlieb provide his opinion on the relationship between State Bar, the Developers, the Judges and the County.

Opposing Attorneys Headed the California State Bar.

Now that Richard Fine has been released from jail, the issues to be resolved are focused on the L A County government’s illegal payments to the judges, the approval of a controversial developments and the developers and County’s attorneys who were successive Presidents of the California State Bar Association at the time of disbarment of Richard I. Fine. Additionally a questionable $125 million HUD Loan Guarantee for the project whose HUD application has raised questions and has been criticized for being in conflict with the “affordable housing” mission of HUD.

White House Connection

As noted in subsequent interviews, Richard Fine points to Jeffery Bleich who was the successor State Bar President and who presided while disbarment proceedings against Dr. Fine were concluding. Bleich was a partner with Munger, Tolles and Olson, who was under contract with the County of Los Angeles. The firm was hired to negotiate the Marina del Rey leases for the developersJerry and Pat Epstein and others on L .A. County-owned property. All of these entities were parties named by Dr. Fine in Court documents. Bleich was appointed to the position of Special White House Counsel to the President just after Richard Fine was sent to jail—held for eighteen months in solitary coercive confinement—in March of 2009.

3 comments to “State Bar Documents Reveal Judges Silencing Attorneys: Full Disclosure Network Video® Report #VB104”

  1. […] Video   Blogs 102, 106, 104 […]

  2. Mark Fennick | January 29, 2015 | Permalink

    Below are three questions I am responding to

    Do you think that the state bar is being mis-used by the judges to deter attorneys from exposing their judicial abuse of power?

    Not mis-used; Both are part of the state power structure, Govt. and hence their interests are they same. Everyone/every Dept. is inherently connected, hence are politically incestuous. State level depts. serve each other in order to continue their power wielding ability. Hence, the State Bar serves itself, other govt. depts. and those politically connected. So what they do is an ongoing ‘naturally’ occurring helping (collusion).

    Be it judges, the state bar, politicians, bureaucrats, staff, etc., all are government.

    When history is foremost, is your perspective, it becomes clear that authority; leadership, leaders, govt., etc. … always has had the same psychology, mentality, desires, behavior, etc.

    Because Govt. power is superior to all, those with govt. power do what they want. No accountability, no repercussions. Govt. and its judges, who are now king-like, and they bow to no-one. To those in govt. the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Thus the Constitution is not heeded, does not matter anymore, because judges do not enforce/represent the Constitution …. If the affect goes against govt.

    There are a few, like Scalia and Thomas (SCOTUS) … but they are still govt. employees.

    Government is about having, using power. Using power is to have ‘things’ to their way; and to keep using power to ensure that govt. is always above “we the people”
    In other words, positions of power (govt.) want what serves themselves, to entrench themselves, their authority, power, abilities, etc. That is their focus.

    Thus every person in govt. … is govt. focused; and all effort is to perpetuate, ensure the status quo of using power, to continue what favors them.

    Thus, they protect themselves and each other, automatically, w/o thought or planning.

    Working attorneys can do nothing against all of this. It would require a very large, organized collective effort by a huge % of attorneys.

    That is the answer to any question about anyone in govt.; and explains what they do … or don’t do.
    . ________________

    So to answer your first question, there is no difference between the state bar and the “high” judges, which are the Supreme court – Administrative Office of the Courts – Judicial Council of California … they have always been governmentally and politically joined at the hip; always function mutually.

    There is no need for them to meet or even talk; no need for agreement; involvement; complicity. Authority, has always inherently behaved mutually, without interaction, scheming, planning, etc.

    Their innate psychologies are identical. They are habitually self-serving.

    As to the few attorneys, even judges, who have some degree of consciousness, some semblance of awareness, they know that “you can’t fight city hall, or any part of govt. ( at least not w/o a monumentally designed effort; but they lack the imagination to create that)

    But it goes beyond simply a “monumentally designed” effort,

    as “The Legal System” is owned by the govt.

    controlled by the govt. designed by govt. operated by govt.

    managed by govt. everybody in the legal system is a govt. employee as are the judges
    Anyone wanting to be a judge, has to be political. Since any judge wants to work themselves up the judicial food chain; go from ticket judge to small claims; to superior court; then state trial, and to appellate and state Supreme court; then on to federal judgeship, then appellate and finally the Supreme court, one has to be seen as governmental, as political in thinking, judging, findings and decisions.

    Since one has to get appointed by govt.; politicians and political parties, and to advance, one must be or act, look governmental, political, to move up the judicial food chain.

    In order to do that, one must demonstrate how governmental they are.

    Hence, there is only one way to get there.

    The more governmental one’s judging is, the higher one goes up to food chain.


    It is not, that you can’t get a judge to rule against govt., but you have to be really ingenious and exquisite in the design of your legal complaint and legal action.
    And the proceeding/trail would have to be very public, so the judge knows people are watching.

    The is about the masses; their non-interest.

    Simply, judges have to be awoken, to what their job actually is; which is the main cog in our system of checks and balances. Judges have to be reminded that the priority is the “separation of branches” and the System of Checks and balances”

    That demands they “stand apart”, separate from the other two branches.

    They need to be awaken to the fact, that their job is solely “right and wrong” no matter who … hence be impartial determiners and judgers

    Do you think the silence from the legal community and the law schools regarding judicial abuse indicates they approve of silencing dissent?

    It is incorrect to lump the law schools with the legal community. They are fully separate. The ivory tower law professors exist on their own planet, and don’t care about the ‘outside’ world.
    With the legal community, of course not. They are aware that the legal system stinks. But they know you can’t fight city hall; they know that judges control the courtroom.

    But, working legal professionals, lower judges and attorneys should be seen as different than the state bar; just like politicians are separate from citizens.

    The state bar is govt. and serves itself; the Bar sees themselves as separate, ‘above’ attorneys … just like politicians put themselves separate, above citizens

    Attorneys, are like everybody else, are people trying to exist, have a job, make money to pay their bills. That is consuming. They don’t have the energy to focus on how bad the legal system is; and it would be too depressing.

    And it is unfathomable for them to think of what it would take, to help, improve or fix; let alone sit down and conceive of what is actually needed.

    The Big problem of this legal system are law schools, law professors. Since all attorneys and judges come from law schools, attorneys and judges are made; formed, indoctrinated, designed, literally cloned by law professors.

    Law school is an assembly line

    Thus attorneys and judges are only … the image of law professors; what they teach; how they teach it; and what they leave out.

    While it seems impossible to blame all of this legal system, on law professors, that is the truth. Hence, the reason the legal system is so thoroughly resented, loathed and hated, is simply because attorneys and judges think like 3 years of law professors.

    I will spare you the details for now, as that takes a bit of explaining.

    Do you believe the judicial canons of ethics as set forth in the Constitution are meaningless?

    There are zero “judicial canons of ethics” in the “federal” Constitution or the calif. Constitution. The federal constitution does not contain the word, “ethics.”
    The “federal Constitution” is actually simple in design, as including everything that is needed, would cause the Constitution to be 1,000 pages in length.

    The crafters of the Constitution assumed that people would use common sense and logic, along with historical knowledge/awareness, to know how those in govt. must act, behave and function, for the good of citizens and society. That elucidation of how those in govt. should act and function would require too many pages.

    that appropriate manner is common sense, could be described, explained by a child. It shouldn’t have to be spelled out on a paper

    The “calif. Constitution”, in the its “Judicial section”, Article 6, the word “ethics” is mentioned once. That once is in sec. 18, and contains the following, which is nothing.

    (m) The Supreme Court shall make rules for the conduct of judges, both on and off the bench, and for judicial candidates in the conduct of their campaigns. These rules shall be referred to as the Code of Judicial Ethics.

    Proposition 190 (amending Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18(m), effective March 1, 1995) created a new constitutional provision that states, “The Supreme Court shall make rules for the conduct of judges, both on and off the bench, and for judicial candidates in the conduct of their campaigns. These rules shall be referred to as the Code of Judicial Ethics.”

    That would indicate that “ethics” are not constitutional; are not even legislated.

    Ethics are only the prerogative, whim of judges; hence any so-called ethics are “of, by, and for judges”.

    In other words, they make their own rules, an absurd conflict of interest.



    Formal standards of judicial conduct have existed for more than 50 years. The original Canons of Judicial Ethics promulgated by the American Bar Association were modified and adopted in 1949 for application in California by the Conference of California Judges
    (now the California Judges Association).

    As far as “judicial canons of ethics” … the A.B.A. is the power in all this.

    ABA Center for Professional Responsibility
    Model Code of Judicial Conduct
    The Model Code of Judicial Conduct was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association on August 7, 1990 and amended on August 6, 1997, August 10, 1999, August 12, 2003, February 12, 2007 and August 10, 2010.
    • Table of Contents
    Nothing contained in this book is to be considered as the rendering of legal advice for specific cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. This book and any forms and agreements herein are intended for educational and informational purposes only.
    ©2010 by the American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
    CANON 1
    A judge shall uphold and promote the, independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
    CANON 2
    A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.
    CANON 3
    A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.
    CANON 4
    A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the , integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

    Home > ABA Groups > Center for Professional Responsibility > Publications > Model Code of Judicial Conduct

    But the point is, it don’t matter whether there are “ethics” rules, laws, etc. … as they will be ignored, as politicians do every day. Those in power, Govt. who control the law, legal system, courtroom, simply do what they want, free of any accountability or repercussions.

    Regardless of any and all “Declarations of Ethics”… they are useless, since judges control the courtroom …

    Blaming attorneys is mis-guided, as seen correctly, attorneys are mere peons in a courtroom; they have zero power, as the courtroom is judge controlled. In essence a judge dictatorship.

Make a