Los Angeles CA The Full Disclosure Network® received a 911 call from prominent Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I Fine who has been confined in the L A County Men's Central Jail, in isolation, since March 4, 2009 following a Superior Court contempt hearing in Department 86. Judge David Yaffe ordered Fine to turn over all of his personal financial records and until he did so would be incarcerated without bail, without at release date and without a scheduled hearing, making the term of his sentence, indefinite.
The contempt sentence imposed by Superior Court Judge David Yaffe followed a request made by Richard Fine, representing him self "in pro per" that Judge Yaffe disqualify himself from hearing the case due to the fact the Judge had received unconstitutional payments from the County of Los Angeles that was party to the case (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles).
IN PRO PER RIGHTS: In the telephone recorded conversation, Fine describes to Full Disclosure the conditions where he was being held and that he was being denied his Constitutional right to represent himself and even access to paper and pencil, thus preventing him from filing an “IN PRO PER” writ of Habeas Corpus in Federal Court that could possibly free him and provide him an opportunity to fight what he calls "Judicial Corruption".
Details of the contempt hearing and arrest of Richard I. Fine can be found here on this webpage.
A one hour exclusive Full Disclosure® videotaped interview featuring Attorney Fine prior to his incarceration along with government opposition supporting his incarceration and disbarment is to be released to 40 cable systems and on the Internet.
Comments to date: 69. This is page 1 of 7.
Anonymous Location unknown
Posted: 02:18 am [PST] on June 05 2010
Does anybody know if that last comment means L.A. judge Soussan Bruguera is a member of some kind of neo Nazi group? In any case there have been complaints filed against her with the California Commission on Judicial Performance which is associated with the California Supreme Court; if you have a complaint this is the place to file it: http://cjp.ca.gov/index.php?id=16.
Anonymous Location unknown
Posted: 12:27 pm [PST] on June 04 2010
L. A. JUDGE BRUGUERA DISRESPECTS AMERICAN LAWS AND PRACTICES DESCRIMINATION.
As an Armenian born and raised in Iran, L. A. County Superior Court judge Soussan Bruguera is a founding member of an ethnic/religious faction [Reference 1]. Soussan attended their meeting when their foreign religious leader granted an audience to the attendees who were "...kissing his ring..." and "...wore black robes and pointed hoods." [Reference 2]. According to its Director this faction "...is successfully realizing its goals of bringing Armenian members of the bar [and] the judiciary...together for the purpose of networking and strengthening ties." Translate this into plain English as "Encouraging Armenian judges to grant favors to Armenian lawyers and vice versa". [Reference 3].
Soussan's husband, Paul Bruguera, was hired into a law firm with an Armenian partner and in response she rules her court with extreme prejudice to favor Armenian attorneys. Judge Bruguera's edicts disrespect the U.S. Constitution and due process, comprise judicial misconduct and have been reversed so many times by California appeal courts that taxpayers are required to pay for an additional three appeal court justices time to correct Soussan's injustices [Reference 4]. It is ironic that the only people allowed to break the law are judges like Bruguera who see themselves as above the law. L. A. County voters should not miss the opportunity to get rid of this miserable judge by voting her out of judicial office #35 in the June 8, 2010 election.
References:
1. Armenian Bar Assn. Newsletter spring 1990, vol.1, #2, pages 4&14 (armenianbar.org/newsletter/download/769)
and a second issue posted 3/23/10 (armenianbar.org/news/show/136/1).
2. Metropolitan News 2/5/96 (mnc.net/papal.htm).
3. Armenian Bar Assn. Newsletter winter 1996, vol.7, #1, page 2 (www.armenianbar.org/newsletter/download/776).
4. Including but not limited to: violating the supreme and appeal court rulings, witness intimidation, supression of evidence, abuse of sanctions, outside the court communication with Armenian attorneys about their cases where she presides, failure to disclose bias, and ruling on her own disqualification.
Kurt Brown, alias Saint Ram Bone LA, Cato SF, Ca to Pensacola, Fl
Posted: 07:27 pm [PST] on May 21 2010
I was in Mr. Fines predicament in 2001 after investigating high level crimes as a journalist. I had fled Alabama from a corrupt Sheriff starving inmates. If I help Mr. Fine, contact me at zkurt555@yahoo.com
I was told the Asian syndicates control San Francisco. I think the many syndicates hold hands in Los Angeles.
I was injected and forced medical procedures. The government has those who are opportunists. Some of them.
Google search Mobile Audit Club and see youtube saintrambone videos
Anonymous Los Angeles
Posted: 09:22 pm [PST] on May 13 2010
L A County Judge Soussan Bruguera rules court like an Iranian dictator.
Her name is Soussan not "Suzanne" as she tried to fool L A voters on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Judge Soussan Bruguera is an Armenian from Iran and is out to destroy the American justice system. Soussan shows a complete lack of respect for American laws. Can you blame her for ignoring due process when she was raised in Iran which has no civil rights whatsoever? Other than that Iran is the "axis of evil", Soussan Bruguera herself consistently violates state and federal law in order to discriminate against Americans to biasedly favor her Armenian and Iranian colleagues in court and as such she is a racist.
Anonymous L A
Posted: 01:41 am [PST] on May 12 2010
L. A. Judge Soussan Bruguera's unjust edicts have been reversed many times by CA appeal courts yet she continues to issue unjust edicts, which violate California statutes and violate the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights and violate Supreme Court rulings, which are then reversed again. Citizens have been paying Soussan almost 1/4 million dollars every year in salary and benefits but triple that to pay for the three appeal court justices time to correct Soussan's errors.
Anonymous Los Angeles
Posted: 02:41 am [PST] on May 10 2010
The California Court of Appeals reversed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Soussan Bruguera's unlawful edicts against homeowners and landlords. This is one of the same judges guilty of unethical behavior charged by Mr.Fine and charged by another reader.Superior Court Judge Soussan Bruguera's unlawful dictates that were reversed by the appeal court include: 1. violating the Supreme Court ruling by unlawfully commanding that a homeowner/landlord must pay a freeloading tenant rent when tenant has refused to pay the contracted rent rent but is living in homeowners house and is in full possession of the house; and 2. violating California statutes by unlawfully not requiring freeloading tenant to prove they ever paid rent; and 3. violating United States Constitution and California statute civil rights guarantee of due process by capriciously unlawfully dictating penalties against homeowner/landlord when he dared to complain about tenant not paying the contracted rent.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VANESSA E. BELL, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SAMUEL PIERCE et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEALS from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Soussan G. Bruguera, Judge. Order vacated in part and affirmed in part. [Excerpts from B196230, emphasis added].
"Fair Market Rental Value as Offset for the Bells - Pierce contends that the trial court erred in awarding the Bells "the fair rental value of the Property of $1,500 per month commencing April 1,2005,to date of this Judgment"... in fact, the Bells were in possession of the Property. In Ellis v. Mihelis, supra,60 CaI.2d 206,the Supreme Court discussed the principles goveming calculation of damages incident to the decree of specific performance. The court noted that the incidental damages awarded should not place a real properly buyer in a better position than if the contract had been timely performed. (Id. at p.22l.) "A court of equity will not permit a party to obtain such an undue advantage." (Ibid.) In general, a buyer in possession is not entitled to recover the fair rental value of the property for the period the buyer has occupied the premises rent free. (Stratton v. Tejani, supra,139 Cal.App.3d at p.212, fn. 6.) Otherwise, the buyer would be put in a better position than if the contract had been timely performed. (Ellis v. Mihelis, supra,60 Cal.2d, at p.221.) Accordingly, the award in the judgment of the offset for the fair rental value of the property, $28,500, MUST BE REVERSED."
"Sanctions Against Pierce as Offset for the Bells - Pierce claims that the trial court failed to comply with the notice requirements in section 128.7, subdivision (c), in violation of his due process rights. "Adequate notice prior to imposition of sanctions is mandated not only by statute, but also by the due process clauses of both the state and federal Constitutions." (O'Brien v. Cseh (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 957,961.) The notice requirement for section 128.7 sanctions includes a "waiting period" of 21 days to provide a safe harbor to allow the allegedly offending party to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged claim. (# 128.7, subd. (c)(1) & (2).) The safe harbor requirement is mandatory for compliance with due process requirements. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214,1220 and fn. 3.) The record shows that Pierce was not provided with the required notice. Due to the mandatory nature of the section 128.7 notice and safe harbor provisions, the sanctions awards totaling $3,500 MUST BE REVERSED. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, supra,73 Cal.App.4th at pp.1220-1221.) It follows, therefore, that the portion of the judgment awarding the offset for the $3,500 sanctions CANNOT STAND."
"Rent Paid By the Bells as Offset - Pierce claims the court erred in admitting the checks into evidence over his objection, in that there was no authentication or foundation. He relies on Evidence Code section 1401, subdivision (a), which provides that "[a]uthentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence," and People v. Zoffel (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 2l5, which states at pages 220 through 221 that it is error to admit unauthenticated documents. In the record, we found no foundational evidence that the checks were ever submitted to or cashed by Pierce or his agent. The Bells have not cited any such evidence. Thus, the checks do not constitute substantial evidence of the Bells' payment of rent in the amount of $13,328.91 from February 2005 through January 2006. Accordingly, the judgment MUST BE REVERSED to the extent that it provides for an offset of such rents."
G. Ethos Los Angeles
Posted: 02:26 am [PST] on May 10 2010
The California Court of Appeals reversed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Soussan Bruguera's unlawful edicts against homeowners and landlords. This is one of the same judges guilty of unethical behavior charged by Mr.Fine.Superior Court Judge Soussan Bruguera's unlawful dictates that were reversed by the appeal court include: 1. violating the Supreme Court ruling by unlawfully commanding that a homeowner/landlord must pay a freeloading tenant rent when tenant has refused to pay the contracted rent rent but is living in homeowners house and is in full possession of the house; and 2. violating California statutes by unlawfully not requiring freeloading tenant to prove they ever paid rent; and 3. violating United States Constitution and California statute civil rights guarantee of due process by capriciously unlawfully dictating penalties against homeowner/landlord when he dared to complain about tenant not paying the contracted rent.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
VANESSA E. BELL, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SAMUEL PIERCE et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEALS from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Soussan G. Bruguera, Judge. Order vacated in part and affirmed in part. [Excerpts from B196230, emphasis added].
"Fair Market Rental Value as Offset for the Bells - Pierce contends that the trial court erred in awarding the Bells "the fair rental value of the Property of $1,500 per month commencing April 1,2005,to date of this Judgment"... in fact, the Bells were in possession of the Property. In Ellis v. Mihelis, supra,60 CaI.2d 206,the Supreme Court discussed the principles goveming calculation of damages incident to the decree of specific performance. The court noted that the incidental damages awarded should not place a real properly buyer in a better position than if the contract had been timely performed. (Id. at p.22l.) "A court of equity will not permit a party to obtain such an undue advantage." (Ibid.) In general, a buyer in possession is not entitled to recover the fair rental value of the property for the period the buyer has occupied the premises rent free. (Stratton v. Tejani, supra,139 Cal.App.3d at p.212, fn. 6.) Otherwise, the buyer would be put in a better position than if the contract had been timely performed. (Ellis v. Mihelis, supra,60 Cal.2d, at p.221.) Accordingly, the award in the judgment of the offset for the fair rental value of the property, $28,500, MUST BE REVERSED."
"Sanctions Against Pierce as Offset for the Bells - Pierce claims that the trial court failed to comply with the notice requirements in section 128.7, subdivision (c), in violation of his due process rights. "Adequate notice prior to imposition of sanctions is mandated not only by statute, but also by the due process clauses of both the state and federal Constitutions." (O'Brien v. Cseh (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 957,961.) The notice requirement for section 128.7 sanctions includes a "waiting period" of 21 days to provide a safe harbor to allow the allegedly offending party to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged claim. (# 128.7, subd. (c)(1) & (2).) The safe harbor requirement is mandatory for compliance with due process requirements. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214,1220 and fn. 3.) The record shows that Pierce was not provided with the required notice. Due to the mandatory nature of the section 128.7 notice and safe harbor provisions, the sanctions awards totaling $3,500 MUST BE REVERSED. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, supra,73 Cal.App.4th at pp.1220-1221.) It follows, therefore, that the portion of the judgment awarding the offset for the $3,500 sanctions CANNOT STAND."
"Rent Paid By the Bells as Offset - Pierce claims the court erred in admitting the checks into evidence over his objection, in that there was no authentication or foundation. He relies on Evidence Code section 1401, subdivision (a), which provides that "[a]uthentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence," and People v. Zoffel (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 2l5, which states at pages 220 through 221 that it is error to admit unauthenticated documents. In the record, we found no foundational evidence that the checks were ever submitted to or cashed by Pierce or his agent. The Bells have not cited any such evidence. Thus, the checks do not constitute substantial evidence of the Bells' payment of rent in the amount of $13,328.91 from February 2005 through January 2006. Accordingly, the judgment MUST BE REVERSED to the extent that it provides for an offset of such rents."
Drevik Sparks, NV
Posted: 04:53 pm [PST] on November 21 2009
This kind of story scares me, indeed. I having been growing more untrustful of our legal system in recent years, starting with the police. I wonder how high this corruption goes, as well as how wide spread. It doesn't offer us, poor folk, much confidence.
Janette Isaacs Los Angeles
Posted: 10:57 am [PST] on October 23 2009
L.A. Superior Court Case BD483783
L.A. Court of Appeal Case B207782
I was also incarcerated for being in contempt of court.
alisa los angeles
Posted: 10:25 am [PST] on September 28 2009
I've faced non stop jaw dropping corruption in Santa Monica and in the Los Angeles Criminal courts. It's a nightmare.