Los Angeles, CA. Why was prominent anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine sentenced to “coercive confinement” in the L.A. Central Men’s Jail for an indefinite period of time? It has been sixty days in solitary confinement and is growing each day. On May 1, 2009 Fine and his supporters learned the reasons why. In a ordered response to his Writ of Habeas Corpus and request for immediate release. A Ventura, California law firm representing the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe, filed a response and revealed the intent of the confinement was to “coerce” Fine into submission.
Full Disclosure Network® presents a ten minute preview from a two-part series covering this extraordinary case where Richard I. Fine and others discuss the circumstances and implications of Los Angeles Superior Court Judges, including Judge David Yaffe, of taking illegal payments from Los Angeles County while sitting in judgment on cases where the county is a party. Having raised the issue of Judicial corruption since 1999, Fine maintains that over a period of years no L. A. County Judge has decided in favor of a plaintiff who has filed a case against the County.
Here is a quote from the Court Ordered response filed by the Ventura, California law firm of Kevin M. McCormick (BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM) hired by L. A. County Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe where they are opposing the release of Richard I Fine from solitary “coercive confinement”.
“The use of COERCIVE CONFINEMENT resulting from civil contempt has been approved and found appropriate by the United States Supreme Court, federal district and appellate courts and California state courts, regarding the right of a civil judgment creditor to pursue and of a trial court to impose for purposes of an individual’s compliance with a valid court order.”
This is an on-going series covering the issue judicial benefits and court corruption. Part Three and Four feature a one-hour interview with Judicial Watch organization and former prominent L. A. Deputy District Attorney, Sterling Norris, whose landmark case (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) found that payments made to Superior Court Judges from the Counties was illegal. Judicial Watch has vowed to challenge the legislation enacted in February 2009 as part of the California budget bill SBX 211 that provided retroactive immunity from prosecution for all state judges and county officials who received or approved the illegal payments since 1988.
Comments to date: 20. This is page 1 of 2.
courtwatch San Rafael, CA
Posted: 08:17 pm [PST] on January 23 2010
For those of you who are interested in the Richard Fine issues, the statistics about the judicial perks he was complaining about can be found in the Judicial Council's December 15, 2009 report entitled "Historical Analysis of Disparities in Judicial Benefits". The key statistics are in attachment D, pages D-9 to D-14. In 2008, CA counties paid a total of $30,388,289 in "supplemental judicial benefits" to their judges, above and beyond their state salaries and benefits.$23,482,932 of this total $30.3 million was paid by Los Angeles County, to Los Angeles County judges. The report does not state how much each judge receives per capita, but it states that Los Angeles County has 436 judges-- that comes out to each LA judge receiving approximately $53,860 from LA County. Richard Fine challenged the LA judges, stating that those receiving these hefty benefits from LA County should not be hearing cases involving LA County. He also claimed the payments were illegal. In 2008, a court of appeal agreed that the payments were illegal.(Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 630.) According to the Judicial Council report (page 4), in response to the Sturgeon case, "the judicial branch sought legislation, Senate Bill X2 11".
The legislation, commonly known as SBX 211, was pushed through on an emergency basis. It allows judges to continue to receive these extra benefits, and also provides RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY from prosecution to counties paying the benefits, and judges receiving the benefits.
In other words, CA judges were taking the county benefits in violation of the law. When this was made public, the CA judiciary got emergency legislation passed, allowing them to continue to receive their benefits (while courts are being closed due to "budget constraints"), and also allowing them to escape prosecution. Meanwhile, the lawyer who had been challenging the LA bench for taking these hefty illegal perks for years, was disbarred and sent to jail, where he has been held in solitary confinement for almost a year.
The legality of SBX 211 has subsequently been challenged -- something the language of the legislation itself anticipated.
If you think this report on judicial benefits is interesting, check out the report issued the same day (12/15/09), by the CA Judicial Council's "Commission on Impartial Courts" recommending that judges be allowed to take campaign contributions from those who appear before them (although 75% of the public, and over 25% of judges, believe such contributions affect the outcome of cases), and also recommending AGAINST the implementation of Judicial Performance Evaluations--which consultants to the Judicial Council have repeatedly,strongly recommended.
Kevin Patrick Lewes Delaware
Posted: 02:38 pm [PST] on January 16 2010
You should check out my video of the Delaware Family Law Commision January 12.This was an open meeting reporters aloud but no fathers rights reporters. Go to Daddy Justice Films.
Tabotta Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted: 02:11 am [PST] on November 29 2009
Corruption?
Thats not corruption!
This is corruption
http://twitter.com/PaulSharpless
Sharon Potter Los Angeles
Posted: 08:17 am [PST] on October 02 2009
John Walkoviak what are your credentials? If you feel you could do this better, why not provide your services to Mr. Fine? Apparently his problem is related to the fact that NOT ONE ATTORNEY would take his case for fear of judicial revenge. Are you willing to represent Mr. Fine and donate the services that you are advertising below?
John Walkowiak OC
Posted: 11:19 pm [PST] on September 01 2009
I have seen the Writ of Habeas done for Fine and it was a joke. If you want an effective Habeas to be made and filed, contact me at 714-864-8699. John
Anonymous Location unknown
Posted: 10:46 pm [PST] on June 22 2009
Israel Weinstock went to his grave from the same sort of circumstance in NY
and
Mark Adams Esquire suffers the same in Florida
We must rise up and take back our country from the tyrants
Laser Haas Anywhere USA
Posted: 10:43 pm [PST] on June 22 2009
http://www.petters-fraud.com/DOJ_Cover_UP.html
The US Supreme Ct decision of Massey stipulates that Richard Fine is right.
The State Bar is nothing more than the strong arm of sophisticated unconstitutional behavior.
Impeach the Judge and Free Richard Fine!!!!
Laser Haas Anywhere USA
Posted: 10:35 pm [PST] on June 22 2009
In order to halt tyranny & corruption Americans must UNITE against the evil arms of such anarchy.
The recent decision in the US Supreme Court supports the contentions by Richard Fine.
Woe is the day when "their" inference that the Law does not apply "here" is accepted.
There are many more of us than they!
joebanana So. Cal
Posted: 09:58 pm [PST] on June 17 2009
I just read that the US Supreme court in Washington refused to docket the petition about getting the DOJ and FBI to do their job and investigate this criminal activity. America has become a scary place to live. I'm 20 miles from the epicenter of this sick, pus filled tumor of judicial wretchedness, and have seen, firsthand, the wheels of corruption, in a blatantly one sided contest, churn out revenue, or human warehouse stock. Who is going to protect us from our own government?
Patricia Win Baltimore
Posted: 10:39 am [PST] on June 09 2009
WHAT is going on in the judicial system in the United States?
The fact that this can happen shows that something needs to be seriously looked at.