Full Disclosure Network® "the news behind the news"

This blog has moved

2010-04-22T20:55:00.001-07:00

This blog is now located at http://blog.fulldisclosure.net/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.fulldisclosure.net/feeds/posts/default.

Did Judge Yaffe Decide? or Did The Court Legal Counsel Decide? What to Do with Richard I. Fine Case: EXCLUSIVE VIDEO HERE: 28:30 minutes

2010-04-18T08:50:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA. The Full Disclosure Network® presents a special video report on the growing confusion within L.A. Superior Court on how to handle the indefinite solitary "coercive Confinement" of a prominent anti-trust prosecutor Richard I Fine. Faced with a "Demand For A Farr Hearing" Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffe sought legal counsel from the Court's attorney, while deliberating his decision. This according to Superior Court Clerk assigned to Yaffe's court room told Janette Isaacs who delivered and filed the legal papers in Yaffe's court room.

RICHARD FINE REACTS TO JUDGE’S LEGAL CONSULT
This Special Report provides an inside glimpse as to what is going on in the closed chambers of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Just imagine the legal questions Judge Yaffe must have to ask. Superior Court Counsel Frederick J. Bennettwas a former Deputy L A. County Counsel at the time the County started giving the illegal payments to the Judges in 1987 or 1988. Richard Fine shares his perspective as to what is going on behind the scenes at Superior Court.

ALSO FEATURING FREE RICHARD FINE VOLUNTEER
For the past thirteen months Richard Fine has depended upon volunteers to facilitate the many motions, writs and petitions that he has filed in the State and Federal Courts in order to win his freedom. Featured in this half-hour video report is Janette Isaacs, who is no stranger to the Courts. She has been a self taught para legal representing herself and others who have become victims of court malfeasance. She relates the court reaction when she filed Mr. Fine’s “Demand for A Farr Hearing in Judge Yaffe’s court room.

WATCH VIDEO HERE: 28:30 minutes

U S Supreme Court Sets Los Angeles Case On "Coercive Confinement" For Conference: Online Video Here

2010-04-11T22:42:00.000-07:00

April 23, 2010 Hearing Set On Richard I Fine "Coercive Confinement" Case

Washington, D.C A 70 year old Political Prisoner in Los Angeles is going to have his day in court, when the United States Supreme Court holds a conference hearing on the matter of Richard I. Fine vs L. A. County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca. Fine, an anti-trust attorney, submitted an application for a “Stay of Execution” even though he has never been charged with or convicted of a crime, yet has been held in solitary “coercive confinement” in the Los Angeles Central Men’s Jail for more than a year.

Representing himself, Fine has filed petitions, motions and writs in all the California and U. S. Courts, without success until now. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg found enough support among her colleagues to warrant serious consideration of Fine’s plea for a “Stay of Execution”. The Execution being the punishment inflicted by L. A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe for Fine having publicly exposed the corrupt practices of the Judges, the Sheriff and the County.

Full Disclosure Network® presents here six video segments (and preview) of the interview with Fine in L. A. Central Men’s Jail conducted on March 10, 2010 where he succinctly describes how he has become a political prisoner in the United States of America.

Six segments (8 min each) can be viewed from links below:

Segment #1 Fine describes from the outset of confinement he was denied his "due process" rights and his ability to file legal actions on his own behalf.

Segment #2 Judicial bribery over 20 years was remedied quietly by a 2009 California Senate Bill SBX2 11, providing retroactive criminal immunity from prosecution for Judges and government officials.

Segment #3 Penal "Coercive Confinement" presents a legal conflict for LA County with 70 year old Fine who develops health problems during incarceration.

Segment #4 Fine describes judicial bribery undermining the election process, how County officials use the budget process to transfer illegal money to the judges who do their bidding.

Segment #5 Fine describes his background as a Federal anti-trust prosecutor with the DOJ in Washington D.C., including threats and dangers encountered.

Segment #6 Fine describes sources and motives behind judicial bribery along with the destructive impact on American Democracy.

Who Is The Full Disclosure Network?

California Justice System On Brink of Collapse: Richard I Fine Video (4 min)

2010-04-04T09:07:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA Having filed a Federal Lawsuit against L.A. County Sheriff Leroy Baca and the Sheriff’s Department, represented by the Judicial Watch organization, Full Disclosure Network was finally allowed access to an “on camera” interview with L. A.’s Political Prisoner, Richard I. Fine who has never been convicted of a crime. He has been held in solitary “coercive confinement” in the Central Men’s Jail for more than a year, as punishment inflicted by L. A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe for exposing the corrupt practices of the Judges, the Sheriff and the County.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO OF JAIL-HOUSE INTERVIEW (4 MIN)

In a four minute video preview Full Disclosure Network presents excerpts from the one-hour jail-house interview with Richard Fine where he succinctly describes how the judges and government officials in California have brought the entire justice system to the brink of collapse.

ACCOMPLISHED ATTORNEY TAKES ON COURT CORRUPTION

Richard I. Fine, holds a PhD in international law and served as an anti-trust prosecutor at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. offers a simple solution to rid the state of the corruption perpetrators in the Full Dislosure preview and interview. He points to those who have participated in the massive judicial bribery scheme that has prevent the people from getting justice.

JUDGES ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS

Fine cites the tremendous cost to the California taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars over the last two decades where judges have been paid under the table, while standing for election to their offices every six years. And he warns that America who fought for independence from the King of England has now returned to a country without a functioning justice system and how it has undermined the essence of the democratic process.

NOT TO BE SHOWN IN LOS ANGELES
The one hour interview is being featured on community cable stations throughout California, and in major cities throughout the country, on the Internet and copies on DVD are available for purchase at the top of this web page. Ironically, because the City of Los Angeles has shut down all the public cable channels, this interview will not be shown on television in Los Angeles.

California, U.S. Courts Torturing L. A. Political Prisoner......Video (4.27 min)

2010-03-27T15:05:00.001-07:00

Larry John, discusses the UN "Torture" complaint

filed with on behalf of Richard I Fine, Ph.D. with FDN

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network®presents a four minute video preview of an hour-long interview with Lawrence John, II a decorated former military and civilian police officer who filed a Human Rights Commission complaint with the United Nations on behalf of political prisoner Richard I. Fine who has been held in the L.A. Central Men’s jail for over a year in solitary “Coercive Confinement” for civil contempt of court.

DEMAND FOR A HEARING
The complaint filed was made public by Richard I. Fine on March 25, 2001 in his Superior Court “Demand for an Immediate ‘Farr Hearing’” that includes the U. N. Complaint, a declaration by Fine describing how the California and United States Courts have intentionally violated Court Rules, legal ethics and his basic civil and human rights.

TORTURE EXPOSED
In the interview Mr. Johns describes the “Torture” and conditions under which Dr. Fine has be forced to live for over a year. He was jailed on March 4, 2009, without being convicted of crime, without a hearing date, release date. When Dr. Fine’s upper dental place broke on Jan. 5, 2010 his ability to eat was severely impaired. L.A. County Sheriff’s Department refused to respond for almost two months, claiming they could not repair it and would not replace it. Only after Dr. Fine filed numerous “ inmate complaints” received media attention did the Sheriff's Department act to fix the dental plate.

The complete two-part interview is to be featured on public cable channels in major cities across the country and on the Internet. DVDs are available from this website here.

RON KAYE REFLECTS ON THE RICHARD I. FINE CASE: Where Has Los Angeles Politics and Justice Gone Wrong?

2010-03-22T21:18:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA Full Disclosure Network® presents a unique television interview with Ron Kaye, former Los Angeles Daily News Editor (1984-2008) as a part of an on-going cable TV series covering the criminal persecution of attorney Richard I. Fine who has been in solitary “coercive confinement” in the Los Angeles County since March 4, 2009.

Full Disclosure Network’s® nine minute video preview of the one hour interview with Ron Kaye is featured here. The complete interview is to be released soon on cable TV stations in major cities across the nation, and online. In this interview Ron Kaye shares his observations regarding the treatment of Richard Fine and the political circumstances in City and County of Los Angeles that have fostered abuse of the justice system and individual civil rights.

A veteran newsman and long time editor Ron Kaye has become a community activist and organizer, helping to found the Saving LA Project. He also writes on Los Angeles issues on his own Blog http://www.RonKayeLA.com/. He is a frequent speaker at community groups on the need to get informed and involved in the effort to make L A a city of great schools and neighborhoods, a city with a healthy business climate and good jobs, a city where the people are respected and have a seat at the table of power. His website http://www.OurLa.org/ is a clearinghouse for community activist journalists to share information and promote government accountability.

DVDS OF RON KAYE SERIES AVAILABLE HERE

FULL DISCLOSURE FINDS OUT WHY SHERIFF BACA OK’d INMATE INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD FINE

2010-03-19T05:30:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA. Learn the real reasons why L.A. County Sheriff Leroy Baca granted an inmate interview on March 10, 2010 with attorney Richard I Fine who has been held in L.A. Central Men’s Jail for over a year in solitary “coercive confinement” for civil contempt of court. Having never been convicted of a crime, with no release date, no hearing date and no bail, Full Disclosure was determined to get an in person interview, in the jail to learn how he was doing.

Full Disclosure Network® had been denied access to interview the 70 year old Mr. Fine many times over the past year, but suddenly, the Sheriff changed his mind. Watch this 7min video news report to find out why.

Featured in this video Full Disclosure’s Leslie Duttonand Senior Media Advisor to Sheriff Baca, Steve Whitmore as he explains the concerns, hazards and dangers posed to reporters who want access for interviews with inmates being held in the jail.

The full one-hour interview with Richard I. Fine is to be release soon to cable channels and on the internet. Fine will describe the year in solitary confinement and how he has been treated and the problems and challenges encountered.

Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine Reveals Cause of Court Corruption............ Interview Excerpt (2 min)

2010-03-13T10:27:00.000-08:00

Leslie Dutton & Richard I. Fine L.A. County Jail March 10, 2010

CLICK ON AUDIO PLAYER TO HEAR EXCERPT (2 min)

Los Angeles, CA. Was it just a coincidence that L. A. County never lost a case decided by a judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court over the last two decades? According to prominent anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine, all but two cases, decided by judges where the County was a litigant in the case, were ruled in favor of the County. He cites this fact was reported on the County Counsel's own website in the anual litigation reports. When Fine discovered the judges were receiving huge sums of money from the county illegally over the past two decades he understood what was happening. He raised the issue in the court room asking Judge David Yaffe to disqualify himself from hearing the case. Fine was held in civil contempt of the Court and ordered held in jail in solitary "coercive confinement" on March 4, 2009 and has been there ever since.

AUDIO PREVIEW: RICHARD FINE ON "CAUSE OF CORRUPTION"
The Full Disclosure Network® presents a 2 minute audio clip from our jail interview with inmate Richard I. Fine where is pinpoints the source of corruption in L. A. County Courts. The entire one-hour is to be released to cable stations throughout California and in major cities across the country in April.

FEDERAL LAWSUIT PROMPTED SHERIFF TO OK INTERVIEW ?
On March 11, 2010 County Sheriff Leroy Baca reversed his long standing opposition to an interview with judicial corruption fighter Richard I Fine who has been held in L.A. County Central Men’s Jail for over a year, without a conviction, a jury trial, a release date or even a hearing date. Baca’s decision to let Full Disclosure Network® Producers Leslie Dutton and T. J. Johnston video record a one-hour interview with Fine in the jail came almost two months after Sterling Norris of the Judicial Watch, the public interest legal organization filed a lawsuit in the U.S. California Central District. The complaint requested declaratory relief asking the court to hold the Sheriff’s policy regarding media requests for inmate interviews unlawful on the basis of violations of First Amendment Rights of the Press.

RADIO, TV NEWS ASSN. ENDORSED LAWSUIT
Within days of filing the lawsuit on behalf of the Full Disclosure Network® the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles based Radio Television News Association (RTNA) passed a resolution supporting the litigation challenging the Sheriff's exclusionary policy.

RELATED LINKS TO VIDEO AND BACKGROUND:

Sheriff Denies Full Disclosure Media Access Video (7 min)

Dutton vs Baca U S California Central District Court Case 10-cv-0595

Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee Syndicated Column On Politics of Fine Case 3-11-10

Early Prisoner Releases, County Audit Expose L A County Incapable In Public Safety Crisis?

2010-03-06T10:41:00.000-08:00

L A County Sheriff Leroy Baca..."I left it up to my Chiefs to decide"

Los Angeles, CA In an Audit of the County Sheriff's Department dated December 2009, L.A. County Auditor-Controller Wendy L. Watanabe's office found that 348 Sheriff deputies worked more than 900 hours of overtime between March 2007 and February 2008. This would equal an extra six months of full-time work. Sheriff Baca's management style has come under scrutiny for excessive overtime and 60 bonus payments that were unsubstantiated. The audit found that over the last five years, the department had exceeded its overtime budget by an average of 104 percent for each year.

WHO IS IN CHARGE?
On Thursday March 5, 2010 the L.A. Times reported that out of the anticipated 1,100 L A County Jail inmates to be released, 200 had been early released that week and "Baca said he had not been informed about the releases" and "I left it up to my Chiefs to decide" and as reported that Baca said his staff moved forward without consulting him. According to Alexander Kim, LASD Chief of the division in charge of releases "his staff had been discussing the possibility of early releases for some time and had decided to move forward without consulting Baca."

OVERTIME & BONUS COSTS vs RELEASING INMATES.
So in response to the acellerating pressure of the fiscal crisis, The Sheriff'f staff released 200 inmates with 900 more to go soon, all serving only 50% of their sentences, to help with the budget Those released had been serving time for such offenses as forgery, petty theft, identity theft, drunk driving and drug and substance abuse related crimes. In an interview on Public Radio Baca declined to speculate on whether the early release of convicted criminals would increase crime.“I don’t know if I can fully answer whether it will or not," Baca said. "I don’t think it will. Watch 7 min video debate on Early Releases featuring high ranking L A Sheriff's Officials.

CRISIS IN LOS ANGELES? NOT PREPARED FOR 8000 PLUS CONVICTS
L A County Probation Commissioner Gabriella Holt who also serves on the Los Angeles Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee provided the following reaction to this week's developments. "The compound effect of the state's early release of un-supervised criminal offenders with the additionally released county prisoners, places an additional 200 non violent offenders on Los Angeles County streets swelling the early released criminal population to nearly 8000 countywide with another 900 to be released soon. The impact to pubic safety at this time is unknown. Add in the downsizing of sheriff's on patrol and decrease in overtime, Los Angelenos will be inordinately vulnerable to increased crime and be placed in public safety peril of unknown magnitude.

"Citizens need to be aware of this increased potential for crime and take extra measures, and precautions, to protect themselves, their families, their homes and their businesses." According to Commissioner Holt, there was no notice or preparation to the county prior to release of the 200 L.A. County Jail inmates this week."

WARNING: CRIME TO INCREASE WITH REPEAT OFFENDERS
Steve Ipsen, President of the L.A. County Deputy District Attorney's Association told Full Disclosure that "Early Inmate Release goes completely against the ruling of the voters in California when they approved a Constitutional Amendment enacted in 2008 . Known as Marcy's Law , it prohibits early releases to protect the public and to deter criminal behavior. Early releases create more expense not less, when considering the cost for law enforcement, jails, courts and police who are faced with repeat offenders and who must be re-processed," He pointed out that "The County Board of Supervisors funds the county jail system as a constitutional right to victims to make certain that early releases do not occur. (Article1 Section 28)," he said." Watch 8 min Video on Politics & Prisoner Releases featuring Steve Ipsen.

EARLY RELEASES TO SAVE $26 MILLION
According to Steve Whitmore, Media Advisor to Sheriff Leroy Baca the Department expects to save approximately $26 million dollars by early releasing some 1,100 convicted criminals. He says "the figure is based on the assumption that each of them who are housed in the North Facility, L. A. County jail dormitories are costing approximately $82 each per day".

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS CRY FOUL AT SHERIFF'S PLAN
In reaction, Ipsen said "What the citizens of L A County know well is that the cost and the damage these criminals will do is far more than $82 per day and the cost to the justice system is far greater to the Police Department and the Court system to gain a conviction only to face early releases again. This is the beginning of the catch and release process that encourages criminals to commit crimes because there is no punishment."

POLITICAL PRISONER FINE & HIPOCRISY OF EARLY RELEASE POLICY

When Full Disclosure asked Steve Whitmore how much it was costing the Department to hold 70 yr old attorney Richard I. Fine in solitary "Coercive Confinement for civil contempt of court for this past year, 368 days, his response was that we should use the same figure to compute the total cost. $82 per day for 365 days equals $30,000. But the prisoners being released were staying in dormitories, not a solitary cell, so this could be easily be disputed.

Even though Fine has never been convicted of a crime, nor had a jury trial, he is always accompanied to the showers to the visitors area and to the infirmary, everywhere, by Sheriff's personnel at all times. and this costs the County money. Being a senior citizen, he has experienced health problems visiting the jail infirmary and dental clinics numerous times during the year. He has been treated for swelling in the legs and feet, infections, skin rash and "jail house" fungus, high blood pressure, tooth abscesses and upper denture replacement. If and when Fine is finally released, cost to the county could possibly match the entire savings gained by early release of the 1,100 convicted inmates.

AT GREAT COST TO COUNTY SHERIFF BACA CONTINUES TO HOLD RICHARD FINE
Could it be that Sheriff Baca has overlooked the need for "Risk Management". Mr. Fine has continually raised the issue in his complaints to the Sheriff and the courts that he is being held unlawfully by the Sheriff. The Sheriff has refused to respond to Mr. Fine's Writ of Habeas Corpus even though the U. S. District Court ordered him to do so as the Respondent. T

U S SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT IN WILLIAM FARR (L.A.Times Case)
In light of the U.S Supreme Court precedent (In Re Farr, 1974) that held no person should be held in "coercive confinement" for civil contempt of court more than five days and Fine is now starting into his second year. The only reason Mr. Fine is in the County jail is that he attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe for having taking illegal payments from the L A County who was a party to the case involved. This has to be and should be a concern for the Sheriff, there is a likelihood for extensive litigation once Mr. Fine is free. The Sheriff and the County will have to explain why they ignored the U.S. Supreme Court precedent cases and have held him for more than a year without a conviction.

Sheriff & Judge Holding Richard I. Fine, Now One Year In Solitary "Coercive Confinement (Video 7 minutes)

2010-03-01T08:13:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles, CA. On March 4, 2010 it will be one year in the L.A. County Jail for Richard I. Fine, who accused Superior Court Judge David Yaffe of corruption for taking illegal payments from the L.A. County in a case involving the County of Los Angeles. The ACLU has been called in to prevent inmate abuse by the L. A. County Jailers who are holding Fine in solitary “Coercive Confinement” in Central Men’s jail for contempt of court by order of Superior Court Judge Yaffe. Watch this seven minute video interview

Having never been convicted of a crime, Richard I. Fine is a 70 year old anti-trust attorney, who holds a Ph.D in International Law, who has been held without a trial and without bail and no hearing or release date. These circumstances are in violation of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, In Re Farr (1974), where the five day limit on holding a person in “coercive confinement” for civil contempt of court cases must apply.

The ACLU had previously informed Mr. Fine’s family and Full Disclosure that they were unable to assist him. But when his upper dental plate broke on January 5, 2010 he complained to his jailers that he could not eat without them, he realized he desperately needed their help.

Full Disclosure called Actor Ed Asner, long known as a humanitarian and who was recently honored by the ACLU for his devotion to preserving Civil Liberties. Mr. Asner unhesitatingly offered to call Ramona Ripston executive director of the ACLU and wife of prominent Ninth Circuit Court Judge Steven Reinhardt, to request help for Mr. Fine. For years the ACLU has served as court appointed monitor for the L. A. County jails to prevent inmate abuse and assure attention to inmate health care complaints.

Watch this 7 minute video news update report featuring:

· Mary Tiedeman ACLU Jail Project Coordinator
· Peter Eliasberg ACLU Managing Attorney
· Richard I. Fine by collect telephone call from his jail cell

L A Sheriff Denies Full Disclosure Interview of Richard Fine

Inmate Complaint Claims Sheriff Guilty of Unlawful Imprisonment

Prisoner Release Threatens Public Safety? Video 7 Minutes

2010-02-28T10:13:00.000-08:00

STEVE IPSEN, President Association of Deputy D.A.'s

Speaks Out On Prisoner Releases

Full Disclosure Network® presents a 7 min video news blog describing the dangerous threat to public safety posed by the release of 40,000 prisoners from in California. Prompted by the current fiscal crisis and Federal Court mandates some counties have started releasing prisoners early resulting in new crimes and escalating the debate over public safety and the danger of early releases.

Appearing in this video is the President Steve Ipsen of the L.A. Deputy District Attorney’s Association, who describes the felony crimes committed by those to be released early and explains why the early release of prison inmates will only generate more crime and threaten the public’s safety.

Ipsen is urging Governor Schwarzenegger to prioritize his budget cuts and to make public safety at the number one priority.

Other Related Videos On The Subject:

Who Planned The Massive Early Release Of Prisoners & Gangs? (8 min)
Jail Crisis, Judges & The ACLU (7 min)
Exclusive Jail Riot Video (6 min)
Are Jails Supposed to Be Punishment? (8 min)

Russian Journalists Hear How Los Angeles Media Reports The News

2010-02-10T13:21:00.000-08:00

FDN Host Leslie Dutton 3rd from Left Meets Russian Journalists

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® (FDN) met with a group of six Russian journalists who were invited to the United States under the auspices of the Department of State's International Visitor Leadership Program.

MEETING DISCUSSED LOCAL & REGIONAL TV
During the two hour meeting that was video recorded in the conference room of the International Visitors Council of Los Angeles, Producer/Host Leslie Dutton related to the journalists about why FDN is known as "the news behind the news" because the regular news media often does not cover in-depth, many important issues such as government corruption, police policies, public finance and education. That is why the independent and alternative news gathering organizations such as FDN are gaining more followers and popularity on the public cable channels and on the Internet.

JAILED ATTORNEY RICHARD I. FINE

As an example, the Russians learned about the plight of prominent Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I Fine, who has been held in L.A. County Central Mens Jail for almost one year in solitary, "coercive confinement" for contempt of court. A description of the FDN programs on Richard I Fine such as this video, was included in the presentation by Leslie Dutton. Some of the questions asked by the Russians about the Richard Fine case were: "Why isn't the big media covering this case?" "Is it possible that Richard Fine is in jail as a protester, so he can eventually run for President?"

TRAFFIC COP CORRUPTION IN ST. PETERSBURG?

Full Disclosure Network® also asked the Russians questions about government interference with the news media in their homeland. Several of the journalist cited the corruption of traffic cops in the City of St. Petersburg and how the police had disrupted their filiming of a traffic accident, fearing that the journalists were trying to catch them taking bribes.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT PROGRAM

The theme of the State Department International Visitors program was entitled TELLING YOUR STORY: REGIONAL TV NEWS. The program objectives were to acquaint the visiting journalists with local and regional news media, to explore the role of editors and journalists in developing "news stories" and review local and regional newsgathering connected to issues of global importance.

Accompanied by two State Department interpeters, here are the names of the Russian Journalists:

Ms. Valeria Anatolievna Karpova:

Deputy Chief Editor, Information Programs,

Directorate, Novgorod Oblast Television, Veliky Novgorod

Ms. Larisa Vladislavovna Kovlishenko:

Chief Editor Arkangelsk Television Company

Mr. Vitaly Yevgenyevich Lukashov:

Television journalist and program host, St. Petersburg Television

and Radio Company TV5
Ms. Elena Yuriyevna Ponomareva:

Coordinating Editor, Information Directorate, Media Center
Ms. Ekaterina Vladimirovna Pravdina:

Correspondent, Information Service St. Petersburg Bureau, NTV
Mr. Mikhail Yuryevich Velikoselskiy:

director, City Broadcasting directorate, TV5 St. Petersburg

CAN AMERICA RECOVER?...THE TRUTH ABOUT THE STIMULUS PLAN

2010-02-10T06:25:00.000-08:00

Washington D.C. The Full Disclosure Network® is releasing a Special Three-part Series featuring H. Andrew Thornburg, Thornburg & Company a corporate turn-around Executive who reveals the truth on the nation’s stimulus plan and whether America can recover. Here is a seven minute video preview of this interview with Thornburg who has an extensive background in Corporate and International finance, Industrial development projects and is a guest lecturer on entrepreneurship at the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business.

Among the issues discussed are:

Job creation
Energy crisis
Cap & Trade
General Motors Bankruptcy
Mortgage Crisis
Union Labor Leadership
Impact of Health Care Reform
Leveraged Buy-outs
Stripping Interest From Principle
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
Other related videos on the fiscal crisis:
B. Scott Minerd Guggenheim Partners Discusses American Fiscal Crisis
California Bankruptcy
The Ticking Time Bomb: Public Pensions & Bonds

Judge David Yaffe Served With Demand for Immediate Release Of Richard Fine

2010-01-30T11:47:00.000-08:00

FULL TEXT AND POINTS & AUTHORITIES

Demand For Immediate Release From LA County Jail, And Other Relief

Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”) hereby demands immediate release from the Los Angeles County Jail and other relief as set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Grounds for demand are:

1. From the outset, Judge Yaffe knew that “coercive incarceration” would not “coerce” Fine into answering questions about his assets because:

A. The issue in the case was whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself, and had no relevance or relationship to Fine’s assets, and

B. Fine informed Judge Yaffe in open court that Judge Yaffe had violated the law by taking payments from LA County, that he could not preside over the case and that Fine would answer the questions only if he lost all appeals on the issue.

2. Under the case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), once it was established that there was no substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, the commitment would become punitive in nature and thus subject to the statutory limitation. Cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976).

3. Judge Yaffe knew from the outset of March 4, 2009 that his confinement of Fine violated the Farr case, was penal and unlawful.

4. Judge Yaffe knew that the LA County payments to him violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, were criminal (including misappropriation of funds, destruction of justice and bribes), and required him to recuse himself in the Marina Strand case at the outset under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

5. Judge Yaffe also knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics also required him to recuse himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case even if the LA County payments were not criminal.

6. Judge Yaffe further knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution required him to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings because he was judging his own actions of receiving payments from LA County and making orders in the County’s favor. The demand is based upon the aforementioned grounds and other reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto.

Dated this 27th day of January, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

BY: RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW .............

DO YOU THINK JUDGE YAFFE SHOULD RELEASE DR. FINE ?

L.A. Sheriff Baca Sued By Full Disclosure Network® Over Media Manipulation

2010-01-28T15:00:00.000-08:00

Leslie Dutton vs. L.A County Sheriff Leroy Baca

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® is seeking a Federal Court Order to declare as unlawful the actions of L.A. County Sheriff Leroy Baca and the County Sheriff’s Department. They are denying freedom of the press and free speech rights by refusing access to an inmate interview with judicial critic Richard I Fine who is being held in L. A. County Central Men’s jail for contempt of court since March 4, 2009.

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS SOUGHT:

A complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by Sterling Norris, of the Judicial Watch organization on Wednesday, January 27, 2010. The case, Dutton vs. Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca (CV10 0595) includes a demand for jury trial. Here is a copy of the Complaint or it is available at this URL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26004386

INTERVIEW WITH FULL DISCLOSURE®. NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN

According to the complaint, Emmy Award winning producer/host Leslie Dutton of the Full Disclosure Network submitted numerous requests to the L.A. County Sheriff’s Headquarters to arrange an on-camera interview with inmate Richard I. Fine, as part the on-going cable television series entitled “Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption”.

SHERIFF BACA FAVORS COMPLIANT MEDIA?

The complaint reveals that the Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Baca did allow L.A. Times reporter Victoria Kim to interview Mr. Fine at the jail on May 22, 2009, which resulted in an article published in the Los Angeles Times on June 7, 2009. Additionally, ABC’s Nightline producer Terri Whitcraft was allowed to bring cameras for videotaping an inmate interview with another inmate (other than Mr. Fine) located in the L.A. Central Men’s jail in September 2009.

SHERIFF BACA BLOCKING INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC:

It is claimed that the refusal of Defendants L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and Baca to allow Dutton to interview Mr. Fine at the L.A. Central Men’s jail “is harming the ability of Dutton (Full Disclosure) to obtain and disseminate information to the public about Mr. Fine’s various legal claims, his continuing, indefinite confinement; his physical condition, and the conditions of his confinement.”

RELATED VIDEOS & LINKS:

Preview (6 Min) Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption

Sheriff Denies Full Disclosure (4:39 Min)

Backgrounder: What is the Full Disclosure Network?

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS

REGARDING GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION OF MEDIA COVERAGE

Ed Asner Requests Update On Richard I. Fine's Condition In L A Central Men's Jail

2010-01-23T11:12:00.000-08:00

EDWARD ASNER'S HUMANITARIAN APPEAL FOR INMATE FINE

Los Angeles, CA After reading the latest reports from Full Disclosure Network® actor Ed Asner has requested updates on the condition of Richard I Fine Prisoner ID #1824367 in the L. A. County Central Men's Jail. For the past two weeks Mr. Fine has complained of the broken dental plate that has prevented him from being able to chew his food. The condition was reported to the jail's medical infirmary and two complaints and an appeal were filed by Mr. Fine to no avail.

HELD IN SOLITARY "COERCIVE CONFINEMENT"

Richard I. Fine has been held in L.A. County jail since March 4, 2009 in solitary "Coercive Confinement" for contempt of court following his challenge of Judge David Yaffe for having accepted illegal payments from L A. County who was involved in the case Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of L.A. In spite of U S Supreme Court precedent In Re Farr holding that persons cannot be held in "coercive confinement" for more that five days in contempt of court cases, Mr. Fine remains in jail for almost eleven months.

ACLU MONITORING COUNTY JAILS

Apparently County jail operations are now more concerned with who will pay for the dental repairs than they are with fixing the problem. When Ed Asner learned of the situtation, he called on the ACLU to look into this matter and asked Full Disclosure to keep him updated from our side of the story. As a result of court cases, and an agreement with L. A. County, the ACLU has been monitoring the L. A. County Jails to prevent inmate abuse and assure proper medical attention to the inmates. Ed Asner was assured by Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU, that they would look into the matter.

FULL DISCLOSURE'S UPDATE FOR ED ASNER (1-23-10):
Dear Ed:

I got a call at 10 p.m last night, at home, from a Lieutenant at the L A County Central Men's Jail, as he promised to update us on Mr. Fine. He told me the following:

1) Mr. Fine is able to eat even with a broken dental plate, contradicting Mr. Fine.
2) The jail Medical clinic cannot fix the dental plate
3) Mr. Fine will have to pay to have it fixed.
4) No plans have been yet scheduled to deal with this problem.

And, there appears to be no sense of urgency on the part of the Sheriff's Department to do anything to accommodate the dental problem, as it has now been over two weeks since the dental plate broke and was first reported.

There is a belief that Mr. Fine and or his supporters could raise the money to fix the dental plate. As I mentioned, I have talked with Executive Assistant to the Sheriff, Commander Jim Lopez, a Lieutenant and Watch Commander's Deputy in Men's Central Jail about this and the telephone problem over the last two days.

Last night (Fri 1-22-10) I got two voice mail messages from Commander Lopez at 7:48 p.m. and 8:16 p.m. he said that he talked to the Sergeants involved in oversight and they have solved one problem, but gave no specifics, and that they still have not resolved the dental problem and that he will be back to me on Monday.

I will continue to notify you if I hear from Mr. Fine and or the Sheriff's Department and hope to hear from you or Ramona of any developments from your end.

Thank you and the ACLU for your interest and concern. It is greatly appreciated by all who are watching this sorry saga play out. I hope that the clerical problems with the Ninth Circuit will be addessed as well, as Mr. Fine filed a petition weeks ago for an En Banc hearing before the full Court to appeal the Court's decision to deny his petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. I will be at my office this afternoon at 310-822-4449 and checking my messages frequently.

Best regards,

Leslie Dutton

Producer

Full Disclosure Network®.

Inmate Complaint Against Sheriff For Unlawful Imprisonment of Richard Fine

2010-01-10T10:05:00.000-08:00

IS SHERIFF LEROY BACA GUILTY OF
UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT?

INMATE COMPLAINT:

Filed: January 6, 2009 4:45 p.m. (Hand written)

By Richard I Fine

Inmate ID # 1824367

L. A. County Central Men's Jail

DEMAND FOR RELEASE DUE TO UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT

I have the following complaint: Sheriff is holding me illegally the remand order does not show a bail amount. It shows “no bail”. It does not show an “appearance date” which is required. It shows a charge of CCP Section 1219 (a) which is contempt of court. Under CCP Section 1218, the penalty for contempt of court is five days. Today is my 309 day. The judgment and order of contempt attached to the remand order, at page 14, lines 3-6, orders Fine “sentenced to confinement in the county jail until he provides all information that he has been ordered to provide..”. Such sentence is “punitive” and not “coercive” as the information sought is about Fine’s assets. It does not relate to the issue of the case which was “whether JudgeYaffe should have recused himself?”. As such Fine could not be remanded, or if remanded, only for five days. See In Re Farr 36 CAL. App. 3rd 577, 584 (1974) – no substantial likelihood contempt order would serve its coercive purpose cited In Re William T Farr 64 CAL App. 3rd 605, 611, (1976).

Richard I. Fine

The above complaint was hand written by Richard I Fine in solitary "coercive confinement" where he has been held for the past eleven months for contempt of court. Fine gave the complaint to the on-duty Sheriff's Sergeant at L. A. County Central Men's Jail on January 6, 2009. He had been taken into custody by the Sheriff at the order of Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, on March 4, 2009 after he attempted to disqualify the Judge for having taken illegal payments from from L A County a party to the case,(Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles.) Yaffe refused.

SHERIFF IGNORES COURT ORDER, COURTS IGNORE DUE PROCESS
In this eleven month saga, Richard Fine's petitions for immediate release and Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Sheriff was ordered to show cause why Richard Fine was being held and the Sheriff asked to be dismissed from the case as Respondent, referring the Court to the Superior Court or Judge Yaffe. The Writ of Habeas Corpus was denied by the U. S. District Court, an unsigned Order by clerk of the Ninth Circuit and most recently a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the Respondent Sheriff Leroy Baca request to be removed as Respondent was dismissed as "moot" by Judge John F. Walter. It would appear that the Federal Court Judges, like the State Courts of California, have set a course of action to hold Richard I. Fine in jail, indefinitely. Since Fine has not been convicted of a crime and is refusing to obey what he maintains is an illegal court order, on moral grounds, only the Sheriff or the U S Supreme Court may provide a resolution.

CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS, JAIL MONITORS & COUNTY MONITORS FAIL TO ACT
Ironically, the County of Los Angeles is paying millions of dollars to civil rights organizations and professional police monitoring organizations to act as watchdogs to prevent abuse and liability to the County taxpayers. However, L A County Sheriff is caught in the cross hairs of a dilemma, does he release Richard I Fine and risk the ire of the Judicial system, or does he continue to hold Richard I Fine in solitary "coervice confinement" at great financial cost and risk to his budget and the county. Watch in this 5 minute video entitled "Who's Monitoring the Police Monitors?" the role of the ACLU, Merrick Bobb of the PARC (Police Assessment & Resource Center) and the LASD Office of Independent Review that operates within the Office of Internal Affairs. All are charged with monitoring policies of the Sheriff's Department to reduce the risk of liability of the County due to inmate abuse. The ACLU rejected a request for legal assistance for help from Mr. Fine and has been silent along with Merrick Bobb of the PARC (Police Assessment Resources Center) and the L A Sheriff's Office of Independent Review is "looking into the matter" according the Chief Attorney Michael Gennaco. All three agencies are funded by County taxpayers on to investigate inmate complaints.

SHERIFF HOLDS THE KEY TO RICHARD FINE'S FREEDOM?

The relationship between the L.A. County Sheriff's Department and county funded jail/monitoring organizations was explored by Full Disclosure Network in this five minute video produced for cable television. Federal lawsuits have mandated oversight, as the ACLU's 1975 U S Supreme Court decision in Rutherford vs Block (Sheriff LA County) and most recently as August 2009 where the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU National Prison Project reopened the case to review based upon complaints from inmates.

PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS:

Why do you think the Sheriff is keeping Richard Fine locked up in solitary confinement when he has not been convicted of a crime?

California State Bar Persecution of Attorney Richard I. Fine (Video 9 min)

2010-01-02T08:23:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles, CA As a part of an on-going cable TV series entitled “Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption", the Full Disclosure Network® is releasing an exclusive (9 min) video preview of Part 6 and 7 featuring Daniel Henry Gottlieb, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics with Purdue University for 40 years. As a disgruntled homeowner Gottlieb set out to investigate what caused the attorney for his Homeowners Association, Richard I. Fine, to be removed from their case against Los Angeles County and a neighboring development, the Del Rey Shores complex.
STATE BAR ACTS TO DERAIL LITIGATION AGAINST COUNTY?
In this interview conducted by Full Disclosure®’s Leslie Dutton, Gottlieb describes the circumstances that took place when State Bar Association disbarment proceedings against their attorney began just two weeks after the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association hired him to take over their case. Was it a coincidence that both the President and President Elect of the State Bar Association were attorneys for the developer and the county who had a lot at stake? Gottlieb explains the details.
AUDIO TAPES REVEAL SHENANIGANS AT STATE BAR COURT
Professor Gottlieb tells Full Disclosure what he learned after extensive review of the State Bar audio tapes of the hearings. He describes unorthodox procedures and rules of evidence and as a lay person was astounded by the manipulations of the charges and the verdicts that appeared necessary to accommodate what appeared to be a predetermined outcome…..the disbarment of Richard I. Fine.
STATE BAR ACCUSED OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT:
Following the release of this two-part interview with Professor Gottlieb, Full Disclosure has learned that a complaint was filed in U. S. District Court this week naming the State Bar of California, the Board of Governors of the State Bar, Scott Drexel, Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar and The Supreme Court of California alleging perpetrating FRAUD upon the Court. The complaint filed by Richard I. Fine is asking the U. S. Court to void and annul the California Supreme Court Disbarment Order and is Demanding a Jury Trial.
CONTEMPT CHARGES LEAD TO “COERCIVE CONFINEMENT”:
Richard I. Fine remains in L. A. County Central Men’s jail since March 4, 2009, held in contempt of court by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe who he attempted to disqualify for having received illegal payments from a party to the case (L .A. County) and failed to disclose to litigants in the case and on his Economic Disclosure Form 700.
DVDS AVAILABLE FOR ENTIRE SERIES LISTED HERE

A Christmas Plea For Jailed Attorney Fine To U.S.Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

2009-12-22T15:44:00.000-08:00

Fred Sottile
2691 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220
(310) 638-2825 FredSottile@sbcglobal.net Download PDF Copy of Letter

December 21, 2009

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
One First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543

RE: Petition for Stay of Execution of Sentence for “Coercive Confinement”
Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-56073; USDC Case Nos. CV-09-1914, CV-09-7943

Honorable Justice Kennedy:

Submitted simultaneously herewith to the Clerk was Petitioner Richard I. Fine’s Petition for Stay of Execution of Sentence for “Coercive Confinement”. A ten-month unlawfully incarcerated, pro per litigant, Dr. Fine requests release on righteously solid grounds in fervent hopes of spending the last month in his home before it’s lost forever to foreclosure as a consequence of his making a principled stand by not relenting on honoring his oath as an officer of the court.

I apologize for the length of this letter, but the courts below have used a convoluted and complicated situation to protect judges and others from the consequences of engaging in an illegal payment scheme for 20+ years with only ex post facto secret legislation for (temporary) cover. Caught in the middle is an innocent man literally battling corruption to the end.

Until earlier this year, Dr. Fine was an attorney with a very distinguished career as a taxpayers’ advocate, and one who successfully prosecuted many civil rights and class action matters over the years. He worked for the Justice Department. He founded the first Anti-Trust division in Los Angeles County. He has served as Special Consul General in Southern California for the Kingdom of Norway for more than the past ten years

Dr. Fine was disbarred to try and silence his exposure of the criminal payment scheme between Los Angeles Superior Court judges and members of the County Board of Supervisors[1] (and his exposure of a developer with very influential ties to consecutive presidents of the State Bar and who benefited from a sweetheart deal costing LA County taxpayers an estimated $700 million dollars in lost revenue as a result of these questionable relationships).

But as the judges and supervisors were informed early on by two opinions by the Attorney General, the payments to judges were (and remain) contrary to the California Constitution. Still, the payments continued uninterrupted. (Inasmuch as the County Charter sets the Supervisors’ salaries to match superior court judges’ salaries, there is little doubt that they have all been receiving the illegal payments as well.)

LA Superior Court judges have simultaneously been hearing cases in which LA County is a party, all the while failing to disclose to litigants that they are receiving, presently, over $57,000 per year from the County (with whom they have no employment agreement), and while the County enjoys a near-100% win/loss civil litigation success rate (according to the County’s litigation cost management reports).

One such judge, David P. Yaffe, jailed Dr. Fine for contempt rather than recuse himself from a case in which he has tremendous conflicts. Moreover, he allowed himself to be automatically disqualified under operation of law when he neglected to respond to a C.C.P. § 170.3 objection, but repeatedly refused to leave the case. He held a hearing that Dr. Fine was not informed of, then, in Dr. Fine’s absence, ordered him pay attorney’s fees of $47,000 to LA County. Dr. Fine was held in contempt and jailed after he challenged the void orders and refused to answer questions at a judgment debtor exam.

Judge Yaffe should have recused himself immediately after he was assigned Fine’s case, filed on behalf of homeowners and against LA County and the developer. He was paid $46,000 that year from LA County, a defendant in the case. Instead, he withheld that information from plaintiffs.

Judge Yaffe should have recused himself from trying the contempt matter against Dr. Fine because he was ineligible to determine the truth of his own testimony at trial.

These events all occurred well before the ex post facto law granting immunity, Senate Bill SBX2-11, was secretly passed. SBX2-11 has been cited by the courts below as protecting Judge Yaffe (and all the other judges), even though it has nothing to do with his obligation to recuse himself from hearing a case in which LA County was a party.

In Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, brought by Judicial Watch to challenge and stop the payments, the California Court of Appeals confirmed in its October 10, 2008 decision that the payments were not constitutional; the California Supreme Court denied review. It is safe to say that everyone involved in the giving and receiving of the payments grew fearful when they were exposed and challenged. But rather than honestly address the situation, the California Judicial Council (chaired by Ronald George, California Supreme Court Justice and former presiding judge in LA Superior Court in the late 1980s) drafted a bill authorizing the payments and granting retroactive immunity for criminal prosecution, civil liability and judicial discipline. (Despite repeated requests, there has been no explanation given for why the immunity paragraph of SBX2-11 was not codified.)

California’s judicial disciplinary body, the Commission on Judicial Performance, immediately requested an official opinion from the Attorney General concerning the effect of SBX2-11 on its obligation to discipline wayward judges. The request was quashed by the Attorney General and no opinion issued.

It has been almost ten month since Dr. Fine was placed in solitary “coercive” confinement by Judge Yaffe, at whose order Dr. Fine was denied even pencil and paper with which to fashion an appeal. He was denied access by the media. He was denied access to legal materials, and thus has written everything since filed from memory. He continues to be denied access to any legal assistance whatsoever because of the necessity of providing a financial declaration, the substance of which would result in the “void” order being obeyed, a Catch-22 for Dr. Fine.

Numerous documents have been improperly withheld from the public in the District Court’s and the Ninth Circuit’s online files. There are no orders that the documents be sealed, nor was there even ever any discussion about it, but the Courts steadfastly refuse to post these documents (all of which contain unflattering evidence). In some cases, documents were received but not “filed” until months later, when they could then be cast as “moot” in order to arrive at the court’s pre-determined conclusion.

Most egregiously, District Court Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle dismissed a case filed against them and others. “A man cannot be a judge in his own case,” but Judges Walter and Woehrle ignored this basic tenet.

In replying to Fine’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Yaffe referred to a non-existent “order” and engaged in other frauds on the court in defending his actions. Similar frauds were perpetuated on the California Supreme Court in connection with Dr. Fine’s disbarment. (Those acts are the subject of a pending motion to set aside.)

The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed (on December 16th) the District Court’s denial of Dr. Fine’s writ of habeas corpus, posturing that Judge Yaffe was protected by SBX2-11, even though it wasn’t in existence at the time, and wouldn’t be for another year. The court’s use of a crystal ball burst all boundaries of credulity.

Co-incidentally, the Judicial Council of California just last week issued a report[2] in which it recommended that judges who receive more than $1,500 in campaign donations from any party to a future case are automatically disqualified. $1,500 is too much influence, but $46,000 was not enough?

Given the absolute truth of the foregoing, Dr. Fine requests that execution of the sentence of “coercive confinement” be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal process. As he noted in his Petition, this relief has previously been granted under similar circumstances. And as argued to the courts below, the statutory 5-day maximum for criminal coercive contempt has long since expired.

Nor will Dr. Fine ever be coerced into violating his oath. His principled stand has cost him his home and his license, a devastating price to have paid to resist being made a part of the corruption rampant in LA County.

Ten Million Felonies.

Literally ten million felonies[3] were pardoned in February, about 1.6 million of them committed by superior court judges, when Senate Bill SBX2-11 was passed. It’s understandable that those involved are desperate to escape the consequences of their deeds, but it is unconscionable to hold an innocent person in jail while the charade proceeds.

I and the other members of Dr. Fine’s non-attorney volunteer support team collectively beseech you to grant Dr. Fine’s petition and order his release It will be far too late to save his home, but he ought not be denied from spending the last month in it, over the holidays, with his family. Ultimately, we hope to win the restoration of due process for all Californians. We are on the right track, as evidenced by the recent statement by Supervisor Michael Antonovich, a man previously found liable for calling a judge on behalf of constituents in attempt to influence the outcome of their case, when he announced that the payments would not be given to “new” judges.

Dr. Fine is almost 70 years old, and his health has deteriorated significantly as a direct result of his incarceration. He has contracted a staph infection, suffers from edema of the legs, back pain and now is being medicated for a high cholesterol count.

Please order Dr. Fine’s immediate release.

Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any questions or concerns. The bulk of the evidence and case history can be viewed online at http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home

Sincerely,

FRED SOTTILE
FS/mlm

Enclosures

cc: Dr. Richard I. Fine
Brian Shaughnessy, Esq.
Aaron Mitchell Fontana, Esq.
Paul B. Beach, Esq.
Kevin M. McCormick, Esq.

[1] Dr. Fine was disbarred for “moral turpitude” for filing civil rights lawsuits concerning certain judges and others’ involvement with the unconstitutional payments.
[2] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/commimpart.htm
[3] http://righttrumpsmight.blogspot.com/2009/12/aha.html

Ninth Circuit Covers Up Court Corruption With Unpublished Decision

2009-12-20T11:25:00.001-08:00

On Richard I Fine Contempt Case

Los Angeles, CA Following the announcement of an “unpublished” decision in a civil contempt of court case, a three Judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Reinhardt, Trott, Wardlaw) was described as having “succumbed to the cancer of corruption and the criminals in judicial robes.”

This statement from Richard I Fine is featured in a new 6 minute video news blog that provides audio clips from a telephone interview conducted by Leslie Dutton of the Full Disclosure Network®. Fine, a prominent Anti-Trust Attorney, has been held in solitary “coercive confinement” in the L.A. County Central Men’s jail for almost ten months, since March 4, 2009.

Fine was sentenced indefinitely, without bail, without a hearing date and without a release date by L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe following Fine’s attempt to disqualify the judge from sitting on a case where he had received illegal payments from L. A. County a party to the case, Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles.

Here are other points made by Richard I Fine in the Video News Report:

The panel has violated hundreds of years of established Judicial Precedent and the Supreme Court Precedent In Re Murchison where it was held that “no man can be a judge in is own case”

There is a 2007 FRAP 32.1 Rule established by Supreme court ruling and implemented by the Judicial Council that says a court may not prohibit or restrict citation of appellate court rulings.

“The Ninth Circuit Court has deterioriated to the level of the developing countries that are war torn, that the U.S. has been critical of..."

Ninth Circuit Court rulings have been overturned more than any other Court in the United States and that is why they have become known as the “Ninth Circus Court”.

Related links and Videos:

Read the entire interview transcript here

One pager About the Full Disclosure Network®

Six Minute preview of Court Corruption series

One pager with links to videos in the series.

Irate Citizens Hi-jack Legislative Hearing, Cite Corruption & Courts As Problem (Video 8 min)

2009-12-12T15:07:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles, CA A Joint Legislative Committee of California Senators and Assembly members held a hearing on December 8, 2009 at the Museum of Tolerance in West Los Angeles that was sparsely attended by the public. Without fanfare or any promotion to the public, the apparent purpose of the meeting was to videotape the Legislative leaders at this panel discussion to demonstrate they were attempting to resolve the State’s budget process that contributed to a dire fiscal disaster that now has California on the brink of insolvency. Other such hearings have been held across the state and the video of those discussions appear on the government website.

PUBLIC OUTRAGE AT THE COURTS & CORRUPTION VIDEO (8 min)

Full Disclosure Network® compiled an eight minute video revealing the essence of what happened and demonstrated the growing unrest among the citizens over Court Corruption in Los Angeles. Specifically, the citizens kept focusing on the jailed attorney Richard I Fine and the controversial State Senate Bill SBX2 11 that was approved by the Legislature during the budget session that gave retroactive immunity from criminal and civil prosecution to Judges, Courts, and government officials who had accepted and or given illegal public funds from the County to the Judges. Richard Fine was jailed on March 4, 2009 after he attempted to disqualify Judge Yaffe who had accepted the illegal payments from the County, he remains in L.A. County Jail.

LEGISLATORS & BUREAUCRATS DEBATE
Listed on the agenda as participants on the panels were the State Auditor, Controller, Inspector General, Treasurer’s Office and a few selected business representatives along with State Senators, who appeared shocked that the public was more concerned about government and court corruption than they were with the mundane discussion between the legislators and bureaucrats.

FEATURED IN THE VIDEO ARE:
Mike Feuer, State Assembly Chair of the Joint Legislative Committee
State Senators Dutton, Wyland, Saulnier and Pavley
Gabriella Holt, President of Citizens for California Government Reform
George Buzzetti, Community Activist
Daniel Gottlieb, Emeritus Professor Purdue University Mathematics Dept.
Rabbi Schifren, Candidate for State Senate
Steve Bardo, Center for Judicial Excellence
Jeanette Isaacs, Concerned Citizen and Victim of Court Corruption

RELATED VIDEOS ON CORRUPTION:

"Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption" Series w/Links

Jailed Norway Consul General Comments on U.S. Snub of King Harald Invitation

2009-12-10T08:37:00.001-08:00

RICHARD I. FINE, Consul General of Norway

Los Angeles, CA In an interview from his solitary confinement jail cell, Richard I Fine, the long time Consul General representing Norway, is raising questions as to why the U. S. President Barack Hussein Obama would deliberatetly snub the King of Norway on his trip to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, as reported in the Guardian news on Wednesday, November 9, 2009.

Fine told the Full Disclosure Network via a collect telephone call from his jail cell ....

"One must question why the President would refuse a luncheon invitation from the King, in view of the fact that King Harald (then Prince) of Norway once received refuge, living in the FDR White House, during World War II, while a young child."

Fine, who has practiced Anti-Trust law in the United States for over 40 years, has been held in held in solitary “coercive confinement” in L A County Central Men’s jail, since March 4, 2009, serving an indefinite sentence of contempt of court imposed by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe following an attempt to disqualify the judge for accepting illegal payments from a party involved in litigation before him.

As part of his campaign against California Court Corruption, Consul General Fine has filed complaints to expose court corruption in Los Angeles with California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder have been ignored.

Top U.S. Lawmen Ignore Complaints From Jailed Diplomat

RICHARD FINE GETS THE COLD TREATMENT FROM U.S.?

Apparently none of the law enforcement officials in the United States are interested why a man of Fine’s stature has been ignored at a time when the President of the United States is going to Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Award.

Related Links on Richard I. Fine and Court Corruption here

Is There A Shadow Ninth Circuit?........... Guest Editorial by Richard I Fine

2009-12-05T14:22:00.000-08:00

DEPUTY CLERKS ISSUING ORDERS "FOR THE COURT"

Los Angeles, CA Something very unusual has happened in the Writ of Habeas Corpus case of Fine vs Sheriff of L.A. County. Clerks are signing Court Orders “For The Court” instead of Judges.

CLERK DECIDING WHAT COURT WILL CONSIDER

On December 4, 2009 a Deputy Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the “Request for Judicial Notice” that the Court take notice of the fact that the entire Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals have recused itself in the second appeal in the case of the L A County payments to L A Superior Court Judges. This appeal seeks to hold the payments made under Senate Bill SBX2 11 unconstitutional. (Sturgeon vs. County of L.A)

ALL L.A. SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES RECUSED

The request should have been automatically granted, as the fact that all the L A Superior Court Judges have recused themselves in the Sturgeon case, was already before the Ninth Circuit through a document submitted by the L A Superior Court.

NINTH CIRCUIT PANEL UNAWARE OF ORDER?

The unusual part of the December 4, 2009 ORDER was that it was made by the Deputy Clerk “FOR THE COURT”. As of December 3, 2009, the identity of the “Panel” of judges deciding the case was publicly known. The panel is: Justices Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw. One has to question why their names were not on the ORDER.

WHO IS INTERFERING IN THIS CASE?

The more disturbing question is; “Whether someone else is interfering with the judicial process in this case and issued the ORDER.”

This second question is grounded in the history of the case. On November 12, 2009, the case was ordered submitted without oral argument by the then “unidentified panel” by order of the clerk “FOR THE COURT”.

On November 24, 2009, the clerk “FOR THE COURT” without reference to the “Panel” denied “Petitioners Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate to Immediately Enter Writ of Habeas Corpus or issue Order To Show Cause.”

The significance of this action was that such denial violated long established U S Supreme Court precedent that a man could not judge his own actions. (In re Murchison).

The underlying Writ of Habeas Corpus charged that the Magistrate Judge Woehrle and Walter had violated 18 USC Section 2243. The petition for Writ of Mandate showed that they “Judged their own actions” by dismissing the underlying Writ of Habeas Corpus in violation of the Murchison precedent.

JUDGE PANEL ON CASE ABOVE REPROACH

There is no question that experienced Justices such as Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw would never violate long standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent as they are bound to follow it.

These two "CLERK ORDERS" make one ask: "Is there a shadow Ninth Circuit?"

County To Stop Payments For New Judges.....L A Supervisor Michael Antonovich (Video 3 min)

2009-11-28T11:25:00.000-08:00

L A County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich

November 23, 2009

Lincoln Club of Los Angeles County

Los Angeles, CA Full Disclosure Network® presents a 3 min video report on the November 23, 2009 remarks made by Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich at a meeting of the Los Angeles County Lincoln Club in North Hollywood. The Supervisor provided an update regarding the controversy over long-time practice of the County making payments to Los Angeles Superior Court Judges. Civic leader David R. Hernandez provides his account of the presentation in the video.

A Fourth District CA Court of Appeals decision in November of 2008 ruled the county's payments were illegal in the Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles lawsuit that found Judges, who are all elected officials, had not been disclosing the extra payments they received from the County to litigants in the courtroom, in cases involving the county, nor on the Form 700 Economic Interest statements as required by the California Fair Pactices Act.

In response a question about the continuing public concern that county payments created a “conflict” for judges and if this conflict was going to be resolved?

Here are some of the points made by Supervisor Antonovich:

All new judges (elected or appointed) will not be receiving payments from the county.
Most other California counties have been paying (illegal) benefits to the judges
This was not just a Los Angeles County practice
Recent legislation, Senate Bill SBX2 11 has now made the payments legal.
L A Judges have not always ruled in favor of the County
Several rulings have been in favor of illegal aliens (which the county opposed)

Featured in the video: are two prominent critics of the illegal payments made to Judges by the County and below are comments from Richard I Fine from his L.A. County Jail cell.

David R. Hernandez, Civic Leader (by telephone)
Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch Attorney (Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles)

From his L. A. County Central Men's Jail cell, Richard I Fine: Anti-Trust Attorney who remains in solitary “coercive confinement” following his attempt to disqualify Judge Yaffe for not disclosing to litigants in his courtroom, receipt of payments from County . Fine had this to say regarding the disclosure by Supervisor Antonovich:

“This is long overdue. This is a great victory for those of us that have been fighting the illegal payments. The County has spent approximately $300 million since 1988 on these illegal and criminal payments to the Judges. I and others have filed complaints with the U S Dept. of Justice knowing that these payments violate the tangible rights to honest services and I have filed a complaint with a the California Attorney general showing that these payments are a misappropriation of funds, and obstruction of justice and bribery."

"Senate Bill SBX2 11 which was enacted on Feb. 20, 2009 confirmed that the payments are criminal by the judges and those who make the payments now have retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action. The action of the Supervisors to stop the payments appears to be a clear response to rid themselves of this criminal activity."

In response to comments made by Sterling Norris (in the video) Fine said, "The 2010 budget bill resolution of the County left the decision regarding these payments to the Executive Officer and Auditor-Controller that is the reason you do not see second resolution to these payments. With respect to the Judges, this only deals with the payments in Los Angeles County, 429 judges, will continue to receive their payments however, those payments will stop as each judge comes up for re-election . The longest period of time is if that judge is reelected, he would get payments for six years until there is another election. Then he would be come a new judge.”

Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch Attorney:
Full Disclosure received the following response that is quoted in the video from Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch attorney who won the Fourth District California Court of Appeal decision ruling the county payments to judges were illegal.

“I have not seen anything in the press regarding a resolution by the Board of Supervisors has been passed that would impact the newly hired judges. Even if they did pass such a resolution, it would not impact the majority, about 95 percent of the judges, nor would it impact or our litigation, even if such a resolution would be approve by the by Board of Supervisors. It is estimated that from 1500 to 2000 California Judges will be impacted by the Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles case that is still in litigation.”

Link to a complete listing and video links to the Series "Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption{

Ninth Circuit Court Dodges Judicial Recusal Issue ...... Ignores Supreme Court Precedent In Richard Fine Case

2009-11-24T16:43:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles, CA In an unexpected turn of events, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has posted an Order denying Richard I. Fine’s Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate to Immediately Order Trial Court (U.S. California Central District) to Enter Writ of Habeas Corpus or Issue Order to Show Cause. This action, posted on the Federal Pacer website, did not have any Judicial signatures or names of Judicial officers who authorized such action.

Full Disclosure Network immediately contacted the Executive Office of the Ninth Circuit Court, requesting verification that the unsigned Order was valid. Here is the explanation we received from David Madden , Assistant Circuit Executive in San Francisco...........

"Once a case has been calendared, all subsequent petitions, motions, etc. go to the appellate panel which has been assigned the case. This case was ordered to be submitted on the briefs, without oral argument on December10, 2009, in Pasadena, California. It has been assigned to a panel of judges and it was the panel that denied the emergency petition brought by Mr. Fine."

"Names of judges sitting on a panel are not revealed until 10 days prior to the case being heard or submitted on the briefs. Should a panel need to issue an order in a case more than 10 days prior to a hearing/submission,the order is issued "for the court" by the clerk of court or designee. This process is followed fairly often"

From his L. A. County Central Men’s jail cell, where he has been held for almost nine months in solitary “Coercive Confinement” for civil contempt of Court, Richard I Fine gave Full Disclosure his reaction to this development.........

“This action of a panel is unheard of. It violates due process because it is allowing Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter to judge their own actions of denying the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This is a direct violation of the United States Supreme Court case of In re Murchison and hundreds of years of common law which hold that no man can judge his own actions. The Ninth Circuit is bound to follow the Supreme Court, they do not have a choice in the matter."

VIOLATES LAW REGARDING FIVE-DAY LAW ON COERCIVE CONFINEMENT
He went on to say "It also violates California law as set forth in the case of In re Farr. This case prohibits holding a person for more than five days in “coercive confinement” for contempt of court if there is no substantial likelihood that the contempt order would serve it’s coercive purpose"... and

IGNORES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

"It further shows that the Ninth Circuit may be biased against me in this case, as it is willing to violate the law and Supreme Court decisions to protect wrong doing judges. It is this type of action which supports the necessity of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s hearings on Judicial Recusals."

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON JUDICIAL RECUSALS NEEDED
Fine concluded saying, "We definitely need new laws to stop this type of illegal conduct by Magistrate Judge Woehrle, Judge Walter and the Ninth Circuit as they refuse to follow clear Supreme Court Precedent ."

RELATED LINKS TO VIDEOS AND RELEASES ON THIS CASE