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

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

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?

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

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 ?

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

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

Ninth Circuit Covers Up Court Corruption With Unpublished Decision

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.

The Fight Against Illegal Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption: Video 6 min

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a special six minute “preview” covering the ten-part cable television series. The Video Reveals the on-going Court battle between Superior Court Judges, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Court Administrators, a prominent jailed anti-trust attorney and the Judicial Watch organization. The legal battle began when Richard I Fine challenged Superior Court Judges who had been receiving illegal payments from the County of Los Angeles and who did not disclose those payments on their Economic Disclosure Form 700 nor to the parties appearing before the judges in their court rooms in cases that involved the County of Los Angeles.

Appearing in the six minute video are:

• Richard I Fine, who is serving an indefinite sentence in L.A. County Central Men’s Jail since March 4th, 2009 for attempting to disqualify Judge David Yaffe
• Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch Attorney (Sturgeon vs. County of L.A.)
• Paul Orphanedes, Judicial Watch Attorney (Sturgeon vs. County of L.A.)
• Professor Emeritus Daniel Gottlieb, Purdue University (ret.)
• Leslie Dutton, Full Disclosure host and moderator

Issues covered in this preview presentation of the complete series are:

• Senate Bill SBX2 11, Legislation granting retroactive criminal and civil immunity to all California Judges, County Government and Court officials who participated in the illegal payment scheme, since 1988 to present.
• L. A. County Sheriff Leroy Baca’s fight to prevent Full Disclosure Network’s access to interview jailed attorney Richard I Fine.
• Richard I Fine’s incarceration in the L. A. County Jail

Related Links:

• One-page description of the entire series here.
• Backgrounder on Full Disclosure Network
• L.A Times Coverage & U S Supreme Court on Judicial Bias
• FDN Newsletter Archives

9th Circuit Orders Stay In Disbarment Case of Richard I Fine

Los Angeles, CA On Wednesday, September 2, 2009 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Commissioner Peter L. Shaw issued a Stay Order in the Disbarment case of Richard I Fine (No. 09-80130) pending his appeal of the U. S. District Court denial of his petition for a Writ a Habeas Corpus. The Order cited a "significant overlap between the discipline case and the issues raised by respondent's pending habeas petition Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (No. 09-56073)".

JUDGE FAILS TO RECUSE: NOW AN ISSUE
This New twist provides promising in the ten year ongoing saga of beleaguered Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I Fine who has been jailed for contempt of court indefinitely. Fine was jailed by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe on March 4, 2009 for refusing to comply with a court order which Fine claims was an illegal order imposed by a Judge who was receiving illegal payments from in interested party in the case before him. At his March 4, 2009 Superior Court sentencing hearing, (No. 109420) Mr. Fine attempted to disqualify Judge David Yaffe from sitting on the case, noting he had been receiving payments from L. A. County, an interested party in the case (Marina Strand Colony Homeowners Assn. vs. County of L.A.).

TRANSCRIPT OF COURT TESTIMONY
A transcript of Mr. Fine's court testimony, under oath is available at this URL: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/FineContemptTranscript3-4-09.pdf. Mr. Fine also cited the October 10, 2008 Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling in Sturgeon vs County of L.A. (No. D050802) that held the payments by the County to the Judge were illegal. A copy of the ruling is available here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/sturgeon-v-losangeles-ruling.pdf

REACTION FROM RICHARD I FINE:

• "This is highly significant because the issues in the disbarment and the issues in the Writ are identical. The California Supreme Court disbarred me because I brought federal civil rights cases against the judges because they were taking illegal, criminal and unconstitutional payments from the county. "
  
• "The underlying issue is whether the Judges were denying people due process because they were taking money from the county. And, we know that the money they were taking from the county was unconstitutional under the Sturgeon case and it was criminal under Senate Bill SBX2 11 and we know those actions were a denial of due process of under the various U S Supreme court cases from 1927 through 2009."


• "So in the end when the 9th Circuit will decide that it was a denial of due process for Judge Yaffe to have received illegal, criminal and unconstitutional payments from the county, a party to the case. This decision will control the disbarment proceeding. "


• "There is further significance because four of the six California Supreme Court Justices who refused to review the Disbarment case and thereby caused the disbarment also had received illegal, criminal and unconstitutional payments from the counties and the other two Supreme Court Justice are members of Judicial Council who wrote the Senate Bill SBX2 11. (Retroactive Judicial Immunity from Criminal and Liability Prosecution) "These justices should have recused themselves from the disbarment case and by not doing so denied me due process under the US Supreme Court’s cases."

RELATED EVENTS:

• August 12, 2009: Ninth Circuit Court Justice Andrew J. Kleinfeld restores Richard I Fine's rights to appeal the U S District Court order denying Certificate of Appealablity "with prejudice" on the issue of whether or not the Trial Court Judge David Yaffe should have recused himself.


• August 31st, 2009: Richard I Fine filed an opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal raised the issue of having been denied due process by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe who had refused to recuse himself from the case after having received illegal payments from a party involved in the case and that he himself was a party involved in the contempt case.
  

Breaking News On Richard I Fine........... Ninth Circuit Court To Decide Monday On Appeal Rights In Contempt Case

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network is releasing an eight minute telephone interview with prominent Anti-Trust attorney Richard I Fine featuring his reaction to the news that a two-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will consider his request for a Certificate of Appealability on Monday, August 10, 2009 in San Francisco. Listen to the Audio of the interview here.

CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT

Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Milan Smith will decide on Monday whether to approve or deny Fine's request to issue a Certificate of Appealability . Without such an action Fine would be unable to appeal the U.S. Central District Court action that denied his Writ of Habeas Corpus request for immediate release from jail. He has been sentenced indefinitely for civil contempt of Court, for an undetermined period of time, without a trial, bail or date set for hearing or release.

JUDICIAL CONFLICT CHALLENGED
Fine was taken into custody on March 4, 2009 at a sentencing hearing following a long contempt proceeding where Fine had attempted to have the Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe disqualified from presiding due to illegal payments he had received from the County of Los Angeles, a party in the case Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of Los Angeles.

NINTH CIRCUIT PROCEDURE

According to David Madden, Assistant Executive for Court Information at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Certificate requires approval from only one Judge and considerations are not conducted in public. If the panel should issue the Certificate of Appealability, Fine's Emergency Motion would then move on to a "briefing" stage or, if denied, Fine could then request a "Reconsideration". No matter what happens, time and options are running out for Mr. Fine who has been held in the L.A. County Central Men's Jail, in solitary coercive confinement, for over five months. Strangely, no opposition to his Writ of Habeas Corpus, has been filed.

TRANSCRIPT 08-06-09 Full Disclosure telephone interview with Richard I. Fine:

• FINE: I think it's about time for the Court to consider the request for the Certificate of Appealability. That Emergency request was filed, if I remember correctly, somewhere in the vicinity of about July 3rd (2009) And, so- they're well over a month behind schedule. Normally something like that should have been considered way back early in July. The Certificate of Appealability is the very first thing that they consider with respect to an appeal, and the only reason that the 9th Circuit has to consider it is because of the fact that the District Court refused to issue a Certificate of Appealability even though we have numerous constitutional issues in the case, and even though no one opposed my Writ of Habeas Corpus at the District Court level.
  
• DUTTON: Is it unusual for the District Court to refuse or deny a Certificate of Appealability? That sounds so ominous that they would be denying you your right to appeal.
  
• FINE: Oh, it -- it's highly unusual. I mean it's basically not only unusual, it's outrageous. And particularly in this case where the Sheriff didn't even answer the Writ of Habeas Corpus and thereby broke the law, and in addition to that, the -- the Superior Court, didn't oppose any of the grounds in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and also didn't certify why I'm in jail. So the action in the District Court is just totally and completely outrageous.
  
• DUTTON: Will you explain to us, when the Judge John F. Walters denied the Certificate of Appealability he also made the notation "With Prejudice," what does that mean?
  
• FINE: Well, that basically means that we can't refile the Writ of Habeas Corpus in his court. And we can't really ask him to reconsider. So it meant that the case automatically goes right up to the, 9th Circuit. The way that the procedure works in the District Court is that the minute that we file a Notice of Appeal, the case is up into the 9th Circuit and the District Court has to either grant or deny a Certificate of Appealability. If the District Court grants the Certificate of Appealability, there is no question that the appeal goes forward in the 9th Circuit. If the District Court denies the Certificate of Appealability and denying With Prejudice, that means that automatically the 9th Circuit considers the Certificate of Appealability. And what Judge Walter did was he denied the Certificate of Appealability and he checked the box saying that there was no constitutional right that was (inaudible), which is totally and completely, beyond belief given the fact that there are about a number, there's the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights that were violated in this case. So, I mean it's -- but we know from looking at what Judge Walter did, we know that he never even read the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. So the denial of the Certificate of Appealability is consistent with, everything he did in this case.
  
• DUTTON: Well, I guess that, the next step then is to wait for Monday to see what happens with the two judge panel in San Francisco and, and then go from there.
  
• FINE: That's correct. And hopefully, I would expect that they would grant the Certificate of Appealability and then, and then God willing they would immediately take up the Motion, to go to be released, and maybe even be correct enough to go forward and just overturn the case right then and there because given this particular case, this is such an unusual case that it's very seldom that you find a Writ of Habeas Corpus with no opposition.
  
• DUTTON: And I would like for our viewers' sake for you to explain why this is an emergency motion on your part.
  
• FINE: Well, it's an emergency motion on my part for a number of reasons. -- The first reason being that with no opposition to the Writ, there is no reason for me to have been (recording). With no opposition to the Writ, to have been in jail in the first place. The second thing that we have is the physical emergency that is taking place and that's since I've been in jail, I've contracted a staph infection, I've contracted back pains, and I have swelling of my legs, my feet and my ankles. So we've got the entire physical things that have happened that is due to having been in jail. And the third thing that we have happening is we have the financial problems that are taking place which is the, uh, the loss of the house, which can be coming up because of the fact that having been in jail, I've been denied my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to earn a living. And, actually through that, we have the situation of possibility losing the house. So unless I get out of jail and can get out there and start earning some money, you know, I'm suffering physical hardship and suffering financial hardship.
  
• FINE: I'm now going into the sixth month of being unlawfully incarcerated.
  
• DUTTON: How is your family taking all of this?
  
• FINE: Well, needless to say my family are not happy campers about this. But, you know, there's one thing that I can say about my family, and that is that nothing is going to break our family. When this judge (inaudible) is going to try and coerce me into telling him about my assets so that he can go on with his unlawful activity and he figured he was going to break me and my family.
  
• That is not going to happen. You know, nothing will break our family unit. We will, end up prevailing and justice will prevail, and 38 million Californians are going to get their judicial system back before we will give in to this particular judge, or to any of the judges who received immunity for their criminal actions. We're going to get our judicial system back, and these judges are going to be gone whether they resign or whether we vote them out of office. But they will be gone and we will get our judicial system back.

# # # # #

Attorney Richard I Fine's Jail Cell 9-1-1 Call Raises New Alarm: Video Here (13 min)

CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE
TURNS INTO A NIGHTMARE FOR COURTS & ATTORNEY

Los Angeles, CA. Prominent former Attorney Richard I Fine, made a second 9-1-1 call from his cell in the Los Angeles County Central Men’s Jail to the Full Disclosure Network® raising alarming issues regarding the ethics and procedures of the U. S. Central District Court in California. Having spent the last four months in solitary confinement, Richard Fine has had nothing to do but document and describe what appears to be the shocking tactics of an insular Judicial buddy system that could only be compared to the “code of silence” deployed by street cops when one of their own is confronted with accusations of abuse.

WATCH VIDEO HERE
In an exclusive thirteen minute video news blog Full Disclosure Network® has combined the actual court records, audio report via telephone from Richard Fine who is representing himself against the entire California Judicial system, from his jail cell. At the end of the video viewers are asked to participate in an opinion survey and leave their comments.

LEGAL BATTLE AIDED BY VOLUNTEERS
With the help of cadre of dedicated volunteers acting as messengers, paralegals, secretarial staff and moral support base, Richard I Fine has used his total recall of the Federal Codes to dictate and draft dozens of court filings in several on going cases. He is determined to win his freedom from an indefinite jail sentence for civil contempt of court, and to win back his license to practice that was taken from him while fighting to reform the California Judicial System.

JUDICIAL CONFLICT?
In the Video and in court documents Fine describes how the Federal Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle delayed action, issued court orders that were never acted upon and wrote a Report and Recommendation to deny Fine’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (request for immediate release from jail) without having ever read the petition. And, in conclusion, Fine alleges that both Judge Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter failed to disclose a serious conflict that should have precluded them from even hearing the case.

Attached are the documents mentioned in the video:

• Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: Report & Recommendations
• Richard I Fine: Objections to Report & Recommendations
• U S Judge John Walter: Acceptance of Report & Recommendations
• U.S. Judge John Walter: Judgment

Full Disclosure Network® Links To Related Videos.

• Richard Fine’s First 9-1-1- Call From Jail
• Interview with Fine Day Before Sentencing
• Interview with Fine & supporters
• Judicial Watch on Illegal Judicial Payments
• Fine supporters & Supreme Court Case
• Judge Defends "Coercive Confinement"