The Day The Rule Of Law Died............. By Richard I. Fine, A Guest Editorial

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe

This is a case where L A Superior court Judge David P. Yaffe admitted taking payments from L A County, which was a party to the case before him. Senate Bill SBX2 11, enacted February 20, 2009. confirmed that the L A County payments to Judge Yaffe are criminal acts. Judge Yaffe ordered Fine (me) to pay money to L.A. County and its co-applicant for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He held me in contempt when I challenged his authority to do so.

The decision of Justices Tashima and N.R. Smith to deny my unopposed motion to set me free pending the decisions on the appeal is both outrageous and against the recent precedents in similar motions in the Ninth Circuit. Not only are they keeping me incarcerated during the course of the appeal they have foreclosed my right to ask the other Justices of the Ninth Circuit to overturn them. They have removed the right to have their decision questioned and reviewed by “objective” decision makers. One has to question the underlying reasons for the removal of this right.

In the recent case of Orange County Sheriff Carona, who was convicted of a crime, the Ninth Circuit granted his unopposed motion to keep him free from incarceration pending the appeal from his conviction which was based, as was my motion, that we would win on appeal.

In my case, which is not a criminal case, my incarceration exists only while the case to decide if Judge Yaffe should have recused himself is pending. It is Judge Yaffe who committed the crime, not me. However, I am the one who is incarcerated, not Judge Yaffe.

I have challenged the right of Judge Yaffe to preside in the case through a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. My petition was not contested. U S Supreme Court case law supports my position on the petition and in the appeal. See the case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 US – (2009 556 US – (2009) decided June 8, 2009 and cases cited therein.

As an analogy, the California Rules of Court contain a rule regarding motions in appellate courts. Such rule states that when a motion is not opposed, it may be deemed that the non-opposing party consents to the granting of the motion. By not opposing my motion, Judge Yaffe and the L. A. Superior Court have effectively conceded that I will win the appeal. Given this concession, it appears that the actions of Justices Tashima and Smith are nothing more than “Judges trying to protect the criminal acts of other Judges.”

Here there is something terribly wrong. I have been incarcerated for six and a half months, since March 4, 2009. No one has opposed my motion to be set free by either the District Court nor the Ninth Circuit. No one has opposed my Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or the grounds therein. Judge Yaffe has taken criminal payments from L. A. County and then judged his own actions in violation of due process as set forth in U.S. Supreme Court Cases.

The Rule of Law has died at the hands of Justices Tashima and Smith. Hopefully it shall be revived by other Justices in the Ninth Circuit who decide the appeal.

The Deception of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George

REBUTTAL TO L A TIMES OP-ED

By Richard I. Fine

In his September 14, 2009 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George stated that the Judicial Council of California decided to close the California Courts one day a month until June 2010. He acknowledged the hardship on Californian’s and praised the Superior Court Judges who volunteered to take a one day pay cut.

FAILED TO DISCLOSE AUTHORSHIP

However, he did not disclose that the same Judicial Council of California of which he admitted he is the Chairman, also wrote Senate Bill SBX2 11. This bill was introduced by Senate President Pro-Tem Daryl Steinberg on February 11, 2009 passed by the State Senate on February on 14th , 2009 and passed by the State Assembly on February 15, 2009 signed by the Governor on February 20, 2009 and became effective on May 21, 2009.

EXTRA JUDICIAL BENEFITS & CRIMINAL IMMUNITY
Such bill reinstated “supplemental county benefits” to Superior Court Judges in addition to their State Salary and compensation. Such supplemental County benefits have been held to be “unconstitutional” in the case of Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles 167 Cal Ap 4th 630 (2008) review denied 12/23/08. Such bill also gave retroactive immunity to the Judges and others from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action.

$30 MILLION MORE DURING FISCAL CRISIS?
By omitting to disclose Senate Bill SBX2 11 and it’s retroactive immunity, Chief Justice George did not inform the people that the loss to the taxpayers in L.A.County alone of these supplement payments to the Superior Court Judges in fiscal year 2009-2010 is estimated at $30 million dollars this loss is greater than the contributions of all of the Judges of one day’s pay per month over a year. In effect, under Senate Bill SBX2 11 the judges are making more money during this financial crisis while the citizens of California suffer.

DUE PROCESS DENIED
Worse yet, because of the retroactive immunity the decisions of the judges receiving county payments before 05-21-09 violated the due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and the California Constitution. The recent case of Capperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 566 US--, (2009) decided June 8, 2009 has reaffirmed a long line of Supreme Court cases since 1927 and previous common law. Such cases hold that it is a violation of due process when a Judge is in a position where there is a “potential for bias” or he is not “likely to be neutral.” Payment of money to the Judges fulfills these criteria.

BENIFITS TO FORCE JUDGES TO RECUSE FROM COUNTY CASES
Since Senate SBX2 11 does not give immunity for the current payments to the Judges the Judges receiving the current payments must recuse themselves or face criminal prosecution , civil liability and disciplinary action. Additionally, the county officials who are appropriating the funds for the payments are subject to the same sanctions as their immunity under Senate Bill SBX2 11 has also expired.

PERSONALLY AWARE OF PROBLEMS
Chief Justice George personally knew of these problems as they are issues presented in the petition for writ of Certiorari in the case of Richard I Fine v. State Bar of California, Supreme Court of California US Supreme Court Case No. 08-1573. Such petition shows that the California Supreme Court’s action to disbar Fine for bringing Federal Civil Rights cases against L.A. County and L A Superior Court Judges challenging L.A. County Payments to L A Superior Court Judges and filing other truthful documents in Courts violated the first, fifth and fourteenth amendments.

NINTH CIRCUIT RECOGNIZES CONFLICT
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals presently is also deciding the issue of whether L A Superior Courts judge David P. Yaffe should have recused himself from a case where he received payments from L A County and then presided over a contempt proceeding to enforce an order in favor in L A County and it’s co-applicant for an environmental impact report. The case is Fine v. Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Case No. 09-56073.

JUDICIAL BIAS CONCERNS
In a companion case the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals has refused to acknowledge the California disbarment of Fine. It has stayed any disbarment proceedings of Fine in the Ninth Circuit until a decision has been rendered in the case of Fine v. Sheriff Leroy D. Baca. The Ninth Circuit has stated that overlapping issues in the two cases occur.

$30 MILLION WINDFALL FOR JUDGES
So one day a month closure of the Courts is miniscule compared to the massive undisclosed windfall to the Judges and the denial of due process to Californians that Chief Justice George, the judicial council, the state legislature and the Governor have accomplished with Senate Bill SBX2 11.

It is no wonder that Chief Justice George omitted to mention Senate Bill SBX2 11 and it’s massive effect upon Californians in his Op-Ed article?


VIEW RELATED VIDEO HERE

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.

# # # # #

JUDGES FIGHT TO KEEP ILLEGAL BENEFITS: SUPERIOR COURT VS SUPERIOR COURT

Los Angeles, CA. On July 13, 2009 a Superior Court hearing was held on the Judicial Watch motion for Injunctive Relief in the Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles case BC351286, a taxpayers lawsuit where in October 2008, the Fourth Appellate Court District decision found of Los Angeles County payments to the Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were illegal. The decision was upheld by the California Supreme Court when a petition for rehearing was denied to the Los Angeles Superior Court who had hired Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, one of the most powerful and influential legal firms in the country.

Specially appointed Appellate Court Judge James A. Richman from San Francisco presided on this July 13th hearing and after oral arguments, took the matter into submission. His decision on the Judicial Watch motion for an injunction is expected in 30 to 60 days.

The Full Disclosure Network® presents an eleven minute Video News Report on that hearing with interviews of the Judicial Watch attorneys Sterling Norris and Paul Orfanedes who describe what happened in the court room and the background of the case.

The Superior Court's lawyers claimed that the emergency provision inserted into the February 11, 2009 Budget Bill, known as SBX 2 11 had retroactively made the County’s payments to the Judges legal. A little known fact was that it also provided Judicial criminal immunity from prosecution and liability and to the County officials involved in the transfer of what has been estimated to be almost $300 million dollars over the past twenty years.

Full Disclosure Network® contacted the following Court officials to interview them on this matter but has been told that the Judges and their legal counsel do not want to be interviewed on this case.

• Judge Mary Wiss, President California Judges Association
• Michael Belote, Cal Advocates Lobbyist for CJA on SBX 2 11
• Judge Charles McCoy, Presiding Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
• J. Frederick Bennett, L.A. Superior Court Legal Counsel
• Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (for Superior Court)

Here is a link to an exclusive video covering the issue of Sturgeon vs County of L.A. and the Judicial Watch taxpayers lawsuit. These videos are also featured on the Full Disclosure Network® website soon and is to be distributed to over 45 cable systems in California, and to cities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Manhattan, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.

Fear Rules in Los Angeles Court System: Anonymous Attorney Speaks Out

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON

FULL DISCLOSURE COVERAGE OF THE RICHARD I. FINE CASE

Great work. You may be on the way to another Emmy. I could say that what you reveal is shocking, but I am getting used to it after 44 years of practice. From your story I am not clear what the 9th Circuit did. There is apparently no case number there and no formal order. If the District Court is doing nothing, what will make them act?

ATTORNEYS LIVE IN FEAR
We attorneys live in an atmosphere of fear. There seems to be more interest in maintaining the appearance that our legal institutions are just, than in allowing a critical examination of cases, where they appear not to be. The California Supreme Court in Fine’s Bar case is an example. The California Supreme Court failed to review his case and issued no opinion much less a well reasoned one. What this does is lead to arbitrary action.

PLIGHT OF RICHARD FINE
Fine appears to be in a legal no man’s land, where he has been judged by Judges, whose partiality is questioned, under laws which are not defined, under opinions which are not published, and with reasoning which is not disclosed, in a system where decent persons are afraid to speak out.

JUDICIAL REVENGE?
What appears to be the case here as in many others, is if those in authority can’t get a person for the legal action the person did, they will spend millions to uncover something to get him or her for something else. Fine’s case appears to be a simple one where he has failed to answer questions at a debtor examination, based on a judgment, which either has not been appealed or for which there is no stay pending appeal.

COERCIVE CONFINEMENT TILL SUBMISSION
Ordinarily a judgment creditor has a right to collect a judgment and the debtor examination is part of the process. I am sympathetic to Fine. He has some interesting constitutional issues to address, but my question is whether he is addressing them in a proper manner. What is wrong here, is that he is jailed during a protracted process to wear him down, to restrict him from preparing his case, and by isolating him from the tools by which he needs to prepare his case.

DUE PROCESS DENIED---COURT ORDER BY CLERK PHONE CALL?
Why can’t he get a stay from the District Court? Why can’t the District Court stay proceedings in Superior Court and release Fine pending its review? If the District Court won’t grant a stay but won’t rule, it might be appropriate to seek a mandate in the Court of Appeals for it to rule one way or the other. What appears strange is that apparently this is what the Court did by a phone call rather than a formal order. Why?

FISCAL CRISIS: Illegal Payments Create Law For Judicial Criminal & Liability Immunity: Nominees For U S Supreme Court To Be Impacted?

STERLING NORRIS
Judicial Watch Attorney (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles)

Los Angeles, CA While counties, cities and the entire state are on the brink of financial collapse all California Superior Court Judges are fighting hard, in court and in the State Legislature, to keep the illegal payments made to them by county governments. The Judicial Watch organization successfully challenged those payments made to Judges in L A County, where over the past decade it has been estimated that L.A. Judges have received up to $300 million dollars. A Fourth District Appellate Court decision in October 2008 (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) held those payments to the Judges were indeed unlawful. This action prompted the Judges to fight back.


RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
Judges were apparently worried about being prosecuted for criminal acts and liability for taking the unearned money. At the urging of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the California Judicial Council quietly authored a provision that was slipped into the State Budget legislation SBX 211, without public debate or awareness. This provision granted retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution to all California Judges and County officials who received or made those illegal payments of public money. Depending on who you talk to the payments are referred to as "unearned benefits" or "Judicial Benefits".

NON DISCLOSURE FOR JUDGES?
Full Disclosure Network ® inteviewed Judicial Watch attorney Sterling Norris in April 2009 as part of an on going "special series" entitled Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption. We asked Norris what motivated the California Judicial Council to change the law giving retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution to the Judges and the Counties? His response was:

"they would not have sponsored the legislation unless they really felt the Judges needed immunity from criminal prosecution and liability".

Ironically, Richard I. Fine, a former prominent anti-trust attorney is still sitting in the Los Angeles County Central Men's Jail, in isolation, for more than 70 days. He was held in contempt of court, after he attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe from sitting on a case that involved the County of Los Angeles. According to Fine , Yaffe failed to disclose to the parties in the case (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles) that he had been receiving $46,000, on top of his State salary, from the County for years. Yaffe recently defended the practice of "coercive confinement" in contempt cases in response to a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Immediate Release filed by Fine in the Federal Court on March 29, 2009.

QUOTES ON NON-DISCLOSURE & PROSECUTION
Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch had these comments regarding unearned payments to Judges and their failure to disclose.

• "There is no question that the judges should have disclosed they were receiving $46,000 from the County of L.A. , there is no way the judiciary, ethically, could get around it....""
  
• "$46,000 each year is not a small amount, many people don't make that much all year and this, from the County, is on top their $200,000 State salary. In California they are the highest paid court judges in the nation".
  
• "If (the Judges) are on the up and up, you go get a declaratory judgment (in court) saying, in spite of court consolidation, we are entitled to the money"
  
• "We have never seen people excused from liability retroactively"


• "There is a criminal doctrine of law that if you received money you are not entitled to, and you keep it, that is considered theft"
  

IMPACT ON JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS?
Without immunity for criminal acts, a complicating factor associated with the illegal payments to Judges, is that a number of Los Angeles Superior Court Judges have been appointed to higher courts during the past two decades. They now sit on the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court. The question is, does the fact they have accepted unearned money from other than their employer disqualify them from higher appointments? In his request for investigation and complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice Richard I. Fine points to both Appellate and Supreme Court Justices who have received illegal payments from the County and who have been granted criminal immunity.

JUDICIAL ETHICS AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CARLOS R. MORENO

The California Constitution (Sec. 17, 19, 20) states that Judges may not receive money from other parties than their employer, the State of California, and the Legislature has the sole responsibility for setting compensation and retirement benefits. On page 4 of the Fine request for investigation he names California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, who has been mentioned as a possible nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court by President Obama.

In a telephone interview on Friday, May 15, 2009 from his jail cell, Mr. Fine expressed concern about the possible U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Justice Moreno because he had not recused himself from two critical cases involving the SBX2 11 and the controversial retroactive criminal imnunity issue. First, by not recusing himself in the disbarrment case of Fine who had raised the illegal payments to Judges and second, on the Writ of Habeas Corpus, where Fine was seeking immediate release from L.A. County Jail for contempt of Court. In both instances Fine maintains that Justice Moreno had a personal conflict and that two Federal Judges (George Wu and Dale Fischer) recused themselves from the Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Richard Fine as they had been Superior Court Judges in Los Angeles and had received illegal payments from the County and retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution.


JULY 2nd COURT HEARING IN L.A.
The on-going controversy over the State's fiscal crisis, Judicial benefits and appointments is playing out in yet another court hearing on July 2, 2009 when San Francisco Appellate Court Justice James A. Richman will preside in an L A Superior Court to rule on the Judicial Watch motion for injunctive relief, to prohibit the county from making futher illegal payments to the Judges. At that time Sterling Norris will have an opportunity to raise thie issue of Constitutionality of SBX2 11 granting Judges retroactive immuity for liability and criminal acts without public discussion or debate.

FISCAL CRISIS & WHO PAYS THE BIG LAW FIRMS ?
The Judical Watch organization, has been been faced with formidable opposition from County of Los Angeles and their private lawfirm Jones-Day and the Superior Court of Los Angeles who retained Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who successfully obtained "Intervenor" status in the case. The "unearned benefits" going to the Judges, not to the public, raises the issue who will pay the big law firms? Will it be the taxpayers who pay or the Judges who personally benefit from the illegal payments? No matter who wins and who pays, this legal battle is going to cost a lot of money.


JUDGES ASSN. DECLINE INTERVIEW

The Full Disclosure® Host Leslie Dutton contacted Judge Mary Wiss, president of the California Judges Association for an interview for this two-part interview with Sterling Norris, Judge Wiss referred us to their lobbyist, Mr. Mike Beliote, who declined an interview saying "the Judges have decided not to be interviewed on this subject" The Full Disclosure series is to be released to 40 cable systems and on the Internet in June 2009. This is part three and four of the on-going series. # # # #

LA Court Transcript Reveals Judicial Immunity, Curious Proceedings, Conflict

JAILED ATTORNEY RICHARD I. FINE

Serving an indefinite sentence, without bail, no release date, no hearing set.

COURT TRANSCRIPT REVEALS CURIOUS COURT PROCEEDINGS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
For the County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT NO. 86 HON. DAVID P. YAFFFE, JUDGE

March 4, 2009 Contempt Sentencing of Richard I Fine (Open Court)

CLOSING STATEMENTS BELOW

View entire Transcript (27 pages) here

THE COURT (Judge David Yaffe): All right. Mr. Fine, I will give you an opportunity to comment on the changes before I impose sentence.

MR. FINE: First of all, your Honor, as your Honor is aware, given Senate Bill SBX 211, (California Budget Bill Provision, Feb. 2009) the payments that you received are unconstitutional and, consequently, you will be given immunity for receiving those payments and any action you have done receiving those payments. Therefore, the action that you’ve taken in this contempt proceeding is illegal.

JUDGE FAILED TO DISCLOSE ILLEGAL PAYMENTS?
The reasons that you’re saying as (my) not having brought up the disqualification of you in the underlying case are, therefore, invalid because of the fact that, given the bill and the disqualification and the immunity that you’re given and the fact of the Sturgeon Case, (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) which says the payments are unconstitutional, I was not under any obligation to bring up the disqualification on behalf of my client with respect to you if the client didn’t want to have this done.

IMPROPERLY ORDERED SANCTIONS?
So therefore, what you are talking about as an earlier disqualification of you in the underlying case really doesn’t have any relevance. We are now in the situation of you’re ordering sanctions against me personally and the payments of money by me personally to the County of Los Angeles, an order which you issued without notice or hearing which is unconstitutional in and of itself. That order is illegal and invalid and an order for which the State Legislature has found that you did an illegal act.

JUDGMENT FAULTY?
So in dealing in that part of it where you’re now saying that I should have disqualified you in the underlying case, that reasoning doesn’t hold water. So consequently, on this part of your judgment, you’re entirely wrong and that part, needless to say, would get overturned.

NO JURISTICTION ?
With respect to the issue of you not being served with a copy of the April 11th disqualification, unless I’m mistaken, I believe, and I think we can pull it, that the April 11th disqualification shows that your Honor had proof of service. I may be wrong on this, but I’m pretty sure that it does, in fact -- it was filed in this court, so you knew about it. You knew that you were disqualified, and the fact of the matter is, even if you hadn’t been served with it, you were disqualified under section 170.3(c) (4), by law, because of the fact that you did not respond to the March 25th C.C.P. 170.3 objection that was personally served upon you.
So consequently, you are out. There is nothing that you can really do about it. So you didn’t have any jurisdiction to go forward and make any type of orders.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER FOR CONTEMPT?
Now, granted, you have now shown in here that the April 15th order that is the order that actually made an order of $46,000.00 to be paid to real party in interest, which is the party that Mr. Comer and Mr. Rosen represent, that order you are not relying upon here. So really, what we have in this case is we have an order of January 8th—is the only order that is existing that says that I should pay any attorney’s fees and that order does have an amount in it.
So what you’ve got here is you’ve got a judgment where you are holding me in contempt for an order that was unconstitutional..........

GOV, LEGISLATURE FOUND JUDICIAL PAYMENTS ILLEGAL?
.......and also which the State Legislature and the Governor say is illegal to pay money of a non-existent sum to people where you are now saying I am in contempt based upon an order of a Commissioner who has not been appointed as a referee because --

COMMISSIONER POSING AS A JUDGE?
just because someone is assigned to a Department, because a Commissioner is assigned to a Department, does not mean that he has the ability to preside in the Department because being assigned to a Department does'nt mean he’s sitting there. In order to preside in the Department, he’s either going to be a temporary judge or he has to have the stipulation of the parties, litigants, under section -Article 6, section 21 of the California Constitution, or C.C.P. section 259(d), which Commissioner Gross did not have or he has to receive an appointment as a referee.
And you do not even show that he had received any appointment as a referee. You don’t even refer to that in here. You just say he’s appointed to preside in the Department. That does not make him a referee.

COMMISSIONER ACTIONS REVEALS DECEPTION?
And there are specific sections. In order to be a referee you have to be appointed as a referee. There is no order in this case which shows that Commissioner Gross was appointed as a referee. And in fact, when we dealt with the objections and so forth -- and, in fact, the motion to quash the subpoena, motion to quash the writ, Commissioner Gross didn't even handle that. He sent it out.

COURT'S JUDGMENT HIGHLY FALLACIOUS?
Using your theory, if he were, in fact, the referee in the case, he would have had the ability to deal with that particular issue because he would have the ability to deal with the questions. He would have the ability to deal with whether, in fact, the writ was properly issued. But he didn’t. He sent it out. So consequently, we have a situation that we have a person that is a Commissioner who is not a referee and whom you even admit there is no specific order making him a referee. So you’re wrong throughout this judgment. It is highly fallacious.

PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT LICENSE UNSUBSTANTIATED?
Now, we get to the other part of the judgment which is dealing with the facts of practicing law without a license or holding himself out as practicing law, or entitled to practice law. There is no order in this particular trial which says that I was ordered inactive. There is no order that says that my license was taken away. That’s not even existing. And in fact, you don’t even refer in this judgment to any evidence that says that. And if, hypothetically, there had been such an order entered, that would have been invalid because of the fact that the underlying state bar proceeding was involving the issue of my having brought the LACHAYOS Case and the Silva versus the County of Los Angeles case, which alleged that the L.A. County payments to judges were unconstitutional as a violation of Article 6, section 18, of the California Constitution and unconstitutional under the United States Constitution of Article 1 and Article 14.

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FOR JUDICIAL CRIMES?
Now, as we know, the Sturgeon Case (Sturgeon vs County of L.A.) held that those payments were unconstitutional under Article 6, section 19, of the California Constitution. Senate Bill SBX 211 affirmed the Sturgeon Case and gave the governments, the public officials, the government employees and everyone immunity for actions relating to those government payments. The State Bar, who is the authorized administrative arm of the California Supreme Court, California Supreme Court being a government entity, ends up prosecuting me for having filed those cases claiming that the filing of those cases was frivolous and, therefore, it was moral turpitude. They got immunity for that illegal act.

FRIVOLOUS JUDICIAL ACTIONS ?
What I did is I appealed the hearing judge’s statement or conclusion that those were frivolous and recommendations of disbarment and an order being inactive that went to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court did not order me to be inactive and only denied the petition for review under B&P Code 6084 (a).
The California Supreme Court has to enter an order, and on the case of in re rose, it specifically says that when one makes a timely petition for review, The Court must enter the order. They must independently review the situation. So there is no order by the California Supreme Court.
But it goes even further because three members of the California Supreme Court received immunity by having been judges that received payments from their counties, and these judges were Chin, Corrigan and Moreno. So they were even out from even being able to decide that issue.

SUPREME COURT + JUDICIAL COUNCIL = PREDJUDICE?
And in addition to that, you have the Chief Justice George and Justice Baxter who are the Judicial Council who are the group that wrote Senate Bill SBX 211, so they’re out because of the fact that they were prejudiced because of the fact they wrote the bill that gave the immunity to the judges. So even if there had been some type of a decision, the Supreme Court was out on it. So basically, what you have, if they even had put in the order, the order didn’t work.

The Court: is there any judge or justice in California that can order you to do anything?

Mr. Fine: yes, there is, and basically, those are:

1. The judges that are in San Francisco County who did not receive the payments.
2. The judges in Yolo County who did not receive the payments.
3. The judges in Mendocino County who did not receive the payments.
4. The justices on the California Court of Appeal who did not receive the payments.
5. The justices on the California Court of Appeal who did not receive the payments.
6. And two judges on the California Supreme Court, Judge Wordegar, and Judge Kennard, having been in the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1988 and even though the payments started in 1988, she, I believe, left the Los Angeles Superior Court in August of 1988 and, therefore, may have been off The Court before the payments began.
   
   So the answer to your question is yes, there are judges within the county -- California judicial system that can order me to do something. You are not one of them. And approximately 1,600 of these superior court judges are not one of them. And a certain amount of Court of Appeal justices are not part of them. And a minimal three to five justices of the California Supreme Court are not one of them.

CLEAN VS DIRTY JUDGES?
Yes, there are people in the California judicial system who are clean. There are a lot of people who are not clean, and those are the people who cannot order me to do something with respect to this particular case and who cannot order people to do things involving payments from counties. Unfortunately, your Honor, you are in this group that is disqualified. Not by me and not by my opinion, but by the opinion of the Legislature of the State of California and the Governor of California who have passed the law that have given you immunity for your illegal acts.
So essentially, the judgment that you have tendered is basically void because of the fact that you do not have the jurisdiction to go out and enter this judgment. You didn’t have jurisdiction to sit on this case, and no matter how much you want to try and get around that and no matter how much you want to dance around it, legally speaking, and no matter how much you want to avoid an act of the Legislature of the State of California and signed by the Governor of the State of California, you cannot do it.

CALIFORNIA IMMUNITY FOR JUDICIAL MISDEEDS?
We are no longer dealing in your interpretation of law versus my interpretation of law. We are now dealing with the law of the State of California which said that the acts that you have done are illegal. They gave you the immunity for it. You cannot be prosecuted criminally in the State of California for your acts. You are not -- you cannot be held civilly liable in the State of California for your acts. You cannot be punished by the Commission on Judicial Performance in the State of California for your acts.

NO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR FEDERAL CRIMES?
On the other hand, in the federal system, it’s a different story. There, under 18 United States Code Section 1346, you can be held liable for the violations of the implied or intangible right to perform honest services. You are still subject to federal criminal prosecution and you are still subject to federal liability. So that is where we are sitting.

ILLEGAL JUDGMENT?
Now, you may take your position, which you obviously have, against the federal law. You may take your position with respect to claims that you have jurisdiction to do something. I have my position, which is taking you up through The Courts and going into the writs of habeas corpus, which will ultimately decide these particular issues. You have done your thing here and I am respectfully advising you that it’s void; that it is illegal and it’s an illegal judgment.

The Court: All right. Thank you, Mr. Fine.

Mr. Fine: and that is where we are sitting. I respectfully suggest to you that if you’re thinking of any type of imposing of a sentence and—which you are indicating in here, I suggest that you may want to delay the actual serving of that sentence until such time as we end up finishing off all the writs because of the fact that what does happen is that even though you may have immunities under state laws, you don’t have immunities under federal laws for any type of false imprisonment or anything else on this particular order. So we’re both dealing in risk here.

The Court: All right. Thank you, Mr. Fine. Anything, counsel?

Mr. Comer: Yes, thank you, your Honor. Most of the arguments you heard before and I don’t need to respond to those. We would ask The Court to enact sentencing today, and on one amendment to the ruling is paragraph 7 of page 14. We respectfully request The Court to amend that sentencing today and order Mr. Fine to take down the website www.richardfinelaw.com which is still up to date.

Mr. Fine: Well, your Honor, in response to that, your Honor, the State Bar’s, quote, “disbarment order,” has not gone into effect. So consequently, there is no disbarment of me as of the present time according to the California Supreme Court, see, because you are dealing only on what is being considered an order of the State Bar of California, which itself is an invalid order. And if they are trying to go by anything done by the California Supreme Court, that order doesn’t go into effect until, I believe it’s March 13th.

The Court: I don’t think this is the appropriate time for me to order the contempt nor to do other things because then what if he doesn’t do those and, you know, this proceeding…

Mr. Comer: Thank you, your Honor.

The Court: -- proceeding has got to have a terminating point, and I think this is it.

Mr. Comer: Then we have nothing further, your Honor.