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

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.

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

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

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

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

Two US Judges Refuse to Recuse From Case Naming Them As Defendants: (Video 9 min)

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a short video news blog report on what has been described by the volunteer legal team helping Richard I. Fine as a “bombshell cover-up” by two Federal Judges, Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter denied Fine's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Case 09-cv-7943) where they themselves were named as defendants.

The case of jailed Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I. Fine a prominent attorney who holds a PhD in International law has generated a protracted legal battle playing out in the U.S. Central District Court of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals all the while Fine has been held in solitary coercive confinement in the L.A. County Central Men’s jail since March 4, 2009.

Fine was sentenced for an indefinite period of time, without bail, hearing date or release date, for civil contempt of court after he attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe on the grounds that he had taken illegal payments from a party to the case.

In his new Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the U.S. District Court Mr. Fine cites on page 12 that the 5 day limit to hold him for “coercive incarceration” as having been violated by the L. A. Superior Court and the L A County Sheriff.

Also on page 12 the petition cites that 28 USC Section 2243 as having been violated by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and Judge John F, Walter. Magistrate Judge signed an order to strike the filing of the Writ, even though she was named as a defendant and Judge Walter signed both a judgment and denial even though he was named as a defendant.

Fine also filed an emergency writ of mandate in the Ninth Circuit Court of appeal to order the District Court to issue the writ.

Appearing in the video are:

• Mardi Mason, (By Telephone) Former Richard Fine law office manager and Para-Legal
• Fred Sottile, Volunteer for Richard Fine
• Leslie Dutton, Moderator, Full Disclosure Network
  
  
  Other Related Documents:
• Letter To Panel Justices Re: Judicial Recusal Hearings to be held in Congress
• Request for Judicial Notice: Recusal by all judges of CA 2nd District Appeals Ct.
• Docket of case 09-cv-7943 sequence of dates posting various orders,
• Referral of Recusal Motion to U S Judge George King
  
  
  
  

Video: Missing Documents & Federal Court Rules: The Richard I Fine Case

Los Angeles, CA Important court documents have been reported missing from the U. S. Courts website known as “PACER” in the Richard I Fine case. Here is a 14 min video and transcript of the telephone interview with Mardi Mason and Richard Fine regarding the missing documents.

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH MARDI MASON September 3, 2009

Mardi Mason: I have worked on very sophisticated and complicated cases but I have never seen any kind of situation like I’m looking at here in terms of problems with documents not even appearing in the docket. That’s a new one for me entirely.

Mardi Mason: It’s basically an index. It’s a typed list of what documents comprise the file. It would tell you the date received, it would assign a number in sequence when it came in, a short description of the document, maybe some notes from the clerk as to when it was actually entered, things like that. It’s just basically a simplified index of the documents that are in the case file.

Leslie Dutton: You found in past practices that if you wanted to check the Federal court website that the documents were usually there and posted properly?

Mardi Mason: Before all of this happened, it never would even have occurred to me to question the integrity of a court docket. Now, I never will again.

Leslie Dutton: Just tell us … how many have been missing?

Mardi Mason: Well, for example, in the district court case concerning disbarment, there are a total of seven documents in the docket. But they’re only identifying them by Numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7, meaning Number 2 and Number 6 are missing. Both of those are Mr. Fine’s pleadings that he has filed. One is the Response to Order to Show Cause Re Disbarment, and the other is a Motion to Set Aside Order of Disbarment. What they’ve done is erase Richard’s restatement of the facts and his defenses from the record. They won’t let the public view the documents or even acknowledge that they exist. Yet the fact that the docket numbers were assigned and skipped proves they have them, they just don’t want the public to see what’s in them. At least that’s what I’m left to conclude; what other legitimate reason could there be?

Mardi Mason: I called yesterday on the latest one to turn up missing and I was passed to about five different clerks who essentially shrugged their shoulders and couldn’t explain why it wasn’t in the docket even though two other documents that we’d sent within the same package by FedEx that got there on Monday. Those other two are in the docket but the third one, a current Motion for Release, is missing. They don’t know … they transferred me to another clerk, she didn’t know … finally one said, “Well, maybe you should give it more time and call us back in another day or two. And I said, “Well, under normal circumstances, that’s probably reasonable, but considering we have someone illegally incarcerated, every additional minute is worth taking into account and trying to get to the bottom of what’s going on. So can you help me find the person who knows?” She transferred me to someone’s voicemail.

Leslie Dutton: And you’ve not heard back from that person?

Mardi Mason: No.

Leslie Dutton: Apparently, this isn’t the first time documents have been missing. Share with us a couple of examples of what could be serious malfeasance of the court.

Mardi Mason: Well, it was an order for him to show cause why he shouldn’t be disbarred from practicing before the district court. So … it was extremely important. I found it by luck when I was doing research through the PACER system. The problem was, they … not only did he not get it, it’s not like it was misdirected, they never even served it. There is no Proof of Service connected to that document. On top of that, once Richard found out about it and we prepared a response, this is now one of the missing documents.

Mardi Mason: Then, they issued an order disbarring him. He filed a response to that … that is another missing document.

Leslie Dutton: We asked her if in her professional opinion did she think that this is a purposeful action on the part of the court to inhibit Mr. Fine’s ability to defend himself?

Mardi Mason: It’s making it nearly impossible. Between the documents being missing, the fact that he was denied a way to even write out his documents for the longest time, the fact that he was denied access … er, the press was denied access to him … It’s happened far too many times for it all to be accidental. This is the third case … not the third document, but the third case in which documents that have been filed have not shown up on the docket. And in one other instance, the missing document was used to justify striking one of his pleadings for failure to follow a certain rule … except that he had and they knew it, but it was the only way to justify denying his habeas corpus petition. So … the rules don’t provide for playing “hide and seek” with legal documents. Which is one reason we provide the documents ourselves on the website, so at least the public can see what they contain and know what’s going on and know Richard’s side of the story.

Leslie Dutton: Now you used the term “hide and seek” … play “hide and seek” with the documents. Could you tell me, are there court rules about the handling of documents, official documents, that would prohibit this “hide and seek” strategy?

Mardi Mason: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule Number 27, is pretty straightforward in terms of the clerks are required to accept and file and publish pretty much everything that is submitted to the court other than certain pre-agreed sealed documents … you know, extraordinary things like that. So there is no legitimate reason why these documents aren’t appearing in these cases.

Leslie Dutton: And the “hide and seek” that the court is playing with the legal documents have a decidedly negative effect on the 70-year-old Mr. Fine.

Leslie Dutton: Well, this morning I checked the docket and Mr. Fine’s motion for emergency release, based on the brief that he’d prepared for the appeal, is now listed as having been posted on August 31st. But it didn’t appear on the docket until today, September 3rd. Has that in any way impeded his ability or their consideration?

Mardi Mason: Considering we understand that some of the judges meet on Mondays to consider such motions, yes, they cost him another week in jail. This is the same case that I called in about yesterday where I got transferred to five different clerks looking for what happened to this motion. So, now I guess now it has appeared after I questioned so many people about it yesterday.

Leslie Dutton: So phone calls, public scrutiny and pressure is having some effect on the questionable behavior of the court. To document the inconsistent behavior, Mardi Mason now uses her computer to take screenshots of PACER, the official website of the court so she can accumulate proof of the irregularities.

Mardi Mason: Well, I have learned to make copies of the PACER dockets online every time I go and so I can provide a copy of the screenshot I took yesterday … and it wasn’t there then.
Leslie Dutton: So you have a screenshot of all the dockets for every day.

Mardi Mason: Every day that I visit a particular case. I’ve just learned that things come and go, so I capture a screenshot just to be able to prove something like this … it’s not the way you’re trying to make it look.

Leslie Dutton: Why would the court not want certain documents to appear on the docket?

Mardi Mason: In this case, those documents show rampant judicial corruption.

Leslie Dutton: Mr. Fine agrees. He talked to us on the phone from solitary confinement in jail and explained exactly how and why the dockets are being manipulated by the court.

Richard Fine: We know that the documents went to the judges … because the clerk got them and first marked the document “received” instead of marking the document “filed”. And the person that makes the decision ultimately as to whether the document is filed or received is not really the clerk. It’s the judge.

Richard Fine: So the clerk has to take the document in. Then the document goes up to the judge and the judge is going to decide if that document’s going to be filed or if it’s not going to be filed. So the ultimate decision is with the judge.

Leslie Dutton: If people wanted to complain or address the situation, who can they turn to? We asked Mardi Mason, “Who can be held responsible?”

Mardi Mason: I do know the Administrative Office of the Courts … I researched and found out last night … this entity is what ultimately presides over these computer systems. So they probably would be … they work in conjunction with a national judicial commission, so they would be who I would approach for answers on how to address this kind of highly suspicious activity by a senior appellate court. … The bottom line is that every relevant Supreme Court precedent case supports Richard Fine in holding that, under the circumstances, Judge Yaffe was obliged to recuse himself. It’s absolutely crystal clear. There are no holdings which oppose that position, and that means that Judge Yaffe has no legal leg to stand on.

Leslie Dutton: Wow. This is just incredible. Whoever dreamed that this is going on in our court system.

Mardi Mason: I didn’t, and it’s still hard for me to accept that you can’t trust the basic things to have any integrity. I’ve had other people make comments to me about problems with the dockets and I kind of didn’t really listen because it just didn’t permeate my brain that that was even remotely possible. And yet I have seen now, In the past four months I’ve been working on this, so many different examples. And they all have to do with critical documents concerning Richard’s case.

Should Federal Judges Woehrle & Walters Have Recused Themselves? ..........On The Richard I Fine Case?

DID ILLEGAL COUNTY PAYMENTS INFLUENCE JUDGES?

Los Angeles, CA U. S. Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and District Judge John F. Walter considered Richard I Fine's petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Immediate Release (09-cv-1914) and his Complaint against the State Bar of California (08-cv-2906) but according to documents filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Central District Court, Fine claims the Judges failed to disclose a serious conflict and should have disqualified themselves from the case, instead they denied his petition and his due process in their own self interest.

JUDGES RULE IN SELF INTEREST?

Fine alleges both Judges would be adversely impacted if they ruled in favor of his petition according to the motion to Recuse Judge Woehrle and the motion to recuse Judge Walter in which he describes a horror story scenario whereby legal malpractice lawsuits would result. against the Federal Judges who were former criminal defense attorneys and their law firms, comparing the circumstances as stated in his writ of Habeas Corpus petition:

"it was a violation of due process for L. A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, who had received illegal payments from L.A. County, to preside over a case where L A County was a party, make an order in its favor and in favor of its co-applicant for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and then preside over a contempt proceeding to judge his own actions and enforce the order."

MOTIONS TO RECUSE ALLEGE:
"based upon former past practice and actions (as criminal defense attorneys) if Judge Woehrle (and Judge Walter ) "had decided to grant the writ, they would open themselves up to malpractice claims from clients for who they did not raise the issue of denial of due process and transfer the case(s)"...(of clients who were convicted by L.A. Superior Court Judges who received illegal payments from the County.)............
"knowing all of this information Magistrate Judge Woehrle (and Judge Walter) were under a duty to disclose such (and recuse themselves) but did neither and elected to conceal the information."

Watch 9-1-1 call video (9 min) from Richard Fine .

Did Illegal County Payments From 1988 to 2009 Influence The Criminal Justice System ?

This Report sent to Full Disclosure from the Free Richard Fine Website

California Legislative Analysts's 2009 Report (excerpts)

Read Full Report Here

State Corrections Population in a Historical Context— Rising Caseloads and Spending

Significant Prison Growth Driven by Several Factors. As previously noted, the prison population has increased significantly over the past 20 years. The factors contributing to this increase are the (1) number of new admissions sent to prison by criminal courts, (2) amount of time served by non–lifer inmates, (3) number of inmates in prison with life sentences, (4) number of parolees returned to prison by criminal courts for new felony offenses, and (5) number of parolees returned to prison by the state’s administrative revocation process. As Figure 5 shows, most of these factors have increased significantly between 1987 and 2007.

Not Demographics or Crimes. Our analysis indicates, however, that changes in population and crime rates do not explain much if any of the growth in the number of admissions from the courts. Between 1987 and 2007, California’s population of ages 15 through 44—the age cohort with the highest risk for incarceration—grew by an average of less than 1 percent annually, which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison admissions. Moreover, the number of crimes committed actually decreased over the past two decades. Specifically, the total number of reported violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and grand theft) decreased by an average of about 1 percent annually over the past two decades.

Law Enforcement and Prosecution Help Explain the Trend. So, what does explain the increase in court admissions? Arrest and prosecution data tell at least part of the story. As shown in the figure below, despite declining crime rates, the number of adult felony arrests has remained relatively stable over the past two decades. However, the number of felony charges filed, convictions achieved, and prison sentences ordered by the courts have significantly increased during the same time period. These outcomes suggest that law enforcement has increased the percent of felony crimes resulting in arrests. In addition, prosecutors have increased the proportion of (1) arrests resulting in prosecution, (2) charges resulting in a conviction, and (3) convictions resulting in a prison sentence. As a consequence, a felony arrest is almost twice as likely to result in a prison sentence than it was two decades ago.

FULL DISCLOSURE WANTS YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT:
PLEASE LEAVE YOUR FEEDBACK AND OPINION
IN THE COMMENT SECTION BELOW

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?

Breaking News: U S. 9th Circuit Court to Free Richard I. Fine?

U S COURT OF APPEAL 9th CIRCUIT TO TAKE ON PLIGHT OF RICHARD I. FINE?

Los Angeles CA. After 93 days in L. A. County Central Men's Jail on a Civil Contempt of Court sentence, prominent Anti-Trust attorney Richard I. Fine has had enough. He has finally taken matters into his own hands by filing with the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Fine is representing himself "in pro-per" and has now been assigned a file number and placed on the official Court PACER website where the next steps in his on-going battle with the California Superior Court will be posted for all to see.

According to Mr. Fred Sottile, Volunteer Staff Coordinator for the FREE RICHARD FINE committee, the 9th Circuit Court Clerk "Bradley" contacted him by telephone today, June 3, 2009 , regarding the following actions of the Court saying, "Because this Writ should have been handled by the lower (Central District) Court, and because it was their responsibility to act on the original Habeas Corpus filing, we are returning the $455 filing fee as it would be improper for us to accept it."

U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit

File No. 09-71692

and the parties listed as follows:

RICHARD I. FINE
vs
JUDGE JOHN F. WALTER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE WOEHRLE
(Sheriff of Los Angeles County has custody of prisoner)

EMERGENCY

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY

A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY

(23 U.S. C. 2241)

And Request For Immediate Release

after 90 days of unlawful incarceration

Sentence Date: March 4, 2009

No bail, no hearing date, indeterminate duration

After a plea of Not Guilty

Finding by judge without a jury

GROUND ONE: Violation of 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment (denial of due process) by having violated 28 USC Sec 2243

SUPPORTING FACTS: A petition for writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on March 20th, 2009 (Case# 09-CV-1914-JFW(CW) Magistrate Woehrle violated 28 USC 2243 by not ordering a response "forthwith" and instead waiting 18 days until April 7 to order respondent, Sheriff of Los Angeles County to respond to the petition.

The Sheriff did not identify any "interested party" other than the Sheriff and Petitioner on his notice of interested parties. He responded by claiming he did not have sufficient information to respond. His attorney claimed contact with the attorney for the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles and Judge Yaffe who indicated that they would respond if "directed" to do so by the Court.

On April 23, Magistrate Woehrle directed the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles to respond to the Petitioner by May 1, 2009. Such date of May 1, 2009 was greater than the 20 days allowed for a response to the petition under 28 USC 2243. Further, the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe were not within the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court as they had never appeared in the case.

The Superior Court and Judge Yaffe filed a response on May 1, 2009 and did not file a notice of interested parties or a notice of intervention. The response did not address the substance of the petition. Neither the response of the Sheriff nor the response of the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe addressed the petitioner's Ex Parte application for immediate relief filed April 9, 2009 to which Magistrate Woehrle ordered a response by both of them. As of May 30th, 2009, Magistrate Woehrle has not issued the writ of Habeas Corpus despite the fact that no opposition has been filed to the Petitioner by the Sheriff, the Superior Court or Judge Yaffe.

In summary, under the requirements of 28 USC Section 2243 the Court should have either awarded the writ on March 20th or March 21st or "issued an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted" on such days. The writ or order to show cause should have been directed to the Sheriff of Los Angeles County as the person who had custody of Petitioner Fine. The Sheriff "shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention" within three days unless for good cause additional time not exceeding twenty days is allowed." This means that the Sheriff had to respond by April 11th at the latest under the statue, and that the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe would also have had to respond by such days.

The statute further provides "when the writ or order is returned, a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed." This means that the hearing date should have been set for April 16th , at the latest. Petitioner is still incarcerated and has now been incarcerated for approximately 90 days without any substantive opposition to the petition and without any certification of the true cause of detention and without any hearing date being set. By these actions Magistrate Judge Woerhle and Judge Walter have violated the 5th and 14th amendment and 28 USC section 2243. The petition must be immediately granted and petitioner set free.

GROUND TWO: District Court Judges are themselves violating the law.

SUPPORTING FACTS: An original Writ of Habeas Corpus is being filed with the 9th Circuit because it cannot be filed in District Court. The District Court Judges are the ones now violating the law, 28 USC Section 2243, and the rights of the Petitioner . The District Court cannot hear the matter as the District court is biased and has conflicts of interest.

GROUND THREE: District Court refused to accept the writ without discarding all previous Habeas Corpus pleadings and filings; thus prolonging Petitioner's incarceration.

SUPPORTING FACTS: The District Court was presented with a federal writ. It was marked as received by the District Court but not filed. Petitioner has been illegally incarcerated for 90 days as retaliation by Los Angeles Judges for exposing illegal payments to 1,600 California Judges. Petitioner's disbarment appeal is also before the same District Court, Judge Walter is denying Petitioner both his civil liberties and his livelihood; contributing to his own illegal retaliation against Petitioner.

STATEMENT WHY U.S. COURT REMEDY WARRANTED:
State Court appeal not allowed under CCA Sec. 1209, Writ of Habeas Corpus to California Courts is exactly the sole remedy which was fully exhausted. Moreover, since incarceration on March 4, 2009 Petitioner has been denied all access to writing materials and to all written materials and legal documents. He was allowed into the library once in two weeks. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is based on Magistrate Woehrle's refusal to follow the requirements of 28 USC Sec. 2243.

(The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals posted on their Website receipt of the above Writ , a copy was provided to Full Disclosure by Mr. Fred Sottile of the FREE RICHARD FINE Committee who prepared and filed the document at Mr. Fine's direction)

Exclusive Full Disclosure Network video interview with Richard I Fine here.

Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption: Powerful Friends Support Judges Bid To Keep Double Benefits (Video 7 min)

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a seven minute preview video featuring excerpts from Part 3 and 4 from an on going series entitled “Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption.” These two new episodes feature Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch attorney, whose 2008 successful lawsuit found the L.A. County’s payments of double benefits to Judges was unlawful. (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles).

The San Diego Appellate Court decision in favor of the Judicial Watch lawsuit was upheld when the Supreme Court refused to hear it. However, in this series Norris describes the behind the scenes court maneuvers conducted by the California Judiciary that is apparently determined to retain the illegal benefits, while serving as employees of the State of California.

Here are few of the points made by Norris in the two new episodes:

• Failure of California Judges to disclose receipt of payments from counties either to the parties involved in lawsuits or on their economic interest disclosures.


• In the last ten years each of the 600 Judges in L.A. have received $350,000 in illegal payments.


• L.A. Superior Court hired a lobbyist for $60,000 to sponsor SBX211 legislation. Has the Superior Court hired lobbyists before?


• SBX211 (part of the Feb. 2009 Budget Bill) legalized retroactively the judicial double benefits and


• SBX211 provided retroactive criminal and liability immunity from prosecution to the Judges and County officials involved in the payments of public money. Norris asks why? They must have thought crimes were involved.


• Have the L. A. Superior Court ever intervened in any other lawsuit, as they have with this issue of double benefits?


• Judicial mind-set and integrity questioned as the battle over wages escalated.


• Legal and law enforcement forces step forward to fight for judicial double benefits, ignore conflict and judicial bias potential


• Major forces on record defending double benefits to Judges: L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley, County Public Defender, All Bar Associations, big law firms who appear before the Judges. Norris asks, did the Court stop to think about a resulting bias and prejudice?

“COERCIVE CONFINEMENT” Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption: Video Preview of Series (10 min)

L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe

Los Angeles, CA. Why was prominent anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine sentenced to “coercive confinement” in the L.A. Central Men’s Jail for an indefinite period of time? It has been sixty days in solitary confinement and is growing each day. On May 1, 2009 Fine and his supporters learned the reasons why. In a ordered response to his Writ of Habeas Corpus and request for immediate release. A Ventura, California law firm representing the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe, filed a response and revealed the intent of the confinement was to “coerce” Fine into submission.

Full Disclosure Network® presents a ten minute preview from a two-part series covering this extraordinary case where Richard I. Fine and others discuss the circumstances and implications of Los Angeles Superior Court Judges, including Judge David Yaffe, of taking illegal payments from Los Angeles County while sitting in judgment on cases where the county is a party. Having raised the issue of Judicial corruption since 1999, Fine maintains that over a period from 2005 through 2008 only two cases have been decided against the County by a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge.

JUDGE YAFFE'S RESPONSE

Here is a quote from the Court Ordered response filed by the Ventura, California law firm of Kevin M. McCormick (BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM) hired by L. A. County Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe where they are opposing the release of Richard I Fine from solitary “coercive confinement”.

“The use of COERCIVE CONFINEMENT resulting from civil contempt has been approved and found appropriate by the United States Supreme Court, federal district and appellate courts and California state courts, regarding the right of a civil judgment creditor to pursue and of a trial court to impose for purposes of an individual’s compliance with a valid court order.”


JUDICIAL BENEFITS AT HEART OF CONROVERSY

This is an on-going series covering the issue judicial benefits and court corruption. Part Three and Four feature a one-hour interview with Judicial Watch organization and former prominent L. A. Deputy District Attorney, Sterling Norris, whose landmark case (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) found that payments made to Superior Court Judges from the Counties was illegal. Judicial Watch has vowed to challenge the legislation enacted in February 2009 as part of the California budget bill SBX 211 that provided retroactive immunity from prosecution for all state judges and county officials who received or approved the illegal payments since 1988.

The entire series is featured on 40 cable systems and the Full Disclosure Network website.