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

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

CLICK ON AUDIO PLAYER TO HEAR EXCERPT (2 min)

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

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

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


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

RELATED LINKS TO VIDEO AND BACKGROUND:

Sheriff Denies Full Disclosure Media Access Video (7 min)

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

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

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

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

Volunteers Fight Court Corruption.......... To Free Richard Fine: Video (10 min)

Los Angeles, CA Here is a ten minute Full Disclosure Network video news report about how volunteers are fighting what appears to be Court Corruption that is making it very difficult for Richard I Fine to win his freedom. The volunteers are trying to Free Richard Fine from L A County Central Men's Jail where he has been in solitary coercive confinement for going on seven months. He was jailed following a civil contempt judgment for having attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, for failing to disclose that he received illegal payments from a party involved in the litigation (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of L.A.)

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION SEEN AS THREAT
The video features Fred Sottile and Full Disclosure Host Leslie Dutton a with a description of how Richard Fine is representing himself "In Pro Per" writing the court documents using legal codes from memory in his jail cell. The difficult circumstances of this legal battle is described vividly by Sottile who sees the Judicial Corruption as a threat to the entire country.

OBSTACLES ENCOUNTERED
The obstacles encountered by the volunteers for Richard I Fine are documented in a series of video news reports produced by the Full Disclosure Network. The second segment in the series is to be release next week. Many of the volunteers helping Richard Fine have had personal encounters with the flawed Court process and were motivated to come forward due to the issues involved in his case.

NEXT WEEK'S EPISODE........."Missing Documents & Federal Court Rules"

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.

# # # # #

9-1-1 Call: From 70 Year Old Attorney Richard I Fine...Jailed After Attempt To Disqualify Judge

Listen Here: Richard I Fine's 9-1-1 call to Leslie Dutton of

Full Disclosure Network while reading the post with transcript below

Los Angeles, CA Prominent Anti-Trust attorney Richard I Fine placed his third 911 call to the Full Disclosure Network on Friday, July 31, 2009 describing a "State of Emergency" regarding Judicial abuse and corruption. The 911 calls were made in desperation as each call detailed the conditions in L.A. County Central Men's Jail in solitary confinement and the total isolation that was hampering his legal efforts to get out of jail.

On March 4, 2009 Mr. Fine was sentenced for Contempt of Court by Judge David Yaffe for an indefinite period of time, without bail, without a hearing date and without a release date following his attempt to disqualify the Judge from hearing a case involving the County of Los Angeles who had been making illegal payments to Judge Yaffe for more than a decade.

In this 13 minute audio of his latest 911 call Fine reveals shocking details, substantiated by the actual court documents (links provided here). The full transcript of the call is posted here:

9-1-1 CALL TRANSCRIPT (PDF download Here)

• DUTTON: What is the status your Emergency Motion (Writ of Habeas Corpus) to be released from jail?

• FINE: The status of my motion is that it is still pending. I filed the motion on July 9th -- as an emergency motion to be immediately let out of jail and to have the writ granted. As of the present time, there has been no opposition to the motion. In the U.S. District Court, there was not any opposition to my Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Sheriff did not even respond to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe did not oppose anything in the Writ for Habeas Corpus. And in addition to that, neither of them certified why I was in jail. There is something that is very, very seriously wrong in this case.

• DUTTON: The Sheriff filed, in his Motion to Dismiss. What was the outcome of that?

• FINE: His Motion to Dismiss was denied on June 30th by Judge Walter, and Judge Walter denied it as being moot.

• DUTTON: So the Sheriff didn't certify why you were being held, having made a motion to dismiss, and Federal District Court Judge Walters said it was moot?
  
• FINE: He said -- Yes, he -- he denied it as being moot after he ended up denying my writ. So basically we had the situation that the Sheriff did not answer -- the Sheriff did not answer the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. And did not certify why I was here.
  
• DUTTON: Now, for our viewers' sake, a Writ of Habeas Corpus is basically -- it's presumed that it will be granted unless the respondent can demonstrate otherwise, that you should remain in custody.
  
• FINE: Well, that's correct. The law says -- and the law is (inaudible s/l called?) 28 United States Code Section 2243 says that when the writ is filed, the judge either has to do one of two things: He either has to grant it immediately or he has to enter what is called an Order to Show Cause ordering the respondents -- which in this case was the Sheriff -- to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless for some reason the writ itself is just totally fails. In my case, the writ didn't fail and the judge ordered the Sheriff to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Instead, what the Sheriff did is, the Sheriff moved to have himself be dismissed as the respondent, or in the alternative, have the District Attorney -- have the Superior Court answer. And what happened is that Judge Walter ended up denying that motion, and the Sheriff never answered or certified why I was being held. The Superior Court came in and they never certified why I was being held, and they never ended up showing cause why I should -- why the writ should not be granted.
  
• DUTTON: And were they -- was the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe a party to this Writ of Habeas Corpus?
  
• FINE: No. Actually, they were not. The only party to the Writ of Habeas Corpus was the Sheriff. The -- so they were not a party, but they could be called what is called Real Parties in Interest, but they were never named as that by the Sheriff, and when they came into the case, they never applied to be named to intervene in the case or to be named as a party. So they actually were strangers to the case.
  
• DUTTON: Now, from a legal standpoint, does that make their arguments of any consequence, if they don't have standing?
  
• FINE: Well, it makes their argument of no consequence, but had they intervened, they could have achieved some type of a standing. But even if they had achieved the standing, then they would have had to have respond with reasons why the writ should not be granted, and they never did that. And also, they would have had to have ended up certifying as to why I should -- why I was being held, which they also didn't do, and also they would have had to have produced the entire record of the contempt case, which they also did not do.
  
• DUTTON: Now, there have been reports of judicial abuse of the contempt of court cases, instances where some people have been held in jail for decades. Do you see this breakdown of the court not following the United States Code as an abuse?
  
• FINE: Oh, there's absolutely no question. In my particular case, there's no question that it's an abuse because the Code has specific rules as to what is supposed to happen, and in my case, they broke every one of the rules. You could go -- go right down the Code -- I won't enumerate them all here -- but you can go right down the Code as to each rule that was supposed to take place and they broke them rule by rule by rule.
  
• DUTTON: What is the recourse now? What is your recourse?
  
• FINE: My recourse is to be in the Ninth Circuit, and that's where I have gone, and in a normal situation, when you make a motion -- in the normal situation, when you make a motion in the Ninth Circuit and there's no opposition, your motion is granted immediately. And so that's the next problem that we have here is that I have the motion in the Ninth Circuit; there's been no opposition, and we're sitting -- I've been sitting around waiting for almost a month now.
  
• DUTTON: Is it con- --
  
• FINE: This is a very, very strange part.
  
• DUTTON: Is it conceivable that there is, like, a code of silence here among the judges to just keep you imprisoned without allowing the case to go forward as prescribed by law?
  
• FINE: Well, I think it's more than conceivable. Actually, in my papers, I called it a code of protection. Because what we have in this particular case is that with respect to the Superior Court, you have criminal activity that has occurred, and that's not my viewpoint. That's actually the viewpoint of the legislature of the governor because they passed Senate Bill SBX 2 11, which gave the Superior Court immunity from criminal prosecution. So the governor and the legislature has said that the payments that Judge Yaffe got and that what every other judge got from the County are criminal. So you have criminal activity that has taken place. And now you have the District Court going in and protecting these judges from being prosecuted for this criminal activity, because my Writ of Habeas Corpus goes in and says that these judges took -- engaged in criminal activity by having taken these illegal payments, and therefore they can't sit on either the underlying case or the contempt case. And so what the District Court did is, the District Court then broke federal law by denying my writ. And now we're up in the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit is sitting on my motions and delaying, which basically means that they're going along with what the District Court has done, which is effectively not prosecuted the Superior Court judges for having taken the illegal payments. That's what it really comes down to.
  
• DUTTON: Okay. Well, we're going to release this update on the internet very shortly, and we will have it transcribed so people can download it from our website, and we are trying to reach the legal counsel for the Sheriff of L.A County-- that's Mr. Aaron Fontana -- and then we're going to reach Kevin McCormick from Ventura, California, who represented the Court and Judge Yaffe, and ask them why they refused to certify the reasons that you were being held in jail. And we're going to try to get a statement, if we can, from the District Court,* because of Judge Walter's denying the writ and denying the Sheriff's Motion to Dismiss as Moot. So is there any last comment you'd like to make before we move on with this report?
  
• FINE: Yeah, I think my last comment is that recently, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Caperton versus Massey Coal Company, came down and said that when a judge gets a large payment into his campaign committee, and the person who gave the payment is coming up in front of him with a case, that the judge has to recuse himself. So in our case -- or in my case -- what you have is, you have a judge having gotten an illegal payment and refused to recuse himself, so my case is even worse than what the Supreme Court has just decided as being the duties of the judge. So we know that what is happening here is really horrific, and it is affecting over 1600 Superior Court judges across California, a number of Appellate Court judges, and a minimum of four of the seven California Supreme Court justices, and another two Supreme Court Justices that wrote the legislation that gave them the retroactive immunity. So this is a major, major problem in the California Judicial System, which has basically overturned and wrecked the entire California Judicial System and which has denied 38 million people access to the courts and has denied them a fair judicial system.
  
• DUTTON: Okay. Well, thank you very much. Just one last question: Are you prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get your release from jail?
  
• FINE: Absolutely. I've already gone to the Supreme Court with respect to the disbarment, which is dealing with exactly the same issue that we're dealing with here. So I'm prepared to go all the way up and do what is ever -- what is ever necessary to cure these problems in our dysfunction judicial system.
  
• DUTTON: Now, we know that you are in solitary confinement and that we are -- at least can talk to you from this phone in your jail cell. What access do you have to the legal documents and to the records? How are you...
  
• FINE: What access? The -- the so-called law library at the jail does not have really any access to Federal Reports or anything else. They have some access to, you know, to some cases and things, but all of those things are on the disks, are on disks, and there isn't really any way to go in and trace them in the normal way that one does legal research. So basically everything that I have -- that I do really has to come off of memory or off of documents that come in to me from the people that work with me.
  
• DUTTON: Okay. Well, thank you very much for this explanation and update. We're going to get this out as soon as possible. Thank you.
  
  

*Full Disclosure's telephone calls to attorneys for the Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and Sheriff Leroy Baca were not returned at the time of this posting. The District Court was unavailable by telephone.

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.

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"

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.

“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.

Judicial Critic Richard Fine Fights For Freedom: Sheriff Baca To Defend Judge Yaffee?

WILL SHERIFF LEROY BACA DEFEND JUDGE YAFFE

OR RELEASE JUDICIAL CRITIC?

Los Angeles, CA Sheriff Leroy Baca is the "Respondent" referred to in U. S. Judge Magistrate Carla Woehrle's Order to Respond on the writ of habeas corpus filed by judicial critic Richard I Fine.

After spending over a month in L A. County Central Men’s Jail, having been sentenced indefinitely for Contempt of Court on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 the first break occurred for Mr. Richard I. Fine. For two weeks his writ of habeas corpus had been assigned to U. S. Judge George Wu, and for a while there it looked like all the Judges, State and Federal , would keep Fine locked up for some time, without any action on the case. When Full Disclosure Network contacted Judge Wu’s clerk to find out what was causing the delay and why there had been no action on Fine's writ of mandate, we received a prompt response referring us to U. S. Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle. After all, a writ of habeas corpus is supposed to generate action “forth with” which means RIGHT NOW and two weeks seemed like a long time, especially to Mr. Fine.

However, by the end of that afternoon, the U.S. Central District Court posted on their website an ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE OF HABEAS CORPUS signed by Judge Woehrle that states:

“An answer must address both the merits of all grounds for relief asserted in the petition, and any applicable procedural issues. If Respondent (Sheriff) concedes the issue of exhaustion, (of all legal remedies) Respondent shall so state, expressly, in the answer.” And Respondent may file, a motion to dismiss on grounds other than the merits of Petitioner’s claims, such as failure to exhaust state remedies or untimeliness.” (read entire order here)

RICHARD I. FINE

Richard Fine’s long and distinguished legal career paid off when he had no choice but to represent himself. While in L A County Men’s Central Jail. He dictated from memory, via the jail telephone to his loyal volunteers. He gave them, the exact wording and citations to be included in his writ of habeas corpus. Then, they filed the writ in the U.S. Central District Court of California, on his behalf and without his signature as he had no access to even paper or pen.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:
According to Richard I. Fine here is a brief summary of the issues contained in his writ of habeas corpus to which the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department must now respond in fourteen days:

1) Can Judge Yaffe legally sit as a Judge in a contempt proceeding where one of the parties (Fine) has raised the issue of his taking illegal payments from one of the parties in the case?
2) The Original declaration and Order to Show Cause supporting the contempt proceeding did not give notice of all documents used in the proceedings.
3) The lawyers used by the Court in the Contempt proceeding were lawyers who were actually working for the benefit of a party whose order they were trying enforce.
4) The Commissioner who required Richard I. Fine to answer questions was not a Judge or duely appointed Referee and did not have the legal power or authority to order Fine to answer questions.
5) The underlying order (for Fine) to pay money to the County and Del Rey Shores Developers was unconstitutional because there was never any notice given to Fine and Fine was not present at the hearing when such order was made.
6) The charge of practicing law without a license, is a criminal charge and there was a denial of due process, in the absence of a jury trial option.
7) There was no evidence presented in court to support any of the charges upon which Judge Yaffe held fine guilty to: a) Not answering questions to a commissioner, and b) practicing law without a license
8) Judge Yaffe had taken illegal payments from the county, a party to the case, and therefore was not qualified to sit as a judge
9) No order by the California Supreme Court that ordered Fine to be “inactive” or “Disbarred” was presented at the contempt Trial.
10) Judge Yaffe was disqualified from the case by Civil Code Section 170.3 (c) (3) objection for having taken money from the county and for not disclosing the receipt of this money. Judge Yaffe did not respond to this complaint and thereby consenting to the disqualification.

MEDIA INTERVIEW REQUEST IN JAIL DENIED:
When the Full Disclosure Network® contacted the Film and Media Office of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to arrange for an interview with Mr. Fine in the Central Men’s Jail, Twin Tower #1, we were asked for his booking number and release date.

Full Dislosure informed Deputy Johns there was no release date and that Fine had been sentenced for an indefinite period of time, without bail, without an attorney and there was no future hearing date scheduled. The Deputy started to laugh and said you have got to be kidding, we don’t keep people here indefinitely. We have overcrowding don’t you know?

This was reminiscent of the Paris Hilton episode a few years back, when she was released from County jail early for some reason but mainly due to overcrowding. But Paris Hilton was not in the cross hairs of the Superior Court of the State of California and Richard I. Fine had dared to attempt to disqualify Judge David Yaffe for having accepted illegal payments from a party involved in the case before him.

That was March 11, 2009 and the Full Disclosure request for interview with Fine was denied. According to Deputy Johns, it was denied because Fine had been sentenced for Contempt of Court and the Sheriff would not approve an interview and only Judge Yaffe would do that.

Despite his family’s pleas for help to legal aid organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Judicial Watch organization, Mr. Fine was unable to obtain legal representation of any kind. Both Judicial Watch and the ACLU claimed that they turn down many people due to lack of resources. The ACLU told Full Disclosure they turn down hundreds of people every week By way of explanation Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU, Southern California wrote “if it were an important case that would affect many, many people we might do it but we just cannot.”

New filings and updates on this case are to be provided soon.

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.