Inmate Complaint Against Sheriff For Unlawful Imprisonment of Richard Fine

IS SHERIFF LEROY BACA GUILTY OF
UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT?

INMATE COMPLAINT:

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

By Richard I Fine

Inmate ID # 1824367

L. A. County Central Men's Jail

DEMAND FOR RELEASE DUE TO UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT

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

Richard I. Fine

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

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

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

SHERIFF HOLDS THE KEY TO RICHARD FINE'S FREEDOM?

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

PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS:

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

Monday: L A County Supervisors to Give Judges $Millions More Illegal Payments?

MYSTERIOUS

County Budget Approval Process Revealed

Los Angeles, CA This Monday, June 22, 2009 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is poised to approve untold millions of dollars of what has been ruled as illegal payments to Superior Court Judges in an obsure Agenda Item listed on Page 9 Section V as " Other Budget Items" No. 17 #7 that reads:

......"For the purposes of Government Code Section 29125, Trial Court Operations shall constitute a single budget unit within the General Fund, with separate cost centers maintained for individual court Districts and Central Court Operations. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer and the Auditor-Controller to make appropriation adjustments between the above mentioned cost centers within the Trial Court Operations budget unit “without any monetary limitation”.

NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:
When the Full Disclosure Network requested supporting documentation for this agenda item from the Administrative Office of the Board, Amy Bennett informed us “there is no supporting documentation” and she went on to say of the authorization that “this is a boilerplate paragraph that has been used previously.”

BLANK CHECK FOR TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS?
Without supporting documentation it is difficult to determine just exactly how the County Administrative Officer and Controller will spend the $238,154,000 for Trial Court Operations as shown in Budget Summary (page 60.1) FY2009-10. This is especially curious since the 1997 enactment of the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act when the state assumed primary responsibility for funding of the trial courts, with counties providing maintenance of effort (MOE) payments.

APPROVAL OF $300 MILLION IN ILLEGAL BENEFITS TO JUDGES
This could explain how the judicial double benefits were mysteriously appropriated in the amount of approximately $300 million to L.A. Superior Court Judges over the last 20 years. A Fourth District 4th Appellate Court decision (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) held that the double judicial benefits were illegal and was affirmed when the Supreme Court refused rehearing even with letters of support from such notables as major law firms, all the special interest and ethnic Law Associations and Bar Associations, the L. A . County District Attorney Steve Cooley and the Public Defender.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LETTER TO SUPREME COURT DEC. 2008
“Because the County has paid these benefits for more than twenty years, virtually all judges came onto the Superior Court expecting to receive them. Taking them away now unfairly changes the salary –and-benefits packages after the fact and indisputably will force some judges to leave the Superior Court for far more lucrative positions in the private sector to become private judges or to return to their former jobs in the public sector.”

DID L A COUNTY STONEWALL DISCOVERY?
In an April 2009 interview with Attorney Sterling Norris, Full Disclosure® learned about the circumstances of how Judicial Watch had tried to obtain discovery from the County in the Sturgeon case Here he describes how he attempted to learn who authorized the illegal judical payments in excerpts below from the cable television interview:

NORRIS: We tried and tried in discovery to seek where and when these benefits were approved. And of course, it is our contention that nobody ever did. --We asked, in our discovery, is there any meeting wherever this was discussed, by the supervisors, or in session, in secret session, even then, we were given nothing by the County in terms of discovery. The only thing they said, well, there there's a final budget. All they had titled on it was Judicial Benefits, no meetings. no approvals, just Judicial Benefits. And that was like a spike on the final budget. That was the only thing that the County gave to us for justification of where did this money came from.

COURT OF APPEAL VICTORY
And of course, the Court of Appeals, in San Diego that gave us our victory, they asked many of those questions of where did this money come from? What bill? What authorization? And of course, we hope in our new litigation to exclude the bill (SBx2 11 Judicial Benefits, described by the Judicial Council as “legislative authorization” for the double benefits that were held illegal in the case of Sturgeon vs County of L.A.)
because of the violation of the extraordinary session and several other factors……. When that bill was passed up there, the only court in this state that benefited was L.A. County. None of the rest of the judges across the state had any, anything to do with that. And the Sturgeon case only dealt with L.A. County. Almost the last statement the court made at the Court of Appeals was that we express no opinion as to other counties, as to other benefits that they may receive.

DUTTON: In that immunity legislation (SBx2 11 February ‘09) that you're challenging, did it grant immunity to others besides the judges?

NORRIS: As I read the bill, it would grant immunity to everybody involved in that, the supervisors, the county counsel, anybody else involved, in those monies.

DUTTON: You mean like the County Controller that writes the check?

NORRIS: Could very well be. And of course, that's outrageous. I mean, what you're writing a blank check to acquit all these people of wrongdoing? See this to me goes to the audacity of the judiciary. Not only to go out seeking this money, but then to put in immunity and excuse (themselves) from liability clauses into that legislation. I think it smacks of the lack of integrity and to say the judges are doing this. It's kind of like AIG, and some of these great corporations that failed us during this recession. They knew way before, and I have to believe these judges knew well before 10 years that there was a problem here. And they should not have been in that arena.

DUE PROCESS THREATENED BY PAYMENTS TO JUDGES?
On July 13, 2009 there will be a Los Angeles Superior Court hearing in the Sturgeon vs County of L. A case. At which time the Judicial Watch organization is seeking an injunction to prevent the county from making further payments to the Judges. On that day Special Appellate Court Justice James H. Richman from San Francisco will again preside, due to the fact that all the L.A. Superior Court Judges have disqualified themselves from hearing the case as they have received payments from the County that were ruled illegal.

DUE PROCESS FOR RICHARD I. FINE?

In a telephone interview from his L.A. County Central Men's Jail cell, disbarred attorney Richard I Fine told Full Disclosure " the county benefit payments to the Judges are nothing more than a pretext to influence the judges to decide cases in favor of the County." Fine, has been in jail for over 110 days for contempt of court following his attempt to disqualify Judge David Yaffe from sitting on a case that involved L. A. County, an interested party in the case.

STATE BAR, COURT & JUDGE THROW IN TOWEL?

In reference to his Motion To Set Aside the Disbarment Judgment and the Writ of Habeas Corpus (for immediate release) Mr. Fine reports that "neither the California State Bar, Judge Yaffe or the Superior Court filed opposition to the argument there has been denial to due process by sitting on cases involving the county, when they have received money from L.A. County. CV-09-1914 CW-JFW and CV 08-2906 JFW(CW).

UNEARNED BENEFITS?

Both Mr. Fine and Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch maintain that the County payments to the Judges are "unearned" payments, contending the Judges do not have a contract to perform services with the County of Los Angeles, yet they have been paid. According to Fine, the judicial payments are in violation of Federal Mail Fraud Law, 18 USC 1341, 1343, 1346 covering the intangible right to receive honest services.

THE COUNTY & THE STATE CONSTITUTION

Article 6 Section 19 and 20 of the California Constitution states that the Legislature shall set the compensation and retirement benefits for the judges. Mr. Richard I Fine told Full Disclosure he is waiting to see if the County is going to authorize the Chief Executive Officer and the Controller to set the compensation for Judicial Benefits in Los Angeles County.

COERCIVE CONFINEMENT:

When asked why he has not been released from jail on a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mr. Fine responded: "I am still sitting here because the Magistrate Judge has violated Federal Law 28 us 2243 that says when we filed our Writ, it should have issued, but she failed to do so. "