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

A Christmas Plea For Jailed Attorney Fine To U.S.Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

Fred Sottile
2691 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220
(310) 638-2825 FredSottile@sbcglobal.net Download PDF Copy of Letter

December 21, 2009

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
One First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543


RE: Petition for Stay of Execution of Sentence for “Coercive Confinement”
Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-56073; USDC Case Nos. CV-09-1914, CV-09-7943


Honorable Justice Kennedy:

Submitted simultaneously herewith to the Clerk was Petitioner Richard I. Fine’s Petition for Stay of Execution of Sentence for “Coercive Confinement”. A ten-month unlawfully incarcerated, pro per litigant, Dr. Fine requests release on righteously solid grounds in fervent hopes of spending the last month in his home before it’s lost forever to foreclosure as a consequence of his making a principled stand by not relenting on honoring his oath as an officer of the court.

I apologize for the length of this letter, but the courts below have used a convoluted and complicated situation to protect judges and others from the consequences of engaging in an illegal payment scheme for 20+ years with only ex post facto secret legislation for (temporary) cover. Caught in the middle is an innocent man literally battling corruption to the end.

Until earlier this year, Dr. Fine was an attorney with a very distinguished career as a taxpayers’ advocate, and one who successfully prosecuted many civil rights and class action matters over the years. He worked for the Justice Department. He founded the first Anti-Trust division in Los Angeles County. He has served as Special Consul General in Southern California for the Kingdom of Norway for more than the past ten years

Dr. Fine was disbarred to try and silence his exposure of the criminal payment scheme between Los Angeles Superior Court judges and members of the County Board of Supervisors[1] (and his exposure of a developer with very influential ties to consecutive presidents of the State Bar and who benefited from a sweetheart deal costing LA County taxpayers an estimated $700 million dollars in lost revenue as a result of these questionable relationships).

But as the judges and supervisors were informed early on by two opinions by the Attorney General, the payments to judges were (and remain) contrary to the California Constitution. Still, the payments continued uninterrupted. (Inasmuch as the County Charter sets the Supervisors’ salaries to match superior court judges’ salaries, there is little doubt that they have all been receiving the illegal payments as well.)

LA Superior Court judges have simultaneously been hearing cases in which LA County is a party, all the while failing to disclose to litigants that they are receiving, presently, over $57,000 per year from the County (with whom they have no employment agreement), and while the County enjoys a near-100% win/loss civil litigation success rate (according to the County’s litigation cost management reports).

One such judge, David P. Yaffe, jailed Dr. Fine for contempt rather than recuse himself from a case in which he has tremendous conflicts. Moreover, he allowed himself to be automatically disqualified under operation of law when he neglected to respond to a C.C.P. § 170.3 objection, but repeatedly refused to leave the case. He held a hearing that Dr. Fine was not informed of, then, in Dr. Fine’s absence, ordered him pay attorney’s fees of $47,000 to LA County. Dr. Fine was held in contempt and jailed after he challenged the void orders and refused to answer questions at a judgment debtor exam.

Judge Yaffe should have recused himself immediately after he was assigned Fine’s case, filed on behalf of homeowners and against LA County and the developer. He was paid $46,000 that year from LA County, a defendant in the case. Instead, he withheld that information from plaintiffs.

Judge Yaffe should have recused himself from trying the contempt matter against Dr. Fine because he was ineligible to determine the truth of his own testimony at trial.

These events all occurred well before the ex post facto law granting immunity, Senate Bill SBX2-11, was secretly passed. SBX2-11 has been cited by the courts below as protecting Judge Yaffe (and all the other judges), even though it has nothing to do with his obligation to recuse himself from hearing a case in which LA County was a party.

In Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, brought by Judicial Watch to challenge and stop the payments, the California Court of Appeals confirmed in its October 10, 2008 decision that the payments were not constitutional; the California Supreme Court denied review. It is safe to say that everyone involved in the giving and receiving of the payments grew fearful when they were exposed and challenged. But rather than honestly address the situation, the California Judicial Council (chaired by Ronald George, California Supreme Court Justice and former presiding judge in LA Superior Court in the late 1980s) drafted a bill authorizing the payments and granting retroactive immunity for criminal prosecution, civil liability and judicial discipline. (Despite repeated requests, there has been no explanation given for why the immunity paragraph of SBX2-11 was not codified.)

California’s judicial disciplinary body, the Commission on Judicial Performance, immediately requested an official opinion from the Attorney General concerning the effect of SBX2-11 on its obligation to discipline wayward judges. The request was quashed by the Attorney General and no opinion issued.

It has been almost ten month since Dr. Fine was placed in solitary “coercive” confinement by Judge Yaffe, at whose order Dr. Fine was denied even pencil and paper with which to fashion an appeal. He was denied access by the media. He was denied access to legal materials, and thus has written everything since filed from memory. He continues to be denied access to any legal assistance whatsoever because of the necessity of providing a financial declaration, the substance of which would result in the “void” order being obeyed, a Catch-22 for Dr. Fine.

Numerous documents have been improperly withheld from the public in the District Court’s and the Ninth Circuit’s online files. There are no orders that the documents be sealed, nor was there even ever any discussion about it, but the Courts steadfastly refuse to post these documents (all of which contain unflattering evidence). In some cases, documents were received but not “filed” until months later, when they could then be cast as “moot” in order to arrive at the court’s pre-determined conclusion.

Most egregiously, District Court Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle dismissed a case filed against them and others. “A man cannot be a judge in his own case,” but Judges Walter and Woehrle ignored this basic tenet.

In replying to Fine’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Yaffe referred to a non-existent “order” and engaged in other frauds on the court in defending his actions. Similar frauds were perpetuated on the California Supreme Court in connection with Dr. Fine’s disbarment. (Those acts are the subject of a pending motion to set aside.)

The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed (on December 16th) the District Court’s denial of Dr. Fine’s writ of habeas corpus, posturing that Judge Yaffe was protected by SBX2-11, even though it wasn’t in existence at the time, and wouldn’t be for another year. The court’s use of a crystal ball burst all boundaries of credulity.

Co-incidentally, the Judicial Council of California just last week issued a report[2] in which it recommended that judges who receive more than $1,500 in campaign donations from any party to a future case are automatically disqualified. $1,500 is too much influence, but $46,000 was not enough?

Given the absolute truth of the foregoing, Dr. Fine requests that execution of the sentence of “coercive confinement” be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal process. As he noted in his Petition, this relief has previously been granted under similar circumstances. And as argued to the courts below, the statutory 5-day maximum for criminal coercive contempt has long since expired.

Nor will Dr. Fine ever be coerced into violating his oath. His principled stand has cost him his home and his license, a devastating price to have paid to resist being made a part of the corruption rampant in LA County.

Ten Million Felonies.

Literally ten million felonies[3] were pardoned in February, about 1.6 million of them committed by superior court judges, when Senate Bill SBX2-11 was passed. It’s understandable that those involved are desperate to escape the consequences of their deeds, but it is unconscionable to hold an innocent person in jail while the charade proceeds.

I and the other members of Dr. Fine’s non-attorney volunteer support team collectively beseech you to grant Dr. Fine’s petition and order his release It will be far too late to save his home, but he ought not be denied from spending the last month in it, over the holidays, with his family. Ultimately, we hope to win the restoration of due process for all Californians. We are on the right track, as evidenced by the recent statement by Supervisor Michael Antonovich, a man previously found liable for calling a judge on behalf of constituents in attempt to influence the outcome of their case, when he announced that the payments would not be given to “new” judges.

Dr. Fine is almost 70 years old, and his health has deteriorated significantly as a direct result of his incarceration. He has contracted a staph infection, suffers from edema of the legs, back pain and now is being medicated for a high cholesterol count.

Please order Dr. Fine’s immediate release.

Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any questions or concerns. The bulk of the evidence and case history can be viewed online at http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home

Sincerely,

FRED SOTTILE
FS/mlm

Enclosures

cc: Dr. Richard I. Fine
Brian Shaughnessy, Esq.
Aaron Mitchell Fontana, Esq.
Paul B. Beach, Esq.
Kevin M. McCormick, Esq.

[1] Dr. Fine was disbarred for “moral turpitude” for filing civil rights lawsuits concerning certain judges and others’ involvement with the unconstitutional payments.
[2] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/commimpart.htm
[3] http://righttrumpsmight.blogspot.com/2009/12/aha.html

Ninth Circuit Covers Up Court Corruption With Unpublished Decision

On Richard I Fine Contempt Case

Los Angeles, CA Following the announcement of an “unpublished” decision in a civil contempt of court case, a three Judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Reinhardt, Trott, Wardlaw) was described as having “succumbed to the cancer of corruption and the criminals in judicial robes.”

This statement from Richard I Fine is featured in a new 6 minute video news blog that provides audio clips from a telephone interview conducted by Leslie Dutton of the Full Disclosure Network®. Fine, a prominent Anti-Trust Attorney, has been held in solitary “coercive confinement” in the L.A. County Central Men’s jail for almost ten months, since March 4, 2009.

Fine was sentenced indefinitely, without bail, without a hearing date and without a release date by L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe following Fine’s attempt to disqualify the judge from sitting on a case where he had received illegal payments from L. A. County a party to the case, Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles.

Here are other points made by Richard I Fine in the Video News Report:

• The panel has violated hundreds of years of established Judicial Precedent and the Supreme Court Precedent In Re Murchison where it was held that “no man can be a judge in is own case”


• There is a 2007 FRAP 32.1 Rule established by Supreme court ruling and implemented by the Judicial Council that says a court may not prohibit or restrict citation of appellate court rulings.


• “The Ninth Circuit Court has deterioriated to the level of the developing countries that are war torn, that the U.S. has been critical of..."


• Ninth Circuit Court rulings have been overturned more than any other Court in the United States and that is why they have become known as the “Ninth Circus Court”.
  
  
  Related links and Videos:
  
  Read the entire interview transcript here
  
  One pager About the Full Disclosure Network®
  
  Six Minute preview of Court Corruption series
  
  One pager with links to videos in the series.

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.

The Deception of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George

REBUTTAL TO L A TIMES OP-ED

By Richard I. Fine

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

FAILED TO DISCLOSE AUTHORSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


VIEW RELATED VIDEO HERE

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"

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

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

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

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

REACTION FROM RICHARD I FINE:

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


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


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

RELATED EVENTS:

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


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

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

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

CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT

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

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

NINTH CIRCUIT PROCEDURE

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

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

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

# # # # #

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.

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

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. "

“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.