U S Supreme Court Sets Los Angeles Case On "Coercive Confinement" For Conference: Online Video Here

April 23, 2010 Hearing Set On Richard I Fine "Coercive Confinement" Case



Washington, D.C A 70 year old Political Prisoner in Los Angeles is going to have his day in court, when the United States Supreme Court holds a conference hearing on the matter of Richard I. Fine vs L. A. County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca. Fine, an anti-trust attorney, submitted an application for a “Stay of Execution” even though he has never been charged with or convicted of a crime, yet has been held in solitary “coercive confinement” in the Los Angeles Central Men’s Jail for more than a year.

Representing himself, Fine has filed petitions, motions and writs in all the California and U. S. Courts, without success until now. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg found enough support among her colleagues to warrant serious consideration of Fine’s plea for a “Stay of Execution”. The Execution being the punishment inflicted by L. A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe for Fine having publicly exposed the corrupt practices of the Judges, the Sheriff and the County.

Full Disclosure Network® presents here six video segments (and preview) of the interview with Fine in L. A. Central Men’s Jail conducted on March 10, 2010 where he succinctly describes how he has become a political prisoner in the United States of America.

Six segments (8 min each) can be viewed from links below:

Segment #1 Fine describes from the outset of confinement he was denied his "due process" rights and his ability to file legal actions on his own behalf.

Segment #2 Judicial bribery over 20 years was remedied quietly by a 2009 California Senate Bill SBX2 11, providing retroactive criminal immunity from prosecution for Judges and government officials.

Segment #3 Penal "Coercive Confinement" presents a legal conflict for LA County with 70 year old Fine who develops health problems during incarceration.

Segment #4 Fine describes judicial bribery undermining the election process, how County officials use the budget process to transfer illegal money to the judges who do their bidding.

Segment #5 Fine describes his background as a Federal anti-trust prosecutor with the DOJ in Washington D.C., including threats and dangers encountered.

Segment #6 Fine describes sources and motives behind judicial bribery along with the destructive impact on American Democracy.

Who Is The Full Disclosure Network?

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

Los Angeles, CA Having filed a Federal Lawsuit against L.A. County Sheriff Leroy Baca and the Sheriff’s Department, represented by the Judicial Watch organization, Full Disclosure Network was finally allowed access to an “on camera” interview with L. A.’s Political Prisoner, Richard I. Fine who has never been convicted of a crime. He has been held in solitary “coercive confinement” in the Central Men’s Jail for more than a year, as punishment inflicted by L. A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe for exposing the corrupt practices of the Judges, the Sheriff and the County.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO OF JAIL-HOUSE INTERVIEW (4 MIN)

In a four minute video preview Full Disclosure Network presents excerpts from the one-hour jail-house interview with Richard Fine where he succinctly describes how the judges and government officials in California have brought the entire justice system to the brink of collapse.

ACCOMPLISHED ATTORNEY TAKES ON COURT CORRUPTION

Richard I. Fine, holds a PhD in international law and served as an anti-trust prosecutor at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. offers a simple solution to rid the state of the corruption perpetrators in the Full Dislosure preview and interview. He points to those who have participated in the massive judicial bribery scheme that has prevent the people from getting justice.

JUDGES ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS

Fine cites the tremendous cost to the California taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars over the last two decades where judges have been paid under the table, while standing for election to their offices every six years. And he warns that America who fought for independence from the King of England has now returned to a country without a functioning justice system and how it has undermined the essence of the democratic process.

NOT TO BE SHOWN IN LOS ANGELES
The one hour interview is being featured on community cable stations throughout California, and in major cities throughout the country, on the Internet and copies on DVD are available for purchase at the top of this web page. Ironically, because the City of Los Angeles has shut down all the public cable channels, this interview will not be shown on television in Los Angeles.

California, U.S. Courts Torturing L. A. Political Prisoner......Video (4.27 min)

Larry John, discusses the UN "Torture" complaint

filed with on behalf of Richard I Fine, Ph.D. with FDN

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network®presents a four minute video preview of an hour-long interview with Lawrence John, II a decorated former military and civilian police officer who filed a Human Rights Commission complaint with the United Nations on behalf of political prisoner Richard I. Fine who has been held in the L.A. Central Men’s jail for over a year in solitary “Coercive Confinement” for civil contempt of court.

DEMAND FOR A HEARING
The complaint filed was made public by Richard I. Fine on March 25, 2001 in his Superior Court “Demand for an Immediate ‘Farr Hearing’” that includes the U. N. Complaint, a declaration by Fine describing how the California and United States Courts have intentionally violated Court Rules, legal ethics and his basic civil and human rights.

TORTURE EXPOSED
In the interview Mr. Johns describes the “Torture” and conditions under which Dr. Fine has be forced to live for over a year. He was jailed on March 4, 2009, without being convicted of crime, without a hearing date, release date. When Dr. Fine’s upper dental place broke on Jan. 5, 2010 his ability to eat was severely impaired. L.A. County Sheriff’s Department refused to respond for almost two months, claiming they could not repair it and would not replace it. Only after Dr. Fine filed numerous “ inmate complaints” received media attention did the Sheriff's Department act to fix the dental plate.

The complete two-part interview is to be featured on public cable channels in major cities across the country and on the Internet. DVDs are available from this website here.

RELATED VIDEOS & LINKS

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

Why Can't The ACLU Help Richard I. Fine?

U. S. Ninth Circuit Court Covers Up Corruption

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

Los Angeles, CA Full Disclosure Network® presents a unique television interview with Ron Kaye, former Los Angeles Daily News Editor (1984-2008) as a part of an on-going cable TV series covering the criminal persecution of attorney Richard I. Fine who has been in solitary “coercive confinement” in the Los Angeles County since March 4, 2009.

Full Disclosure Network’s® nine minute video preview of the one hour interview with Ron Kaye is featured here. The complete interview is to be released soon on cable TV stations in major cities across the nation, and online. In this interview Ron Kaye shares his observations regarding the treatment of Richard Fine and the political circumstances in City and County of Los Angeles that have fostered abuse of the justice system and individual civil rights.

A veteran newsman and long time editor Ron Kaye has become a community activist and organizer, helping to found the Saving LA Project. He also writes on Los Angeles issues on his own Blog http://www.RonKayeLA.com/. He is a frequent speaker at community groups on the need to get informed and involved in the effort to make L A a city of great schools and neighborhoods, a city with a healthy business climate and good jobs, a city where the people are respected and have a seat at the table of power. His website http://www.OurLa.org/ is a clearinghouse for community activist journalists to share information and promote government accountability.

DVDS OF RON KAYE SERIES AVAILABLE HERE

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

Early Prisoner Releases, County Audit Expose L A County Incapable In Public Safety Crisis?

L A County Sheriff Leroy Baca..."I left it up to my Chiefs to decide"

Los Angeles, CA In an Audit of the County Sheriff's Department dated December 2009, L.A. County Auditor-Controller Wendy L. Watanabe's office found that 348 Sheriff deputies worked more than 900 hours of overtime between March 2007 and February 2008. This would equal an extra six months of full-time work. Sheriff Baca's management style has come under scrutiny for excessive overtime and 60 bonus payments that were unsubstantiated. The audit found that over the last five years, the department had exceeded its overtime budget by an average of 104 percent for each year.

WHO IS IN CHARGE?
On Thursday March 5, 2010 the L.A. Times reported that out of the anticipated 1,100 L A County Jail inmates to be released, 200 had been early released that week and "Baca said he had not been informed about the releases" and "I left it up to my Chiefs to decide" and as reported that Baca said his staff moved forward without consulting him. According to Alexander Kim, LASD Chief of the division in charge of releases "his staff had been discussing the possibility of early releases for some time and had decided to move forward without consulting Baca."

OVERTIME & BONUS COSTS vs RELEASING INMATES.
So in response to the acellerating pressure of the fiscal crisis, The Sheriff'f staff released 200 inmates with 900 more to go soon, all serving only 50% of their sentences, to help with the budget Those released had been serving time for such offenses as forgery, petty theft, identity theft, drunk driving and drug and substance abuse related crimes. In an interview on Public Radio Baca declined to speculate on whether the early release of convicted criminals would increase crime.“I don’t know if I can fully answer whether it will or not," Baca said. "I don’t think it will. Watch 7 min video debate on Early Releases featuring high ranking L A Sheriff's Officials.

CRISIS IN LOS ANGELES? NOT PREPARED FOR 8000 PLUS CONVICTS
L A County Probation Commissioner Gabriella Holt who also serves on the Los Angeles Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee provided the following reaction to this week's developments. "The compound effect of the state's early release of un-supervised criminal offenders with the additionally released county prisoners, places an additional 200 non violent offenders on Los Angeles County streets swelling the early released criminal population to nearly 8000 countywide with another 900 to be released soon. The impact to pubic safety at this time is unknown. Add in the downsizing of sheriff's on patrol and decrease in overtime, Los Angelenos will be inordinately vulnerable to increased crime and be placed in public safety peril of unknown magnitude.

"Citizens need to be aware of this increased potential for crime and take extra measures, and precautions, to protect themselves, their families, their homes and their businesses." According to Commissioner Holt, there was no notice or preparation to the county prior to release of the 200 L.A. County Jail inmates this week."

WARNING: CRIME TO INCREASE WITH REPEAT OFFENDERS
Steve Ipsen, President of the L.A. County Deputy District Attorney's Association told Full Disclosure that "Early Inmate Release goes completely against the ruling of the voters in California when they approved a Constitutional Amendment enacted in 2008 . Known as Marcy's Law , it prohibits early releases to protect the public and to deter criminal behavior. Early releases create more expense not less, when considering the cost for law enforcement, jails, courts and police who are faced with repeat offenders and who must be re-processed," He pointed out that "The County Board of Supervisors funds the county jail system as a constitutional right to victims to make certain that early releases do not occur. (Article1 Section 28)," he said." Watch 8 min Video on Politics & Prisoner Releases featuring Steve Ipsen.

EARLY RELEASES TO SAVE $26 MILLION
According to Steve Whitmore, Media Advisor to Sheriff Leroy Baca the Department expects to save approximately $26 million dollars by early releasing some 1,100 convicted criminals. He says "the figure is based on the assumption that each of them who are housed in the North Facility, L. A. County jail dormitories are costing approximately $82 each per day".

Related Video: '06 Sheriff Candidates Debate Issues & Early Releases in L A County (28:30 min)

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS CRY FOUL AT SHERIFF'S PLAN
In reaction, Ipsen said "What the citizens of L A County know well is that the cost and the damage these criminals will do is far more than $82 per day and the cost to the justice system is far greater to the Police Department and the Court system to gain a conviction only to face early releases again. This is the beginning of the catch and release process that encourages criminals to commit crimes because there is no punishment."

POLITICAL PRISONER FINE & HIPOCRISY OF EARLY RELEASE POLICY

When Full Disclosure asked Steve Whitmore how much it was costing the Department to hold 70 yr old attorney Richard I. Fine in solitary "Coercive Confinement for civil contempt of court for this past year, 368 days, his response was that we should use the same figure to compute the total cost. $82 per day for 365 days equals $30,000. But the prisoners being released were staying in dormitories, not a solitary cell, so this could be easily be disputed.

Even though Fine has never been convicted of a crime, nor had a jury trial, he is always accompanied to the showers to the visitors area and to the infirmary, everywhere, by Sheriff's personnel at all times. and this costs the County money. Being a senior citizen, he has experienced health problems visiting the jail infirmary and dental clinics numerous times during the year. He has been treated for swelling in the legs and feet, infections, skin rash and "jail house" fungus, high blood pressure, tooth abscesses and upper denture replacement. If and when Fine is finally released, cost to the county could possibly match the entire savings gained by early release of the 1,100 convicted inmates.

AT GREAT COST TO COUNTY SHERIFF BACA CONTINUES TO HOLD RICHARD FINE
Could it be that Sheriff Baca has overlooked the need for "Risk Management". Mr. Fine has continually raised the issue in his complaints to the Sheriff and the courts that he is being held unlawfully by the Sheriff. The Sheriff has refused to respond to Mr. Fine's Writ of Habeas Corpus even though the U. S. District Court ordered him to do so as the Respondent. T

U S SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT IN WILLIAM FARR (L.A.Times Case)
In light of the U.S Supreme Court precedent (In Re Farr, 1974) that held no person should be held in "coercive confinement" for civil contempt of court more than five days and Fine is now starting into his second year. The only reason Mr. Fine is in the County jail is that he attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe for having taking illegal payments from the L A County who was a party to the case involved. This has to be and should be a concern for the Sheriff, there is a likelihood for extensive litigation once Mr. Fine is free. The Sheriff and the County will have to explain why they ignored the U.S. Supreme Court precedent cases and have held him for more than a year without a conviction.

Sheriff & Judge Holding Richard I. Fine, Now One Year In Solitary "Coercive Confinement (Video 7 minutes)

Los Angeles, CA. On March 4, 2010 it will be one year in the L.A. County Jail for Richard I. Fine, who accused Superior Court Judge David Yaffe of corruption for taking illegal payments from the L.A. County in a case involving the County of Los Angeles. The ACLU has been called in to prevent inmate abuse by the L. A. County Jailers who are holding Fine in solitary “Coercive Confinement” in Central Men’s jail for contempt of court by order of Superior Court Judge Yaffe. Watch this seven minute video interview

Having never been convicted of a crime, Richard I. Fine is a 70 year old anti-trust attorney, who holds a Ph.D in International Law, who has been held without a trial and without bail and no hearing or release date. These circumstances are in violation of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, In Re Farr (1974), where the five day limit on holding a person in “coercive confinement” for civil contempt of court cases must apply.

The ACLU had previously informed Mr. Fine’s family and Full Disclosure that they were unable to assist him. But when his upper dental plate broke on January 5, 2010 he complained to his jailers that he could not eat without them, he realized he desperately needed their help.

Full Disclosure called Actor Ed Asner, long known as a humanitarian and who was recently honored by the ACLU for his devotion to preserving Civil Liberties. Mr. Asner unhesitatingly offered to call Ramona Ripston executive director of the ACLU and wife of prominent Ninth Circuit Court Judge Steven Reinhardt, to request help for Mr. Fine. For years the ACLU has served as court appointed monitor for the L. A. County jails to prevent inmate abuse and assure attention to inmate health care complaints.

Watch this 7 minute video news update report featuring:

· Mary Tiedeman ACLU Jail Project Coordinator
· Peter Eliasberg ACLU Managing Attorney
· Richard I. Fine by collect telephone call from his jail cell

Related Links:

Ed Asner, Requests Medical Updates On Richard Fine

L A Sheriff Denies Full Disclosure Interview of Richard Fine

Inmate Complaint Claims Sheriff Guilty of Unlawful Imprisonment

Russian Journalists Hear How Los Angeles Media Reports The News

FDN Host Leslie Dutton 3rd from Left Meets Russian Journalists

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® (FDN) met with a group of six Russian journalists who were invited to the United States under the auspices of the Department of State's International Visitor Leadership Program.

MEETING DISCUSSED LOCAL & REGIONAL TV
During the two hour meeting that was video recorded in the conference room of the International Visitors Council of Los Angeles, Producer/Host Leslie Dutton related to the journalists about why FDN is known as "the news behind the news" because the regular news media often does not cover in-depth, many important issues such as government corruption, police policies, public finance and education. That is why the independent and alternative news gathering organizations such as FDN are gaining more followers and popularity on the public cable channels and on the Internet.

JAILED ATTORNEY RICHARD I. FINE

As an example, the Russians learned about the plight of prominent Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I Fine, who has been held in L.A. County Central Mens Jail for almost one year in solitary, "coercive confinement" for contempt of court. A description of the FDN programs on Richard I Fine such as this video, was included in the presentation by Leslie Dutton. Some of the questions asked by the Russians about the Richard Fine case were: "Why isn't the big media covering this case?" "Is it possible that Richard Fine is in jail as a protester, so he can eventually run for President?"

TRAFFIC COP CORRUPTION IN ST. PETERSBURG?

Full Disclosure Network® also asked the Russians questions about government interference with the news media in their homeland. Several of the journalist cited the corruption of traffic cops in the City of St. Petersburg and how the police had disrupted their filiming of a traffic accident, fearing that the journalists were trying to catch them taking bribes.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT PROGRAM

The theme of the State Department International Visitors program was entitled TELLING YOUR STORY: REGIONAL TV NEWS. The program objectives were to acquaint the visiting journalists with local and regional news media, to explore the role of editors and journalists in developing "news stories" and review local and regional newsgathering connected to issues of global importance.


Accompanied by two State Department interpeters, here are the names of the Russian Journalists:

Ms. Valeria Anatolievna Karpova:

Deputy Chief Editor, Information Programs,

Directorate, Novgorod Oblast Television, Veliky Novgorod

Ms. Larisa Vladislavovna Kovlishenko:

Chief Editor Arkangelsk Television Company

Mr. Vitaly Yevgenyevich Lukashov:

Television journalist and program host, St. Petersburg Television

and Radio Company TV5
Ms. Elena Yuriyevna Ponomareva:

Coordinating Editor, Information Directorate, Media Center
Ms. Ekaterina Vladimirovna Pravdina:

Correspondent, Information Service St. Petersburg Bureau, NTV
Mr. Mikhail Yuryevich Velikoselskiy:

director, City Broadcasting directorate, TV5 St. Petersburg

Judge David Yaffe Served With Demand for Immediate Release Of Richard Fine

FULL TEXT AND POINTS & AUTHORITIES

Demand For Immediate Release From LA County Jail, And Other Relief

Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”) hereby demands immediate release from the Los Angeles County Jail and other relief as set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Grounds for demand are:

1. From the outset, Judge Yaffe knew that “coercive incarceration” would not “coerce” Fine into answering questions about his assets because:

A. The issue in the case was whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself, and had no relevance or relationship to Fine’s assets, and

B. Fine informed Judge Yaffe in open court that Judge Yaffe had violated the law by taking payments from LA County, that he could not preside over the case and that Fine would answer the questions only if he lost all appeals on the issue.

2. Under the case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), once it was established that there was no substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, the commitment would become punitive in nature and thus subject to the statutory limitation. Cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976).

3. Judge Yaffe knew from the outset of March 4, 2009 that his confinement of Fine violated the Farr case, was penal and unlawful.

4. Judge Yaffe knew that the LA County payments to him violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, were criminal (including misappropriation of funds, destruction of justice and bribes), and required him to recuse himself in the Marina Strand case at the outset under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

5. Judge Yaffe also knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics also required him to recuse himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case even if the LA County payments were not criminal.

6. Judge Yaffe further knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution required him to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings because he was judging his own actions of receiving payments from LA County and making orders in the County’s favor. The demand is based upon the aforementioned grounds and other reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto.

Dated this 27th day of January, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

BY: RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW .............

DO YOU THINK JUDGE YAFFE SHOULD RELEASE DR. FINE ?

Ed Asner Requests Update On Richard I. Fine's Condition In L A Central Men's Jail

EDWARD ASNER'S HUMANITARIAN APPEAL FOR INMATE FINE

Los Angeles, CA After reading the latest reports from Full Disclosure Network® actor Ed Asner has requested updates on the condition of Richard I Fine Prisoner ID #1824367 in the L. A. County Central Men's Jail. For the past two weeks Mr. Fine has complained of the broken dental plate that has prevented him from being able to chew his food. The condition was reported to the jail's medical infirmary and two complaints and an appeal were filed by Mr. Fine to no avail.

HELD IN SOLITARY "COERCIVE CONFINEMENT"

Richard I. Fine has been held in L.A. County jail since March 4, 2009 in solitary "Coercive Confinement" for contempt of court following his challenge of Judge David Yaffe for having accepted illegal payments from L A. County who was involved in the case Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of L.A. In spite of U S Supreme Court precedent In Re Farr holding that persons cannot be held in "coercive confinement" for more that five days in contempt of court cases, Mr. Fine remains in jail for almost eleven months.

ACLU MONITORING COUNTY JAILS

Apparently County jail operations are now more concerned with who will pay for the dental repairs than they are with fixing the problem. When Ed Asner learned of the situtation, he called on the ACLU to look into this matter and asked Full Disclosure to keep him updated from our side of the story. As a result of court cases, and an agreement with L. A. County, the ACLU has been monitoring the L. A. County Jails to prevent inmate abuse and assure proper medical attention to the inmates. Ed Asner was assured by Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU, that they would look into the matter.


FULL DISCLOSURE'S UPDATE FOR ED ASNER (1-23-10):
Dear Ed:

I got a call at 10 p.m last night, at home, from a Lieutenant at the L A County Central Men's Jail, as he promised to update us on Mr. Fine. He told me the following:

1) Mr. Fine is able to eat even with a broken dental plate, contradicting Mr. Fine.
2) The jail Medical clinic cannot fix the dental plate
3) Mr. Fine will have to pay to have it fixed.
4) No plans have been yet scheduled to deal with this problem.

And, there appears to be no sense of urgency on the part of the Sheriff's Department to do anything to accommodate the dental problem, as it has now been over two weeks since the dental plate broke and was first reported.

There is a belief that Mr. Fine and or his supporters could raise the money to fix the dental plate. As I mentioned, I have talked with Executive Assistant to the Sheriff, Commander Jim Lopez, a Lieutenant and Watch Commander's Deputy in Men's Central Jail about this and the telephone problem over the last two days.

Last night (Fri 1-22-10) I got two voice mail messages from Commander Lopez at 7:48 p.m. and 8:16 p.m. he said that he talked to the Sergeants involved in oversight and they have solved one problem, but gave no specifics, and that they still have not resolved the dental problem and that he will be back to me on Monday.

I will continue to notify you if I hear from Mr. Fine and or the Sheriff's Department and hope to hear from you or Ramona of any developments from your end.

Thank you and the ACLU for your interest and concern. It is greatly appreciated by all who are watching this sorry saga play out. I hope that the clerical problems with the Ninth Circuit will be addessed as well, as Mr. Fine filed a petition weeks ago for an En Banc hearing before the full Court to appeal the Court's decision to deny his petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. I will be at my office this afternoon at 310-822-4449 and checking my messages frequently.

Best regards,

Leslie Dutton

Producer

Full Disclosure Network®.

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?

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

Los Angeles, CA A Joint Legislative Committee of California Senators and Assembly members held a hearing on December 8, 2009 at the Museum of Tolerance in West Los Angeles that was sparsely attended by the public. Without fanfare or any promotion to the public, the apparent purpose of the meeting was to videotape the Legislative leaders at this panel discussion to demonstrate they were attempting to resolve the State’s budget process that contributed to a dire fiscal disaster that now has California on the brink of insolvency. Other such hearings have been held across the state and the video of those discussions appear on the government website.

PUBLIC OUTRAGE AT THE COURTS & CORRUPTION VIDEO (8 min)

Full Disclosure Network® compiled an eight minute video revealing the essence of what happened and demonstrated the growing unrest among the citizens over Court Corruption in Los Angeles. Specifically, the citizens kept focusing on the jailed attorney Richard I Fine and the controversial State Senate Bill SBX2 11 that was approved by the Legislature during the budget session that gave retroactive immunity from criminal and civil prosecution to Judges, Courts, and government officials who had accepted and or given illegal public funds from the County to the Judges. Richard Fine was jailed on March 4, 2009 after he attempted to disqualify Judge Yaffe who had accepted the illegal payments from the County, he remains in L.A. County Jail.

LEGISLATORS & BUREAUCRATS DEBATE
Listed on the agenda as participants on the panels were the State Auditor, Controller, Inspector General, Treasurer’s Office and a few selected business representatives along with State Senators, who appeared shocked that the public was more concerned about government and court corruption than they were with the mundane discussion between the legislators and bureaucrats.

FEATURED IN THE VIDEO ARE:
Mike Feuer, State Assembly Chair of the Joint Legislative Committee
State Senators Dutton, Wyland, Saulnier and Pavley
Gabriella Holt, President of Citizens for California Government Reform
George Buzzetti, Community Activist
Daniel Gottlieb, Emeritus Professor Purdue University Mathematics Dept.
Rabbi Schifren, Candidate for State Senate
Steve Bardo, Center for Judicial Excellence
Jeanette Isaacs, Concerned Citizen and Victim of Court Corruption

RELATED VIDEOS ON CORRUPTION:

"Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption" Series w/Links

Jailed Norway Consul General Comments on U.S. Snub of King Harald Invitation

RICHARD I. FINE, Consul General of Norway

Los Angeles, CA In an interview from his solitary confinement jail cell, Richard I Fine, the long time Consul General representing Norway, is raising questions as to why the U. S. President Barack Hussein Obama would deliberatetly snub the King of Norway on his trip to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, as reported in the Guardian news on Wednesday, November 9, 2009.

Fine told the Full Disclosure Network via a collect telephone call from his jail cell ....

"One must question why the President would refuse a luncheon invitation from the King, in view of the fact that King Harald (then Prince) of Norway once received refuge, living in the FDR White House, during World War II, while a young child."

Fine, who has practiced Anti-Trust law in the United States for over 40 years, has been held in held in solitary “coercive confinement” in L A County Central Men’s jail, since March 4, 2009, serving an indefinite sentence of contempt of court imposed by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe following an attempt to disqualify the judge for accepting illegal payments from a party involved in litigation before him.

As part of his campaign against California Court Corruption, Consul General Fine has filed complaints to expose court corruption in Los Angeles with California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder have been ignored.

Top U.S. Lawmen Ignore Complaints From Jailed Diplomat

RICHARD FINE GETS THE COLD TREATMENT FROM U.S.?

Apparently none of the law enforcement officials in the United States are interested why a man of Fine’s stature has been ignored at a time when the President of the United States is going to Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Award.

Related Links on Richard I. Fine and Court Corruption here

Is There A Shadow Ninth Circuit?........... Guest Editorial by Richard I Fine

DEPUTY CLERKS ISSUING ORDERS "FOR THE COURT"

Los Angeles, CA Something very unusual has happened in the Writ of Habeas Corpus case of Fine vs Sheriff of L.A. County. Clerks are signing Court Orders “For The Court” instead of Judges.

CLERK DECIDING WHAT COURT WILL CONSIDER

On December 4, 2009 a Deputy Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the “Request for Judicial Notice” that the Court take notice of the fact that the entire Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals have recused itself in the second appeal in the case of the L A County payments to L A Superior Court Judges. This appeal seeks to hold the payments made under Senate Bill SBX2 11 unconstitutional. (Sturgeon vs. County of L.A)

ALL L.A. SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES RECUSED

The request should have been automatically granted, as the fact that all the L A Superior Court Judges have recused themselves in the Sturgeon case, was already before the Ninth Circuit through a document submitted by the L A Superior Court.

NINTH CIRCUIT PANEL UNAWARE OF ORDER?

The unusual part of the December 4, 2009 ORDER was that it was made by the Deputy Clerk “FOR THE COURT”. As of December 3, 2009, the identity of the “Panel” of judges deciding the case was publicly known. The panel is: Justices Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw. One has to question why their names were not on the ORDER.

WHO IS INTERFERING IN THIS CASE?

The more disturbing question is; “Whether someone else is interfering with the judicial process in this case and issued the ORDER.”

• This second question is grounded in the history of the case. On November 12, 2009, the case was ordered submitted without oral argument by the then “unidentified panel” by order of the clerk “FOR THE COURT”.
  


• On November 24, 2009, the clerk “FOR THE COURT” without reference to the “Panel” denied “Petitioners Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate to Immediately Enter Writ of Habeas Corpus or issue Order To Show Cause.”
  


• The significance of this action was that such denial violated long established U S Supreme Court precedent that a man could not judge his own actions. (In re Murchison).
  


• The underlying Writ of Habeas Corpus charged that the Magistrate Judge Woehrle and Walter had violated 18 USC Section 2243. The petition for Writ of Mandate showed that they “Judged their own actions” by dismissing the underlying Writ of Habeas Corpus in violation of the Murchison precedent.
  
  

JUDGE PANEL ON CASE ABOVE REPROACH

There is no question that experienced Justices such as Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw would never violate long standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent as they are bound to follow it.

These two "CLERK ORDERS" make one ask: "Is there a shadow Ninth Circuit?"

Ninth Circuit Court Dodges Judicial Recusal Issue ...... Ignores Supreme Court Precedent In Richard Fine Case

Los Angeles, CA In an unexpected turn of events, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has posted an Order denying Richard I. Fine’s Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate to Immediately Order Trial Court (U.S. California Central District) to Enter Writ of Habeas Corpus or Issue Order to Show Cause. This action, posted on the Federal Pacer website, did not have any Judicial signatures or names of Judicial officers who authorized such action.

Full Disclosure Network immediately contacted the Executive Office of the Ninth Circuit Court, requesting verification that the unsigned Order was valid. Here is the explanation we received from David Madden , Assistant Circuit Executive in San Francisco...........

"Once a case has been calendared, all subsequent petitions, motions, etc. go to the appellate panel which has been assigned the case. This case was ordered to be submitted on the briefs, without oral argument on December10, 2009, in Pasadena, California. It has been assigned to a panel of judges and it was the panel that denied the emergency petition brought by Mr. Fine."

"Names of judges sitting on a panel are not revealed until 10 days prior to the case being heard or submitted on the briefs. Should a panel need to issue an order in a case more than 10 days prior to a hearing/submission,the order is issued "for the court" by the clerk of court or designee. This process is followed fairly often"

From his L. A. County Central Men’s jail cell, where he has been held for almost nine months in solitary “Coercive Confinement” for civil contempt of Court, Richard I Fine gave Full Disclosure his reaction to this development.........

“This action of a panel is unheard of. It violates due process because it is allowing Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter to judge their own actions of denying the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This is a direct violation of the United States Supreme Court case of In re Murchison and hundreds of years of common law which hold that no man can judge his own actions. The Ninth Circuit is bound to follow the Supreme Court, they do not have a choice in the matter."

VIOLATES LAW REGARDING FIVE-DAY LAW ON COERCIVE CONFINEMENT
He went on to say "It also violates California law as set forth in the case of In re Farr. This case prohibits holding a person for more than five days in “coercive confinement” for contempt of court if there is no substantial likelihood that the contempt order would serve it’s coercive purpose"... and

IGNORES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

"It further shows that the Ninth Circuit may be biased against me in this case, as it is willing to violate the law and Supreme Court decisions to protect wrong doing judges. It is this type of action which supports the necessity of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s hearings on Judicial Recusals."

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON JUDICIAL RECUSALS NEEDED
Fine concluded saying, "We definitely need new laws to stop this type of illegal conduct by Magistrate Judge Woehrle, Judge Walter and the Ninth Circuit as they refuse to follow clear Supreme Court Precedent ."

RELATED LINKS TO VIDEOS AND RELEASES ON THIS CASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appearing in the video are:

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

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

L.A.Times Female Reporter Sneaks Into L.A.Men's Jail: Judge Banned Interview...... Revealed on Tape

Los Angeles, CA L A Times Reporter Victoria Kim apparently sneaked into the L.A. County Central Men's Jail without being detected, in order to conduct a banned interview with prominent Anti-Trust Attorney who has been jailed there in solitary "coercive confinement" since March 4, 2009. Watch the four minute video

JAILERS CAUGHT UNAWARE
According to Sheriff Leroy Baca's personal spokesman, Steve Whitmore, the L A Times Reporter's presence at the jail for over an hour, was completely unnoticed by the jailers and security personnel. The Sheriff has banned interviews with Richard I. Fine so it must have been a complete surprise when he read Victoria Kim's article published on June 7, 2009. How she gained access to Fine's solitary confinement cell is apparently a mystery to Sheriff Baca and his personnel.

L A TIMES QUESTIONABLE TACTICS
It is unknown at this time whether the L A Times was contacted by the Sheriff to determine how their reporter gained access to the high security jail and without the Sheriff's permission. In contrast to the L A Times sneaky tactics to get an "exclusive" interview, Full Disclosure Network has made numerous formal requests for a personal interview with Richard Fine only to be told that Judge David Yaffe had forbidden anyone to interview him.
POLITICAL PRISONER?
Judge Yaffe sentenced Fine to an undetermined sentence with no bail and no release date, following the attorney's attempt to disqualify the Judge from sitting on a case where he had received illegal payments from a party in the case. That party was the County of Los Angeles and the case was Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs. County of Los Angeles.

"NOT GOING TO HAPPEN"
The Sheriff is apparently so adamant that that no reporters are to interview Richard Fine that he told his spokesman Whitmore "this is not going to happen" many times, over and over. Listen to the audio tape of a voice mail message left on the Full Disclosure telephone where Mr. Whitmore describes the tone of the Sheriff.

JUDGES vs. SHERIFF BACA
The relationship between Sheriff Leroy Baca and the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges has been an interesting one. The Sheriff is constantly walking a tightrope to please the Judiciary to avoid their interference in the operations of his jail.

JUDGE YAFFE CLAIMS REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
Sheriff Baca is apparently honoring Judge Yaffe's directions to stop press coverage of the case. Sheriff Baca is the Respondent in the case and Judge Yaffe has filed papers listing himself as the Real Party In Interest in the case. No Court Order has been entered in either the U S District Court or Ninth Circuit Court stopping the press from interviewing Richard I. Fine. So it would appear the two defendants in the case are interferring with the freedom of the press.

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

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard I Fine Appeal Rights Restored by Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld

Los Angeles CA Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Andrew Jay Kleinfeld has issued an Order restoring Richard I. Fine's right to appeal that was previously denied with prejudice, by the lower District Court. At issue was the Civil Contempt of Court Judgment Order signed by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe on March 4, 2009 remanding Fine to the custody of the L. A. County Sheriff for an indefinite period of time, without bail, without a release date or a hearing date.

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED?
Judge Kleinfeld's Order states: "Under Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U>S> 322 (2003), appellant need not show that he is probably correct or that there is a substantial likelihood that he is correct in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. A Certificate of appealability is required if he demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims "debatable." (Id. at 338.) ...........

• "Accordingly, appellant is granted a certificate of appealability in the issue of whether the trial judge should have recused himself. See28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3); see also 9th Cir.R.22-1(e)"
  

DENIED RECUSAL OF DISTRICT JUDGES:

Ironically, Fine had previously filed motions to recuse both Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle due to conflicts outlined in his recusal motions where he maintains the judges should not have considered his his Writ of Habeas Corpus and request for immediate release due to conflicts. Both recusal motions were denied by U.S. District Judge George H. King.

ILLEGAL COURT PROCEDURES QUESTIONED

Fine has been in solitary coercive confinement for five and half months based on Judge Yaffe's judgment Order. At the time of sentencing, Richard Fine raised the issue with Judge Yaffe that his sentence would be held illegal. In his Emergency Request for Release, Fine describes the conditions and circumstances of what he believes are unlawful actions by the District Court.

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR APPEAL SET:

Judge Kleinfeld's Order further states that once the appellant provides payment for filing and docketing fees, within 14 days, the following briefing schedule shall apply. The opening brief is due September 9, 2009, the answering brief is due October 9, and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.

PERFECTED APPEAL WITH FILING FEES:

In a telephone interview with Mr. Fine from his jail cell today Full Disclosure learned that the required filing and docketing fees have been submitted to the U. S. Court and proof of payment is to be filed with the Ninth Circuit Court along with a motion for reconsideration of his Emergency request for immediate release.

For Updates on this case Subscribe to the RSS Feed on this page.

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"