Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® is presenting an 8-minute video update covering former U. S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D. who was disbarred and jailed for 18 months in solitary coercive confinement after attempting to disqualifyJudge David P. Yaffe, a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge for taking $860,000 illegally from L.A. County. Before releasing Dr. Fine from the L.A. County jail on September 17, 2010, on the eve of Kol Nidre, the day before Yom Kippur, Judge Yaffe unexpectedly announced his own resignation from office. Yet the battle to resolve the questions surrounding Dr. Fine’s incarceration still remain, as does the controversy over the massive luxury apartment complex on L A. County owned land in Marina del Rey.
State Bar Review “Opinion” and Notice of Disciplinary Charges Lack Evidence
The State Bar acknowledged they did not submit any evidence to support its charges against Dr. Fine (see Review Department Opinion, footnote on page 24). The State Bar Court had alleged that Richard Fine’s cases raised the issue of certain judges taking illegal payments from the County of Los Angeles while being a litigant in the case (see Notice of Disciplinary Charges, #15-18). According to Dr. Fine’s First Amended Complaint Case No. CV-10-0048 his complaints against California Judges were protected under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and the litigation privilege.
Ninth Circuit Deputy Clerk Issues Order To Show Cause: Judge Signature Missing
A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Deputy Clerk named Cyntharee K. Powells issued an Order To Show Cause (OSC) on 8-3-11 that was not signed by a Judge and solicited responses to Richard Fine’s motion to regain his license. She wrote
be so insubstantial as to not justify further proceedings.”
And, Deputy Clerk Powell requested the parties to respond. Here is the Richard Fine response dated 8-24-11 to the Order to Show Cause (OSC) raising major Constitutional questions. Attorneys for the State Bar responded on August 30, 2011. In Richard Fine’s Response to that filing he notes the State Bar at page 6, lines 9-11 shows the entire State Bar proceeding was a fraud as he had never been charged with bringing frivolous cases against judges based upon the illegal payments to the judges.
State Bar Attempts to Block Fine’s Challenge To Judicial Criminal Immunity (SBX2-11)
The State Bar’s response to the Deputy Clerk’s OSC argued that Dr. Fine should not have to challenge the issue of SBX2-11 which was passed by the California Legislature in 2009. SBX2-11 granted retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for all California judges (not just the ones challenged by Dr. Fine) This little known legislation was sponsored by the California Judicial Council. The Judicial Council was under Court Order to prepare a comprehensive 2009 report that found 90 percent of all California Judges were receiving illegal payments from the Counties. Dr. Fine filed this Judicial Notice on SBX2-11 with the Court on 8-24-11 calling the Court’s attention to the California Commission on Judicial Performance unanimous opposition the Constitutionality ofSBX2-11. He requested the California Attorney General’s opinion on the illegal judicial payments and retroactive criminal immunity to judges. In the 2008 Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, decision, the judicial payments from the County of Los Angeles were found to be illegal. Over $350 million was illegally paid to Los Angeles County judges alone, according to Judicial Watch, the public interest legal organization representing Sturgeon the plaintiff.
State Bar a Vehicle For Corruption?
Professor Emeritus Daniel Gottlieb, Ph.D. who reviewed hours of audio tapes from the State Disbarment proceedings against Dr. Fine, appears in the Full Disclosure video. Dr. Gottlieb offers his observation that the State Bar President at the time was Sheldon Sloan who was representing developers who were opposing Richard Fine in Court and the disbarment proceeding that appeared to be retaliation prompted by Sloan’s clients developers Jerry and Pat Epstein in the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. v. County of Los Angeles case. Dr. Gottlieb provide his opinion on the relationship between State Bar, the Developers, the Judges and the County.
Opposing Attorneys Headed the California State Bar.
Now that Richard Fine has been released from jail, the issues to be resolved are focused on the L A County government’s illegal payments to the judges, the approval of a controversial developments and the developers and County’s attorneys who were successive Presidents of the California State Bar Association at the time of disbarment of Richard I. Fine. Additionally a questionable $125 million HUD Loan Guarantee for the project whose HUD application has raised questions and has been criticized for being in conflict with the “affordable housing” mission of HUD.
White House Connection
As noted in subsequent interviews, Richard Fine points to Jeffery Bleich who was the successor State Bar President and who presided while disbarment proceedings against Dr. Fine were concluding. Bleich was a partner with Munger, Tolles and Olson, who was under contract with the County of Los Angeles. The firm was hired to negotiate the Marina del Rey leases for the developersJerry and Pat Epstein and others on L .A. County-owned property. All of these entities were parties named by Dr. Fine in Court documents. Bleich was appointed to the position of Special White House Counsel to the President just after Richard Fine was sent to jail—held for eighteen months in solitary coercive confinement—in March of 2009.