Right Trumps Might

Los Angeles Times Continues Silence On Subject of Corruption

2011-06-23T11:29:00.000-07:00

Savannah Winslow shares her latest email to Los Angeles Times writer George Skelton:

"[California Senate President] Darrell Steinberg. Fearless proponent? Or lapdog."

"Steinberg co-authored Senate Bill SBX2-11, the 'smoking gun' proof of judicial corruption in Los Angeles County. SBX2-11, you'll recall, forgave the commission of (literally) ten million felonies committed by Superior Court Judges and County Supervisors under a scheme specifically forbidden by the Constitution. The scheme involved counties illegally giving judges (who are well-paid state employees) monies under the table, hidden from the public for at least twenty years. 'Smoking gun proof' in the sense that there was no need to retroactively immunize an act unless a crime had been committed."

"By the end of this month, at least eight judges will have been sued, as individuals not judicial officers (meaning no immunity), as a result of their having received County monies while ruling in cases in which the County has an interest, a clear denial of due process and an obstruction of justice. Thousands of such cases will be filed before this is over. (The geniuses who crafted SBX2-11, which included former Chief Justice Ronald George, neglected to immunize the guilty for every crime committed, just the first three, apparently, that came to mind. Viewed in a different light, major malpractice occurred. This legal exposure no doubt contributed to George's sudden decision to 'resign', presumably hoping that doing so would stave off the inevitable indictments.) In the two lawsuits against individual judges that have already been filed and served, the entire court has recused itself, meaning the matter will ultimately be heard by judges in different counties ... one of the three counties where judges did not receive the payments, many of whom are jealous as hell."

"Will Steinberg again be able to cover Antonovich, Knabe and the judges' backsides? One would think that Antonovich and Knabe already have enough to worry about, what with the collapsing [Shores] marina development / leasing deal as HUD panics and the U.S. Attorney's Office refers the matter to the FBI for investigation."

"Why are these things never reported by the Times? Is somebody pulling strings that shouldn't be? Does anyone over there have any integrity anymore? (sigh) These shenanigans have cost L.A. County taxpayers, including Times employees, over a billion dollars. And that's just the part that's known for sure. The unknown losses could well have neutralized the current financial "crisis". Instead, the fatcats just keep getting fatter ... while the folks that could actually do something about it pretend to be looking in a different direction, oblivious to the impact of the crime of the century."

"Shame on those folks. Shame."

Savannah S. Winslow

The Times' response? Crickets. When will the media's malpractice end? Are they somehow benefiting from the corruption?

Richard Fine Thanks Supporters

2010-10-12T22:06:00.000-07:00

Guest post by Dr. Richard I. Fine:

Dear Friends:

Please excuse my delay in communicating with you. I am still recovering from the 18 months of incarceration.

On behalf of my wife Maryellen, my daughter Tory and myself, I thank you for all of your prayers and efforts to help win my freedom.

The fight against corruption and to restore our judicial system is not easy. However, together, we have demonstrated that we will not allow our constitutional rights to be destroyed by corrupt judges. Judge Yaffe resigned from office after I reported him to the California Commission on Judicial Performance and sought his removal. Ronald M. George, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court who knowingly oversaw the illegal county payments to the California judges has resigned from office rather that run for re-election. We have had an impact. We currently have requests for grand jury investigations of judges pending and requests for congressional investigations pending. The crusade is gathering steam.

We must now be ever vigilant to vote out all judges and justices in California who received the illegal payments, ensure that corruption does not occur in other states and in the federal judiciary, and pursue our grand jury and congressional investigations.

We now have the momentum! Let us continue together to victory.

Once again, a BIG thank you. Without your prayers and support, I would never have survived this ordeal.

God Bless You.

Richard

(View video of Dr. Fine's discussion with Leslie Dutton of Full Disclosure Network here as he talks about his darkest hours ... and his new-found hope for the future.)

!! RICHARD FINE FREED !! Right Trumps Might ... Again !

2010-09-18T08:15:00.000-07:00

In a stunning new development, whistle-blowing attorney Richard I. Fine was released from Men's Central Jail late last evening (Sept. 17th) by L.A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe, whom Fine had forced to reveal had perpetuated fraud on the court in continually trying to defend himself by relying on what turned out to be a non-existent court order.

Full Disclosure Network, headed by tireless Emmy winner Leslie Dutton (and aided by the equally indefatigable T.J. Johnston), was first (as usual) to learn of Fine's impending release. Although Fine was the sole author of all legal briefs filed in his case, his freedom could never have been obtained without Full Disclosure's regular and relentless exposure of the corruption as each element was uncovered. California citizens ... indeed all Americans ... owe a huge debt of gratitude for Full Disclosure's determination. (UPDATE: View Dr. Fine's first post-incarceration video interview HERE.)

Judge Yaffe announced his "retirement", effective November 1st, after Fine's legal maneuvering forced him to reveal his false statements made to numerous courts over the past three years as he scrambled to hide his corrupt acts which furthered the illegal activities of a local developer, aided by L.A. County Supervisors Michael D. Antonovich and Don Knabe. But rather than disappear into obscurity as a result of the shame he brought upon himself, his family, and California's judiciary, Yaffe is instead rumored to be planning to immediately return to the bench as a retired assigned judge, positions staffed by the Administrative Office of the Courts ... an entity so rife with corruption the Legislature was recently compelled to pass a bill protecting whistle-blowers whose complaints had repeatedly been thwarted by the AOC (headed by, surprise, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who was also recently forced to "retire" as allegations of his own corrupt acts began to snowball). Judge Yaffe should instead experience the future he so richly deserves: he should be forced to swap places with Dr. Fine:

Dr. Fine, understandably exuberant following his triumph, will spend the weekend re-acclimating himself to freedom and the comforts of home and family. The specifics of implementing his next move to continue the clean-up of California's shady judicial system are still to be determined.

Dr. Fine would like to send a big THANK YOU to all of you who donated (time and/or money) to this cause. Without YOUR help, it would never have been possible. Pat yourselves on the back for helping save America's future. Thanks are also due to Troy Anderson of L.A.'s Metropolitan News-Enterprise and other reporters who saw the truth and reported it ... unlike the crooks' protectors at the Los Angeles Times, who should be ASHAMED of themselves for failing so miserably at their jobs!

UPDATE: Full Disclosure Network reveals Yaffe's true intent in jailing Dr. Fine:

“By keeping him incarcerated for 18 months, the court has deterred others from defying its orders to the extent that it is possible to do so given the facts of this case.” Judge David P. Yaffe

So now we know the truth, from Yaffe's own lips. It was to intimidate any other attorney who may be considering fighting void orders created to protect and further judicial corruption.

UPDATE: Ron Kaye, former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News, calls out Yaffe on his hypocrisy:

"Why it took Yaffe 18 months to determine Fine's confinement does not serve 'any useful purpose' is hard to understand unless you know the judge is regarded by attorneys who have appeared before him as erratic and often irrational in his decisions."

"So I guess if Yaffe resorted in the end to self-justification by calling Fine crazy, it's something he knows about -- if only a juvenile name-calling excuse."

"Maybe Fine is crazy, maybe everybody who fights for what they believe in is crazy."

"That's certainly the viewpoint of every repressive regime and of every oppressor in modern history. That's why they use gulags, and prisons for the politically incorrect."

"The legal standard for coercive confinement in a contempt of court case is five days in jail, after which it is presumed the incarcerated will not back down. Yaffe exceeded that by [526] days."

"There was never any question Fine would break. His whole life is marked by an obsessive passion for doing what he believe is right, fighting against illegal taxation and official abuses."

"As Yaffe knows, the legal standard for insanity is knowing the difference between right and wrong. The question which deserves a proper judicial inquiry is whether Yaffe -- not Fine -- can tell the difference."

Very insightful, Mr. Kaye! You're spot on.

Still, despite all of Yaffe's faults, let us all remember that he was NOT the author of the illegal payment scheme. The blame for that rests solely with Mike Antonovich and Ronald George.

David P. Yaffe -- When Did Being "Honorable" Stop Being A Requirement For Being A Judge?

2010-09-18T08:10:00.000-07:00

REPOST of Sept. 11, 2009 entry:

There was a crooked man and he walked a crooked mile,
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house.

Judge David P. Yaffe apparently has no fans ... in fact, he seems to be utterly reviled. Little wonder he's failed to act with any shred of honor in refusing to disqualify himself from judging cases in which LA County is a party while simultaneously receiving illegal payments from the County. (Given that LA County no longer loses lawsuits filed against it when decided by its judges, many are now recognizing that the "payments" are, in fact, "bribes".)

For example, on May 22, 2001, journalist Roger M. Grace of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reported with refreshing honesty:

"I can’t stand him. ... From what I’ve observed, Yaffe does, to his credit, read the briefs. And he has a substantial quantum of law memorized. To his discredit, however, he’s a nasty and arrogant SOB."

"Chief among the quirks is that he indulges in a fantasy of infallibility. He decides cases on bases not advanced by the parties, but conjured up by himself, and does not permit an opportunity to brief the propositions he’s interjected. After all, a proposition spawned by David P. Yaffe could not possibly be wrong."

"My negative perception of this jurist, I have found, is shared by others. If I bring up the topic of David Yaffe in conversations, I hear comments such as 'he’s crazy' and 'he’s a contrarian son of a bitch.' (Each of the persons so labeling Yaffe is a leading practitioner.) A Superior Court judge told me he avoided talking with Yaffe at a judges’ event, saying, 'I would have puked all over him.'"

In responding to Mr. Grace's questionnaire concerning Judge Yaffe, lawyers had these things to say:

A lawyer who says she appeared in Yaffe’s courtroom two or three times when he was in a trial department comments: "I never really had a pleasant experience with him," explaining: "I found him to be rude."

She notes that he "seemed to be consistent" — that is, consistently rude. It wasn’t like he was having a bad day," the attorney says. She recounts: "My reaction was: why is this guy a judge if he hates lawyers?"

If the presiding judge asked her opinion as to whether Yaffe should be returned to a trial department, she says, "I would recommend against it." Where does he belong? "Retired," she responds.

(In a letter last year to then-Presiding Judge Victor Chavez, I made a somewhat different suggestion: "The reassignment of Yaffe to some other court would be in the public’s interest. [¶] I believe he should be in Department 95. That, of course, has nothing to do with where he should preside.")

Another lawyer recounts:

"I served on a committee with him that revised the local rules in ’94, ’95. He was very jealous of judicial prerogatives.

"The goal of the committee was to make the rules uniform. ... We were trying to abolish the secret rules, the rules on the clipboard."

That goal, he observes, was not shared by Yaffe.

MUCH more at link.

On another site, Courthouse Forum, the following comment about Judge Yaffe was lodged:

The horror stories related by [Roger] Grace in 2001 are mild compared to the manner in which Yaffe has degenerated. In my experience, he has a fascist mentality and a sadist's heart.

In one case, the City denied the existence of a hearing audio tape that was central to the case. The city submitted false declarations under penalty of perjury about the tape's not existing. Petitioner insisted that it saw the meeting being recorded. Two days after Yaffe's adverse ruling, the hearing officer was caught trying to slip the "non-existent" tape back into the achieves. Within the required 10 days, Petitioner brought the tape to Judge Yaffe's attention, reminding him of the prior false representations that the tape did not exist. Rather than hear the Reconsideration Motion, Judge Yaffe promptly dismissed the entire case and refused to even hold a hearing on the perjury and withholding of evidence.

Yaffe acts more like a mob hit man than a jurist. While I doubt he actually kills people ... his job is to kill lawsuits that harm the special interests, primarily developers. The mob analogy is not out of line. The entire superior court system is run more akin to a mob operation than a system of justice.

Lawyers do not have to fear only retaliation from vindictive judges like Yaffe, but from a host of other judges. This systemic corruption of the California judiciary places attorneys ... in a double bind: When they are silent, they endanger the public by allowing men like Yaffe to remain on the bench, but if they speak up, they endanger their other clients to which they owe fiduciary duties.

More observations about Yaffe here.

David Yaffe swore an oath to defend the Constitution. He must be held fully accountable for violating it.

"The Flaying Of The Corrupt Judge Sisamnes"

UPDATE: Richard Fine files Notice of Farr Hearing, set for Wednesday, May 26th at 9:30 am, Judge Yaffe's courtroom (Dept. 86) LA Superior Court. (Dr. Fine's incarceration for "contempt of court" should have been limited to five days under the Farr Doctrine.)

UPDATE: Yaffe repeatedly refuses to hold Farr Hearings, taking the filing fees but not holding hearings.

UPDATE: See results of "RateTheCourts.com" concerning Yaffe. It seems he earned solid "F"s across the board, even from staff, from those who've encountered him. The most telling one was this:

"I was called as a witness on a case before Judge Yaffe. Earlier, I was having dinner in a restaurant and was sitting near Judge Yaffe and I heard him discuss details of the case with attorneys representing a government entity. It looked like the dinner tab was picked up by the attorneys. Later, I saw the same attorneys in court when I was called to appear in court. The Judge did not remember me. I think it was because my presence was out of context. I feared that he would recognize me nad he would get start screaming mad like he has done in the past. I felt "FREE" once I left the court building. I never thought our court system was this crooked. It looks to me that it is NEVER about the law, but always about WHO one knows (Judge Yaffe)."

Credits:

1498-1499
Oil on panel
Bruges, Groenige Museum
http://www.aiwaz.net/gallery/flaying-of-the-corrupt-judge-sisamnes/gi637c101

Image credit: "There was a crooked man ..."
Scott Gustafson
http://www.scottgustafson.com/Gallery_DR_NR_CM.html

"Robert Kennedy speaks out against Retroactive Immunity"

2010-09-18T08:05:00.000-07:00

REPOST of Aug 18, 2009 entry:

Oct 21, 2007, article by Glenn Greenwald at Salon Magazine:

The very idea of "retroactive immunity" ... is so radical, so repugnant to the most basic principles of the "rule of law," that only one prior attempt can be found in recent history (at least from my research): the efforts by some in Congress in 1965 to enact a law retroactively legalizing the mergers by six large banks which clearly -- as a federal court found -- were illegal under our nation's antitrust laws.

The banks knew when they merged that they were almost certainly violating anti-trust laws. But they did it anyway. And when courts began ruling that their behavior was illegal, they ran to Congress to demand that a law be passed granting them amnesty, claiming that the consequences would be ruinous if they were held accountable under the law.

But the very concept of retroactive amnesty -- the idea that corporations could break the law and then have Congress pass a special law legalizing their lawbreaking conduct -- was so profoundly offensive to Sen. Robert Kennedy (who had been the Attorney General when the banks broke the law with their mergers), as well as then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, that they engaged in extraordinary efforts to try to put a stop to this Congressional travesty:

Review the rest of this "Salon" article here.

Ronald George co-authored Senate Bill SBX2-11, effectively granting himself retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution (for now) for his crimes related to the payment scheme. If that's not the absolute height of arrogance, then what is?

Formal Demand for Grand Jury Investigations Submitted to Prosecutors

2010-09-08T08:10:00.000-07:00

Now that Judge David P. Yaffe has been caught on the record lying to higher courts, the probable reason for his recent "retirement", taxpayers' advocate attorney Dr. Richard I. Fine (himself a former prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.) has made a formal demand upon several prosecutors for the immediate convening of grand juries to investigate the corruption rampant within California's judicial system which rewards crooked judges for approving illegal real estate development projects, among other dastardly deeds.

Review the full text of Dr. Fine's demand letter, which provides a full outline of his legal battles as the corrupt have tried to break him, here.

Will those in authority give the public a response better than the following this time around?

UPDATE: Marketing reports inform us that almost 65 MILLION people are aware of this story ... in the United States alone! WOW! (And what's up with the Moscow readership?) A high percentage of readers seems to be members of the financial community, Wall Street and Main Street. We can't help but wonder what business decisions are made concerning beginning or continuing to do business in such an odiously corrupt environment. Our bet is that jobs by the tens of thousands are being relocated as we speak. Whom should we thank first? Top cop Jerry Brown? Top judge Ronald George? Supervisor Mike Antonovich? Senator Darrell Steinberg? District Attorney Steve Cooley? Presiding Judge Charles McCoy? .... If anyone were to put together a list of the Ten Most Wanted Public Enemies, these folks would top the list today.

SOMEONE had better round them up soon before they manage to steal ALL our money. That's truly what they want, and there's little time left to stop them before it's too late.

.

Why Are Los Angeles' Media Executives Censoring Your News? To Protect Crooks?

2010-08-24T09:52:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time there was a developer who wanted to build huge, ugly buildings in a quaint beachside community in Los Angeles, California that was meant to be a wildlife preserve. After the neighborhood opposed one such eyesore, said developer contributed to County Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe's re-election campaigns, after which the Supervisors illegally voted to approve the project's Environmental Impact Report. (The law, with good reason, prevents recipients of recent campaign contributions from voting on issues which affect contributors.)

The developer and his attorneys knew that the EIR vote was illegal, making the EIR itself null and void and meaning that the Del Rey Shores plans should have been halted in their tracks, yet this critical information was withheld. As it turned out, it didn't matter one bit to Judge Yaffe. After attorney Richard Fine, who represented the homeowners, learned of the campaign contributions and their relationship to the EIR vote, and informed Judge Yaffe of the same, Yaffe simply ignored the whole thing and ruled in favor of allowing the development to continue. Also irrelevant, apparently, to Judge Yaffe was the fact that the developer had been given a sweetheart leasing deal by the County Supervisors, allowing him to profit hundreds of millions of dollars that instead should have gone to LA County taxpayers. You know, the same folks who keep being forced to foot the bills for all the other corruption that's being uncovered these days.

Why would Judge Yaffe make such a clearly dishonest ruling? Because he (and all other superior court judges) was receiving secret payments from LA County Supervisors which were blatantly illegal under the Constitution (which says that only the state can pay such judges (in order to help prevent any temptation of corruption)). Those who think the Bell City salaries are outrageous should be stunned to learn that these judges have been bribed to the tune of $300 MILLION dollars (to date) by LA County Supervisors.

At the time of the Fine case in question, Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles, Del Rey Shores, et al, in 2008, judges were receiving an extra $46,000 per year above and beyond their legal salaries of $178,000 per year and benefits worth another $30,000. Having gotten a secret raise in their secret bonuses last year, the judges are now taking an extra $57,000 per year, giving them a total salary which is far above what even US Supreme Court Justices make.

Why on earth would County Supervisors be paying State Judges "bonuses", legal or otherwise? Because, as it turns out, the County Charter says that Supervisors' salaries are to equal superior court judges' salaries. Translation? The Supervisors figured out a way to give themselves bonuses ... without even telling the public about it, much less having to get the public's approval. (Also, L.A. County never loses anymore when it's sued, thanks to the bribed judges' always-favorable rulings. Those lawsuit savings are used to finance the illegal bonuses. Sweet, eh? Too bad for those injured citizens who had a right to sue; L.A. County is not interested in justice, only cash for corrupt politicians.)

These judges are taking money from L.A. County on the one hand, while ruling over cases in which the County is a defendant on the other. This is called "having a conflict of interest" and "temptation of bias". Judge Yaffe received almost $200,000 from L.A. County while it was a defendant in the Marina Strand case over which he ruled, and over $500,000 since he became a judge.

This was all outrageously ILLEGAL!

The California Constitution says so, as does the case Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (Oct. 2008). Once boxed into a corner, do you think anyone decided to do the right thing and go straight? Heck no! Instead, the judges (headed by Ronald George and the Judges Association, with the support of County Supervisors) used taxpayer funds to purchase the services of a lobbyist who greased the right palms in the Legislature. Rather than penalties or punishment, they got ... retroactive immunity! Yep, that's right. Ten million felonies were immunized from criminal prosecution by Senate Bill SBx2-11 , passed in February 2009 by California Senate President Darrell Steinberg and his cronies.

So in case you were wondering, that's why no judge will free Richard Fine. To do so would be an admission that Judge Yaffe's receipt of the payments was illegal, making him (and other judges who did the same) corrupt. It'll never happen because it's been made quite clear that there isn't a single judge of honor, justice or dignity on any bench in Los Angeles County ... despite their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution.

But there's still one other major problem they cannot overcome: SBx2-11 does not immunize the Supervisors for giving themselves the same illegal bonuses they gave the judges. (Intelligentsia we've interviewed are appalled at the "sheer stupidity" of the construction and passage of SBx2-11.) Will Steve Cooley, current D.A. and A.G.aspirant, prosecute? Hardly. He was bought off years ago. How about current A.G. and gubernatorial aspirant Jerry Brown? Ditto. He quashed the one investigation that was opened into the legality of SBx2-11 last year.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich has himself been caught engaging in illegal activities before ... including attempting to influence a judge in a lawsuit in which his constituents were involved. His illegal activities luckily ultimately resulted in greater taxpayer protection from corruption by politicians (by passage of the "Antonovich bills") but Antonovich himself managed to wriggle out of his legal troubles by appealing to higher, and equally corrupt, judges. But unless we're able to put a complete stop to the current corruption, we'll have no protection at all ... we'll just keep paying and paying and paying ... while they cry that the state is broke and needs more money (as they smile inwardly to themselves, believing they'll get away with it ... again).

What's a decent American to do? One, we must STOP these crooks from continuing in political office at every opportunity that arises. And if you have some spare time ... and the desire to help save this state before it careens completely over the cliff, call or write the following and voice your opinion:

Judge David P. Yaffe,
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
111 N. Hill Street, Dept. 86, Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-5881

Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff - (He freed Lohan and Hilton, yet keeps Fine in jail at the whim of a known-corrupt judge? And "solitary confinement" is the most expensive type of incarceration there is.)
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
4700 Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
(323) 267-4800
webemail@lasd.org

Charles McCoy, Presiding Judge
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
111 N. Hill Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-5600

Michael D. Antonovich
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
500 West Temple Street, Room 869
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-5555
(213) 974-1010 FAX

Don Knabe
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213-974-4444
213-626-6941 FAX

Steve Cooley,
Los Angeles County District Attorney
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210
(213) 974-3512
(213) 974-1484 FAX
webmail@da.lacounty.gov

Jerry Brown,
California Attorney General
California Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
(916) 322-3360
(916) 323-5341 FAX

Darrell Steinberg,
California Senate President
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4006

(916) 323-2263 FAX

Arnold Schwarzenegger,
California Governor
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-2841
916-558-3160 FAX

Which brings us back to our headline. Why are L.A. media executives preventing this story from being reported upon? The guilty parties have been stealing from taxpayers for over twenty years. We know that several of the Times' journalists are fully aware of the corruption, and its implications, yet they print mostly puff pieces, full of laudatory praise for judges. Only one conclusion may be drawn, that the Times is in someone's pocket. The question is simply whose.

Richard Fine needs a hero, an honest judge. Is there one out there anywhere? Hello!

It's time the pigs were pulled away from the cash trough and returned to the sties they crawled out of. The sanction they're trying to collect against Dr. Fine was assessed at a secret hearing (yes, really), one which Dr. Fine was prevented from attending and objecting to because they purposefully did not serve him with notice (and have since been forced to admit he was not served, yet Richard Fine remains in jail). And to whom is the sanction to be paid over to, if ever collected? Why, it's the Del Rey Shores developer, Jerry B.Epstein, the man who already stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars (monies which should have gone to taxpayers, if a proper lease was used). Yes, Jerry B. Epstein is the other core reason Richard Fine is, and remains, in jail. If he were to drop his collection attempts, Dr. Fine could be freed immediately. Epstein, however, apparently wants that extra $47,000 from Richard Fine as further punishment for daring to interfere with his plans.

Will any future lawyer be brave enough to take on well-connected developers? Hardly! Not after the grinder that Richard Fine has been put through. (Those lawyers that are cowering today are part of the reason why corruption can exist and flourish. Pat yourselves on the back for being part of the problem, guys and gals.)

The longer the swine continues to feed, the larger the ultimate angry crowd will be.

THAT crowd will consist of the families and friends of THIS crowd, those who literally gave their lives to keep us free from people like the crooks we see in office everywhere these days:

The corrupt would be wise to beware the rage of us honest and decent citizens, because we've literally HAD IT UP TO HERE with them. Ditto for all the folks in positions to do something, but won't. Your mothers must be sooooo proud of you.

As suggested above, please do what you can to register complaints and to remove these folks from office. And please donate to help Richard Fine continue his one-man battle to end corruption in the judiciary. He's still sitting in jail, bravely upholding his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. He's lost eighteen months of his life behind bars (so far) as a result. Isn't that enough torture to inflict on a person who's committed no crime whatsoever?

Think on it, and let your conscience be your guide.

Egads! Gov Appoints Felon as Calif. Chief Justice!

2010-07-27T09:20:00.000-07:00

Immediately upon the heels of the "retirement" of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed Tani Cantil-Sakauye to replace him.

Ms. Cantil-Sakauye, as a former superior court judge, was a recipient of the illegal payments to judges by county supervisors and parties appearing in lawsuits before her.

Ms. Cantil-Sakauye and her colleagues were confirmed by the Judicial Council and the State Legislature to be felons who required immunity from criminal prosecution for their receipt of the bribes and their commission of (literally) ten million felonies, thus Senate Bill SBx2-11 was drafted and passed (with the considerable assistance of Ronald George, another former recipient of the payments).

Ms. Cantil-Sakauye, California's next Chief Justice, is an unindicted felon. And after SBx2-11 is challenged and voided, Ms. Cantil-Sakauye, Mr. George and their 2,100 corrupt colleagues will again be facing prison time for their crimes.

Is this the best Gov. Schwarzenegger can do? Are there NO uncorrupt judges from which to choose? If that's the case, citizens need to know so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation before the final nail is driven into the coffin of what was, not so long ago, California's promising future.

If Gov. Schwarzenegger prefers to go down with the ship, he's certainly free to do so. But aligning oneself with felons is hardly the material of a legacy to be envied. His, it appears, will instead be noted for his failure to lift even the tiniest finger to intercede, leaving us all to wonder how much he's been paid to abet these criminals.

Is Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger on board with having the Kennedy name associated with all this slime? Bobby Kennedy sure wasn't.

UPDATE: From Pinoy Big Blogger: "The California governor recently appointed Cantil-Sakauye to head a Judicial Council committee charged with overseeing the operations of the Administrative Office of the Courts, which runs the court system."

Would that be the same AOC which pays $1,000 per sq.ft. of courthouse construction when the going rate is $55 per sq. ft.? Yes, indeedy. Clearly, Schwarzenegger's candidate is FAR more corrupt than we previously knew. (See Update # 2 in following post for details.)

Splat! Humpty Dumpty Knocked Off His Wall! (Update: Stench of Rotten Contents Sickens Victims)

2010-07-18T11:44:00.000-07:00

What a week it has been! And our first item of news, bombshell though it is, pales in comparison to the second.

In what was to have been a recap of recent events, we were preparing to report the celebrations of Richard Fine's team of supporters at the news that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe is resigning in October, prior to November's elections. (Yaffe wasn't even up for re-election this year.) He was predicted to become the scape goat who would be sacrificed over the bribery scheme, even though he was only one of thousands who'd participated.

But no sooner had we begun to contemplate the real-world consequences of this news, we learned that California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George announced his own "retirement", effective January 2, 2011.

What a stunning success for those who've worked tirelessly this past year and a half to bring the corrupt to their knees!

HOWEVER, the most important crisis to be dealt with at the moment is the one concerning an innocent man having been locked in solitary confinement for almost a year and a half (so far) for refusing to knuckle under to corruption. He was put there by a corrupt judge (Yaffe). Now, Yaffe's ultimate boss and an author of the bribery scheme, "Long-Con Ron", is also "retiring". After 16 months of fighting back, finally the dike has finally begun to break. Isn't it about time Richard Fine was freed?

He honored his oath when no one else would ... and it has literally cost him everything. But this champion of the taxpayers, a man who stood to gain absolutely nothing for digging in his heels on behalf of homeowners and taxpayers who were being royally screwed with the court's assistance, has brought about the beginning of the end for a large number of California's powerful. It's an absolute shame that he has yet to be acknowledged for his tremendous sacrifice. It's a tragedy that he remains behind bars as the dominoes continue to fall and the righteousness of his convictions proven even further with each departure.

And as for Mr. George, we hope he's not foolish enough to think his resignation will stop the oncoming train that is barreling his way in the form of criminal indictments. No, George belongs behind bars alongside everyone else who participated in robbing taxpayers blind and completely corrupting our judicial system to the point that there is ZERO faith in it anymore by anyone remotely familiar with present-day operations.

Developer Doug Ring died last Fall under under circumstances we heard police officials considered to be indicative of suicide. Most curious was the insider opinion that it was ultimately because of "the Fine case". (The foregoing must be considered to be "opinion" and not "fact" as police officials will never confirm it publicly.) Ring had made millions off the backs of taxpayers over the years, his reputation repeatedly intertwined with allegations of malfeasance in his real estate transactions involving public officials.

As Fine's support team has said from the beginning, they will not stop their efforts to fully expose the corruption until all the corrupt actors have been removed from office and forced to face true justice. "Retirement" in no way relieves anyone from facing justice; the criminal prosecutions of those involved remain on the team's agenda. If their efforts continue to be successful and the dominoes continue to fall, we'll hopefully be seeing the departures of Jerry Brown, Mike Antonovich, Don Knabe and Darrell Steinberg soon enough, accompanied by the prosecution of another prominent developer who's at the heart of the most egregious crimes at hand.

Still, who would have thought such a small group of people, highly dedicated though they are, could ever have helped accomplish the results we've seen in the past week. Dr. Fine's supporters are a literal "justice league", examples for all decent Americans to emulate in our efforts to rid our government of its greedy, arrogant, corrupt members ... no matter how lofty their titles. Perhaps someday we'll even learn the details of the story behind the story of "the little team that could".

The "Justice League", as portrayed by DC Comics

Excellent job, guys and gals!

In the meantime, Mike Antonovich and his ilk ought to be consulting with lawyers. Their time has certainly come, and that particular bucket of sludge is on the proverbial verge of hitting the fan, we hear. (Three laws were created to protect citizens the last time Antonovich was caught trying to influence a judge. We expect to be taking advantage of them shortly.)

Mike Antonovich and Ronald George, breaking ground at the Antelope Valley Courthouse.

We close with a thought for Governor Schwarzenegger: although you refused to become involved when you were notified about the corruption, claiming it was a "judicial" matter with which you could not interfere, you have the perfect opportunity now as outgoing governor to establish a decent legacy for yourself by freeing Richard Fine, ordering an independent federal investigation into the activities alleged, putting the State's finances into receivership so that the rest of the corruption can be unearthed and rectified, and restoring the due process rights of your constituents. We're pretty sure history will remember you more favorably if you find the decency to take the high road here. Not one of your movie characters was a coward. We hope to learn the real man is not one either. Time will tell ... and time is running out.

UPDATE: Recent post-dated filings of minute orders by Judge David P. Yaffe reveal the undertaking of a callous CYA to deny having been caught out by Richard Fine. One attempts to justify Yaffe's citation to a non-existent order upon which his whole defense relied; the other wormily reveals that Yaffe is now about to consider whether Dr. Fine's continued incarceration could ever serve its purpose of forcing him to answer questions to aid developer Jerry B. Epstein in extracting almost $47,000 from him in collecting upon Yaffe's bought-and-paid-for but nonetheless still invalid judgment. Our Magic Eight Ball is quite clear in saying the answer is "No".

It's time for "Judge" Yaffe to give it up and do the right thing ... IMMEDIATELY! No hearing is necessary for him to order Sheriff Baca to see to Richard Fine's immediate release. The disgust of Yaffe's honest and decent colleagues across the country ought to be motivation enough, and the pretense of properly dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s is merely heaping additional torture upon the already frail body of an innocent man being held in solitary confinement who's been prevented from eating solid food for two months now due to a broken dental plate Sheriff Baca has maliciously refused to have fixed.

FREE RICHARD FINE! NOW! Each minute of delay is yet another crime ... against him, and against humanity.

UPDATE # 2: Complaint filed by Sacramento whistle-blower Michael Paul regarding courthouse construction costs of $1,000 per sq. ft. when the standard reasonable rate is $55 per sq. ft, an EIGHTEEN THOUSAND PERCENT markup! Holy moly, that's a heck of a lot of bribery and kickbacks. Mr. Paul was fired for his trouble. Defendant "Administrative Office of the Courts", the staffing arm of the Judicial Council, is headed by ...? If you guessed Ronald George, you get a cookie!

UPDATE # 3: News of Ronald George's imminent departure is bringing other stories to us, stories confirming George's long-rumored "Star Chamber" court ... complete with secret deliberations and the handling of cases "off the books". We'll report more on this soon, when we've obtained permission to print the details.

Update # 4: Speculation has begun regarding George's replacement, Associate Justice Corrigan seemingly the prime candidate. We'd like Governor Schwarzenegger to understand that there are no acceptable candidates presently sitting on the Supreme Court: four of the justices were former recipients of the illegal payments themselves when they were former superior court judges; two of the justices sit on the Judicial Council, author of Senate Bill SBx2-11, which purports to pardon the commission of ten million felonies. None of these people are acceptable as justices, much less as chief justice. The only justice who didn't receive the payments and who doesn't sit on the Judicial Council is Justice Werdegar, but we submit that said Justice is also not a viable candidate due to her continued willingness to rubber-stamp Ron George's activities rather than thwart them. ~ If an "honest" judge is sought, can there be any better candidate than Dr. Richard I. Fine? ~

New readers: Please visit the official "Free Richard Fine" website to catch up on the underlying story of Dr. Fine's saga, review documents filed in the case, and peruse mounting press coverage.

Calif. Chief Justice Ronald George Tells BALD-FACED LIE in Bid to Stave Off Forced Resignation Over Bribes to Judges

2010-06-13T13:20:00.000-07:00

By: Savannah S. Winslow

On January 5, 2010, Dr. Richard I. Fine filed a verified complaint against the State Bar of California, et al, concerning their frauds upon the court in obtaining his disbarment after falsely convicting him of "moral turpitude" for revealing the bribes being paid to judges by county supervisors, and to prevent his clients from continuing to litigate against a developer who'd bought illegal votes from LA County Supervisors and shortchanged taxpayers by several hundred million dollars. (Business as usual in LA County, as it turned out.) Said developer had also compromised two State Bar presidents by retaining them at the time of Fine's disbarment proceedings.

The California Supreme Court, named as a necessary party since it was the entity upon which the State Bar perpetuated its fraud, filed a Motion to Dismiss Fine's complaint which, most disturbingly, contained the following astounding fabrication:

"The Sturgeon decision specifically found that the payment of local judicial benefits was ... [not] a basis to seek recusal of a judicial officer receiving such benefits." (See "Memorandum of Points and Authorities", page 2, footnote 2.)

The Sturgeon decision said no such thing! Recusal (disqualification) was not even raised in the Sturgeon case (which was brought and won by Judicial Watch following Dr. Fine's exposure of the payments being illegally made to judges).

This was a cheesy, COLOSSALLY STUPID attempt to posture "We win, Fine loses." How dark and twisted must be the mind of a judge who is so arrogant he/she feels free to tell blatant, easily disproven, lies. Here are seven who did just that:

The man seated in the middle, above, Chief Justice George, was formerly the chief judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court around the time the payment scheme was first concocted, a scheme which was instituted by and between the LA chief judge and LA supervisors. And as a judge of the LA Superior Court himself, George would have received the illegal payments along with everyone else.

The Supreme Court's motion is a fantastic insult to the intelligence and character of Carla M. Woehrle, the Federal District Court Magistrate Judge to whom the Fine v. State Bar II matter has been assigned. How appalled she surely must be at their arrogance! It had seemed fairly certain until now that the judges had successfully circled their wagons and were covering for each other equally ...

... but this slap in the face will hopefully make clear to Judge Woehrle that she's being played (again) and cause her to draw the line at being used as yet another guinea pig puppeteered by the payment scheme masters, and the filing of a Rule 11 "Motion for Sanctions" by Dr. Fine is surely not far behind.

It was galling that George and his cronies tried to pardon themselves for committing Ten Million Felonies after George obtained passage of Senate Bill SBx2-11 in his role as Chief of the Judicial Council, which co-authored SBx2-11. (Adding insult to injury, taxpayers were shafted yet again as George used taxpayer funds to pay lobbyists to stroke legislators to pass the bill which pardoned him.)

The blatant lie about the contents of the Sturgeon decision (issued October 2008) was also absolutely ridiculous in that Dr. Fine demanded Judge Yaffe's recusal a year before the Sturgeon decision was even considered. Thus, even if the claim were true, it's irrelevant to what happened at the time. The Supreme Court justices knew all this when they filed their brief, but they opted to lie and again violate their oaths as they lamely continue to try to save their own skins.

It's widely acknowledged that judges are nothing more than failed lawyers, and this ridiculous lie put forth by the highest court in the state provides all the evidence we need to see that that is true. Yet we elect them to interpret the law ... and the power goes to their heads, resulting in these employees of ours fooling themselves into thinking they're superior to us. Huge egos constrained by small minds is a recipe for certain disaster ... and Los Angeles taxpayers are bearing the brunt of this one.

As an aside, members of Richard Fine's support team would like to acknowledge the "thanks" that well-wishers have sent them, grateful that the team had the bravery to have taken this dangerous bull by the horns. But that same team reminds us that, though they are doing everything they can, "Some Gave All" and it's now our responsibility to keep the torch of liberty aflame. Ronald Reagan was profound in saying that "all great change in America begins at the dinner table." The change needed most desperately now is the removal of every single person currently holding public office. The responsibility for doing so is now also on YOU to do your part.

Thousands of supporters have asked, "What can I do? I want to help, but I don't have any idea what to do!" The best answer is to, first, spread the word about California's rampant corruption. Then, follow singer Ray Stevens' advice and "THROW THE BUMS OUT!" Vote against all incumbents for the next six years, whether they be judges, county supervisors, appellate and supreme court justices, even seemingly "honest" politicians ... there evidently is no such thing anymore, and it's time to acknowledge that before it's too late. "We the People" are the bosses here ... we always have been ... but we've done a poor job lately, mostly because we foolishly believed that honest people outnumbered the dishonest. But we were wrong, and we haven't done nearly enough about it yet.

So come November, search your ballot for Ronald George's name and check "NO" to the question of his reconfirmation to another twelve years on the bench, ditto for all the other supreme court justices, five of seven of whom were previous recipients of illegal county payments when they were superior court judges themselves.

In the meantime, one question must immediately be confronted: Seven judges LIED. Is Magistrate Judge Woehrle possessed with the courage to do something about it? Or is "integrity" in our judicial system now also a thing of the past. Judge Woehrle has the power to break the chain of corruption. Will she instead just become another link?

We'll close here with a link to a previous post, "Ronald George - What He DIDN'T SAY" (deliberately screwing the court staff was perhaps the most despiccable), and a reminder of what former US Attorney General Robert Kennedy thought about crooks attempting to score retroactive immunity for themselves.

Judge Woehrle's ruling is expected soon. Stay tuned!

The Richard Fine Story, In Brief

2010-06-08T09:39:00.000-07:00

Here's a brief beginner's summary of the Richard Fine story. We caught Fred Sottile "on the fly":

U.S. Supreme Court Chucks Due Process Rights Clean Overboard

2010-05-24T14:15:00.000-07:00

The US Supreme Court today released its denial of Dr. Richard I. Fine's Petition for Writ of Certiorari without explanation or comment. The ruling removed all doubt that courts are presumed to act with integrity. Clearly, those days are gone.

In so ruling, the Supreme Court has authorized corrupt judges to continue to accept money from parties to lawsuits before them, then rule in favor of those parties' interests. Therefore, although the Constitution confirmed all citizens' right to due process (a fair trial) for all these years, this right was taken away from all of us today so that judges can continue to steal from taxpayers and reward their cronies.

To say that it's a sad day in America is the greatest understatement of the past 250 years. Americans DIED in wars to obtain and ensure our freedoms; the Supreme Court nullified their sacrifices in one fell swoop.

Check back later, please, for more in our continuing commentary on this outrageous turn of events, as well as the unveiling of Phase B of the developing master plan to finally rid society of its evil members in government. (HINT: "Vote The Bums Out" is child's play.) And note that we have now created an online forum where fellow decent citizens can gather, discuss and plan our futures together. (Unionized workers are particularly encouraged to join the forum and become knowledgeable about the issues. Once you discover how the judges dissedcourtroom staff over the furlough issue, you'll never believe an LA County judge again for any reason. (Short version of that story is here.))

The Supreme Court's ruling is FAR from "the end of the road" for Richard Fine, despite what some people may hope they can fool the public into believing. In truth, and as they well know, the battle is, in fact, by no means abated, and especially interesting fireworks are expected in the upcoming clashes in (1) the Fine v. State Bar II case (where the California Supreme Court will be exposed for literally telling a bald-faced lie in a legal brief it filed with a Federal Court Magistrate Judge who had previously been used as a recurring patsy in protecting guilty judges and furthering their payment scheme), (2) action against Judge Yaffe for refusing to put a hearing on calendar to discuss whether he was exempt from the mandatory maximum 5-day limit of jail time for "coercive" incarceration victims (but the jerk kept the filing fee!), and (3) the decision pending in Sturgeon II v. County of Los Angeles, an appeal seeking to stop the continuing payments to judges.

It bears repeating that the judges and supervisors involved in the payment scheme were not made innocent by Senate Bill SBx2-11 (the ex post facto law presently being used to shield the guilty from prosecution and prison time). They are all still dastardly crooks at heart and in point of fact, regardless of their fictitious legal status. And they are the blood-sucking enemies of We the Decent People. We asked them very nicely to do the right thing and were ignored. The time for niceties has passed.

In the unequaled words of Lee Greenwood,s "Proud To Be An American" :

If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘ Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.
That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘ Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.

Will you STAND UP with Richard Fine and his supporters? Can you even imagine what daily life will become if judges are able to keep their newly-won right to lie under oath? To take money from a defendant then rule in his favor in a case, shafting the other party in the process? To have received a pardon for committing thousands of felonies while continuing to wear the robe (a former symbol of integrity) and sitting in judgment of others accused of criminal conduct? (That would be the height of irony, to say the least. It will also prove to be the most embarrassing thing to try and justify to the outside world, too; mark our words.)

It's sometimes difficult to accept that, as it turns out, our greatest enemy actually came from within. But the evidence is now plentiful that the very people we put in positions of trust are the ones who now are robbing us blind as we speak. That's the bottom line.

So we reaffirm that Right must always eventually win out over Evil Might, for when the opposite becomes the norm, the grand principle behind America's creation and existence will have become moot. If the cause of judicial integrity is ever abandoned ... even for a minute ... "America" will represent a time and state of mind to which we will never be able to return.

"Right Trumps Might" Forum Created

2010-05-24T14:10:00.000-07:00

A new forum has been created for the exclusive use of Decent Citizens to communicate amongst themselves and compile information with which to inform like-minded others.

The forum, Right Trumps Might, was created on the fly due to limited resources. It therefore needs experienced forum moderators to expand its features and topics, moderate comment threads, ban any infiltrators and otherwise further the efforts of those determined to rid the country once and for all of each and every degenerate person who would presume to steal from us, trample our rights and/or otherwise rob us of the fruits of our own (honest) work. These moderators will be tasked with creating the necessary topic threads to promote conversations concerning corruption occurring in the individual states, etc. If you have extensive forum moderation experience and can volunteer a few hours per week, please email us at RightTrumpsMight@gmail.com. We will respond to the top candidates within one week.

Readers are encouraged to register at the forum today, despite its current bare-bones content, in order to receive future announcements and updates of information. As the forum is developed, your participation will be vital in helping identify the corrupt actors holding office across America who must be exposed, prosecuted and eliminated from their positions of trust.

Note that the "Right Trumps Might" forum will initially be concerned primarily with obtaining the criminal prosecution of those persons in California who've committed corrupt acts in creating, hiding and furthering the illegal scheme of counties making payments to judges in exchange for winning lawsuits filed against them by damaged parties. (There would be no financial crisis here, were it not for corruption.)

Richard Fine informed us repeatedly that LA County was winning virtually all lawsuits in which it was sued and a (bribed) judge (not a jury) determined the cases' outcomes. LA County Counsel's office recently admitted as much when interviewed by CNN:

"In the last two fiscal years, Los Angeles County won all but one of the nine trials that went before a judge, according to Steven Estabrook, the county's litigation cost manager."

Will the naysayers now accept the County's own admission?

What percentage of defendants typically win their cases? Isn't it something like 10 or 15%? LA County was trapped into admitting that it wins almost 90%.

But even worse, the phrase "trials that went before a judge" is pure sophistry, words carefully chosen in order to mislead. Luckily, not only was it a failure in that regard, it actually served as a red flag to attract attention to the issue.

In other words, the phrase "trials that went before a judge" deliberately ignores all the cases that were dismissed by judges before they could even get to trial (as happened to ALL of Richard Fine's cases that involved clients in Marina del Rey who were trying to protect themselves from corrupt developers who were paying off County Supervisors), etc. The fact that Steven Estabrook's statement, above, was purposefully misleading confirms that LA County's true litigation win/loss rate is FAR higher than thought. (We've even heard that they've actually bragged about their win rate in appellate briefs.) Result: legitimate plaintiffs were screwed over by greedy LA County officials, judges, and developers and their attorneys, who then used the money saved to line their own pockets.

Our follow-up question to LA County? "So, how many cases against LA County were dismissed prior to trial or were otherwise resolved by a judge during the past two fiscal years?"

Anyway, please join the forum and become a part of the solution. Our blog and website have received thousands of visitors (lots of them, interestingly, consisting of Federal government entities, defense contractors and universities around the world); we can tell there are HUGE numbers of readers who are outraged (for various reasons) and tired of being walked on and their hard-earned money stolen while arrogantly being told there's nothing that can be done about it. As a community, we can prove that Right indeed trumps Might and ultimately see to it that the crooks are dealt with. Help us out, won't you please?

It might take a while, but the corrupt ought to know that We the People WILL get the last laugh.

What Was In the Missing CNN Interview Segment?

2010-05-24T11:09:00.000-07:00

CNN.com posted three segments of video from its investigation into California's judicial corruption crisis after midnight last Friday. At least one additional segment, however, is missing.

The missing footage explained how 2,100 California judges stole hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers, threw cases in favor of Los Angeles County when the County was sued, then, when finally caught, retroactively pardoned themselves for the ten million felonies they'd commited over the past 20+ years.

The footage also explained how, in the case of Marina Strand v. Los Angeles County, et al, Judge David Yaffe was bribed to ignore an illegal vote by LA County Supervisors, then improperly ruled in favor of developer Jerry B. Epstein and his attorneys, R.J. Comer of Armbruster & Goldsmith, and sole practitioner Joshua Lee Rosen, the same attorneys Judge Yaffe used to prosecute Richard Fine for contempt.

Richard Fine also explained how all of Judge Yaffe's orders were "void", meaning they absolutely must not be obeyed if one is to honor one's own oath.

And somewhere in the video should be a segment explaining how developer Jerry Epstein retained two presidents of the State Bar who were in charge at the time disbarment proceedings were brought and prosecuted against Dr. Fine.

Will Richard Fine ever throw up his hands, cave in to the corruption and answer the asset questions posed by Comer and Rosen? Doing so would mean Judge Yaffe would have to release him from jail immediately. But even if he does, it won't help them a bit because, as they've always known, he has zero assets (not counting the $2 million stolen from him by Commissioner Bruce M. Mitchell a few years ago) and is slated to lose his home to foreclosure any day now due to his inability to make mortgage payments over the past 15 months while jailed and disbarred.

In Richard Fine's mind, one does not promise before God to do one thing then do another. Period. Especially if it means becoming a part of an ongoing corruption scheme to bribe judges so that the County can win lawsuits it shouldn't (and save hundreds of millions, which saved monies it uses to finance the judges it bribes).

Dr. Fine could have avoided ALL of his troubles by just going along with the game. He has never had anything at all to gain in this situation, he's simply bound by oath to refuse to co-operate with a corrupt judicial system.

We hope CNN locates and airs the missing segment so that the general public is better able to understand why Richard Fine is constrained by his oath to not participate in illegal acts and selfishly save himself. Saving California, and ultimately America, is the only option if our children are to have any future worth living.

What does a future where oaths have become meaningless actually look like? We are on the brink of finding out.

CNN Posts Interview of Richard Fine Online

2010-05-22T01:47:00.000-07:00

View the raw video footage at CNN.com.

ALERT: CNN To Air Fine Interview

2010-05-19T13:32:00.000-07:00

We have learned that CNN's Anderson Cooper will air the interview with Richard Fine tomorrow (Thursday, May 20th) on his "360" show at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific time, unless breaking news causes the network to preempt it.

We will post a link here after the interview airs.

Don't miss it!!

UPDATE:

From the CNN producer:

"We’re now aiming for a Monday morning release to cnn.com and then to air. I’ll keep you posted."

California State Bar Perpetuates Yet Another Fraud On The Federal District Court

2010-05-03T18:25:00.000-07:00

In his Reply brief filed earlier today, Dr. Richard I. Fine noted the California State Bar's latest attempted fraud on the Federal District Court. As Dr. Fine has shown in the past, this isn't the first time. What remains to be seen is whether Judge John F. Walter and/or Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle are willing to remain accomplices and patsies.

For background, see Dr. Fine's Complaint against the State Bar, and their late and nonsensical "Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss", filed despite there being no original Motion on file preceding it. Dr. Fine's Request for Entry of Default and Default Judgment and his Response to the State Bar's Motion to Dismiss is also available for viewing, as is the case docket.

Informed readers will remember Judges Walter and Woehrle as being the two Federal judges who helped cover for State Court judge David P. Yaffe, furthering the payment scheme as they denied Dr. Fine's two Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus (and in one case dismissed a complaint against themselves).

Application for Release Denied, Liberty Cried, New Judicial System Eyed

2010-04-26T21:29:00.000-07:00

Well, color us surprised! Judicial corruption apparently goes all the way to the top ... even including the majority of members of the US Supreme Court. The blame for causing a known-innocent man to continue to waste away behind bars is squarely on their shoulders.

And the ACLU should be feeling equal shame for their blunt refusal to help in any significant way due to the fact that they are also receiving payments (legally, at least, as far as we know) from LA County Supervisors for "monitoring" the jails.

The US Supreme Court lost every ounce of credibility with decent citizens knowledgeable of the facts when it denied Dr. Richard I. Fine's Application for Stay of Execution earlier today (Monday, April 26th). This means, in Los Angeles County anyway, that a litigant must now be prepared to bribe his judge with more than the $57,000 the County gives them if he is to have any prayer of winning a lawsuit against the County.

Richard Fine, somehow, remains resolute in his determination that he will never obey Judge Yaffe's void order, thus he reaffirmed to us again this morning that he still will not answer the questions posed. He is therefore determined to remain in jail until the Supreme Court returns in October and rules on the Petition concerning the whole situation, his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which addresses the entire case. (His just-denied Application only dealt with his request to be freed from jail while the appeal process proceeds.)

Some think Dr. Fine has now become qualified for a Nobel Prize, having been forced to suffer the horrors of similar unjust imprisonment by the likes of Nelson Mandela, etc., in a singular demand for justice. On a more practical note, he's ideally suited to replace Congressman Brad Sherman, yet another person who was contacted and refused to intercede in any way, preferring to further the corruption as much as he's able in exchange for who-knows-what reward.

In the interim, this author suggests that planning begin for a new judicial system, one in which "judges" will have to pass an fMRI quarterly to confirm their honesty. Although such a court could not determine criminal matters initially, it could work as a form of binding arbitration to help honest citizens work out their differences free from the stench and influence of bribery and corruption. The new system should also ban lawyers from the courtrooms, letting them participate in the research and preparation of briefs, but blocked from further influencing the process. The judge could then read the briefs and interview the parties and witnesses without all the histrionics. (Discuss in the Comments.)
We also understand that the UN's Human Rights Commission will, sometime this Fall, review the complaint filed on Dr. Fine's behalf concerning the "torturous" aspects of his incarceration.

In the meantime, please consider sending Dr. Fine some reading material to help him get through the coming months. (He particularly enjoys historical biographies, we understand.) Please CAREFULLY review the jail's rules, then purchase no more than 3 paperbacks from any reputable bookstore and have them mailed to:

DR. RICHARD I. FINE
Prisoner ID # 1824367
c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Cards and letters may also be sent to Dr. Fine at this address. (And a few words of support would most assuredly mean a lot to him now.)

Also, kindly consider making a $10 or $20 donation (here) to purchase calling cards so that Dr. Fine can at least stay in touch with his long-suffering wife and daughter over the next few months.
Lastly, preliminary discussions are underway to put together a writing campaign to co-incide with the Supreme Court's return from its Summer break. Watch this blog for details.

Rally Protesting California Judicial Corruption A Satisfying Success; Dr. Fine, However, Still In Search Of An Honest Judge

2010-04-23T03:34:00.000-07:00

As reported by Troy Anderson for the Los Angeles Daily News:

"Chanting 'This is America, not Russia,' about 75 people gathered Tuesday morning outside the downtown Stanley Mosk Courthouse to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to free former taxpayer advocate attorney Richard I. Fine from jail."

"In Washington, D.C., about 50 people staged a similar protest on the steps of the high court, which is scheduled to meet Friday to decide whether Fine should be released."

Full Disclosure Network's Leslie Dutton caught all the action on video and filed an in-depth report:

Supporters of jailed anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine launched the first of several planned protests across the nation today in front of the Superior Court building. Fine has been held in solitary "coercive confinement" in the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail at the order of State Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, who had accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal payments from the County of Los Angeles. Fine has been held for over a year, without charges being filed, without conviction, without bail, hearing date or release date.

Larry John, filed "torture" complaint with UN Human Rights Commission

on behalf of "political prisoner" Dr. Richard I. Fine

At the request of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, the Supreme Court Justices will have Fine's application for "Stay of Execution" submitted before them on Friday, April 23, 2010 and announce their decision on Monday, April 26th, as to their decision whether to deny his application, act immediately to release him, or to take up matter for a full court review. There is long standing Supreme Court precedent: IN RE FARR (1974) that held no person shall be held more than five days in "coercive confinement" for civil contempt of court. In the case of William T. Farr, an L. A. Times and Herald Examiner reporter refused to divulge his sources, under Judicial order, on moral grounds. Richard Fine contends that Judge Yaffe's order was illegal as he refused to recuse himself from the case where he had accepted illegal payments from a party to the case (County of Los Angeles).

Janette Isaacs, L.A. event organizer

U.S. Supreme Court Sicced on Corrupt California Judges by Richard I. Fine's "Petition for Writ of Certiorari"

2010-04-23T03:16:00.000-07:00

Richard I. Fine's "Petition for Writ of Certiorari" was accepted by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court for docketing:

Background Summary:

"Judges for the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, who are state-elected, began receiving substantial monies, mischaracterized as 'judicial benefits”', from LA County in the late 1980s. LA County began winning virtually all lawsuits filed against it when the same were decided by judges and not juries. The payments were found to be unconstitutional in October 2008. The California Legislature subsequently passed Senate Bill SBx2-11, which retroactively granted immunity from criminal prosecution for the estimated ten million felonies committed, while purportedly authorizing the payments.

"Meanwhile, a homeowners association had sued LA County and others concerning an environmental impact report and Supervisors' illegal votes approving same. The judge, refusing to recuse himself despite having received almost $100,000 from a defendant in the case, ultimately ruled in defendants’ favor. Appellate judges then knowingly misconstrued the facts and protected the trial judge.

Question Presented for Review:

"Whether the trial court judge should have recused himself in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BS109420, in which the judge received illegal payments from the County of Los Angeles, a party to the case; and whether he should also have recused himself in the ancillary contempt proceeding in which he 'judged his own actions.'”

Despite the fact that Fine's Petition was received on March 23rd, Respondent Sheriff Leroy D. Baca has been granted until May 17th to file his response (see Docket), if any.

Still, the bottom line is simply this: There is NO honest answer other than "yes" to the Question Presented, and the legal fiction of SBx2-11's immunity doesn't change that inasmuch as recusal is not one of the issues it covers, the Ninth Circuit's pretense to the contrary notwithstanding.

Richard Fine Interviewed

2010-04-18T18:14:00.000-07:00

View Full Disclosure Network's video of Leslie Dutton's in-person interview of Dr. Richard I Fine conducted at Men's Central Jail of Los Angeles County. Full Disclosure finally obtained the interview after Judicial Watch filed a Federal complaint against Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, who'd refused access to Dr. Fine for over a year. Baca claimed Judge David Yaffe ordered this arrangement, but caved in to the interview demand in the face of Full Disclosure's lawsuit.)

Next, view Part 1 of the three-part video of Richard Fine interview of April 16, 2010 on InfoWars.com. (Two-part video of interview of Full Disclosure Network's Leslie Dutton at the same link, along with the following two segments of the Fine interview.)

Also view Full Disclosure Network's library of videos regarding its investigation of judicial corruption throughout California.

EXCITING UPDATE: Website visitor traffic reports for Monday, April 19th, show that the expose' of judicial corruption and the airing of Dr. Fine's plight have FINALLY gone viral. Mid-day website traffic averaged around 1,000 new visitors PER HOUR.

In giddy celebration, a call was placed to, and a message left with, the office of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with this news, his being the final signature on Senate Bill SBX2-11 which pardoned all the felons last February. We'd like his opinion on gubernatorial candidate Attorney General Jerry Brown's attempts to cover up the payment scheme conspiracy, but we're not holding our breath we'll ever get an answer to that question.

REMINDER: This battle costs money!! (ONE complete Supreme Court filing cost over $3,000 to produce a product in compliance with the rules.) Please consider making a donation of any amount, large or small. Even the smallest contributors will someday be able to proudly report that they actually helped save our county. Perhaps you'd like to tell your own future generations that you did the same? Dr. Fine has sacrificed practically everything ... FOR US. Pay it forward and consider sharing a few dollars to help protect and defend the Constitution ... and the America of tomorrow.

To make a donation, go to the official "Free Richard Fine" website and scroll down to the middle of the page for the PayPal Donate Button, or for instructions on how to mail a check.

All donors will eventually receive a personal "thank you" from Dr. Fine, but we have to get him out of jail and put the judges on the run first.

See you at a rally!

"Free Richard Fine" Rally Set for Tuesday at LA County Courthouse & US Supreme Court Steps

2010-04-15T22:50:00.000-07:00

Sick and tired of corrupt judges and even-worse governmental fraud perpetuated by government employees against We the People?

Posted at:
OurLA.com

by Ron Kaye

Wednesday, 14 April 2010 06:52

Jailed more than 13 months ago without charge or bail, Richard Fine finally gets his day in court April 23 when the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court consider whether he should be freed from coercive detention for refusing to comply with Superior Court Judge David Yaffe's order to disclose his personal financial information.

Supporters of Fine, an anti-tax crusader who exposed illegal payments to Superior Court judges, are holding a rally for Fine next Tuesday at the County Courthouse at 111 N. Hill St., downtown.

Peruse the above link for more information.

Friends, Family, Fellow Activists, Advocates and Community Supporters are welcome.

This is a peaceful rally/protest where we will be exercising our First Amendment rights to free speech.

No weapons, bullhorns or any other devices which may disturb the peace.

Lacking motivation? Together let us recall just this small part of the story:

Developer Jerry B. Epstein and entities under his control made political campaign contributions to LA County Supervisors Michael D. Antonovich and others not long before the Board of Supervisors was to vote on an environmental impact report affecting two of Epstein's multi-million-dollar development projects in Marina del Rey (a suburb of Los Angeles).

Those Supervisors who received money from Epstein blatantly broke the law when voting to approve Epstein's development projects. (This was made worse by the fact that no benefit to LA County taxpayers was shown, essentially giving away all the income earned by the taxpayers' public property over the life of Epstein's decades-long sweetheart leases of prime real estate.)

Neighbors of the dreaded development behemoths, members of a homeowners' association, hired Richard I. Fine, well-known for his wins as a taxpayer's advocate attorney, to object to the illegal vote on the environmental report. The case was brought before LA Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe, whose ruling completely ignored the vote, not to mention the other egregious issues alleged.

The Supervisors' vote was unarguably illegal, yet Yaffe ignored the entire issue in his ruling approving the continuation of the development projects.

What possible motive could Yaffe have had for making such a ridiculously unbelievable decision? Can there be any other reason but the $46,000 he received from the same Supervisors yet failed to report that same year?

Know this: Judges are "state" employees, and the California Constitution plainly states that the judges may only be paid by the State (for several reasons). LA County Supervisors have been deliberately violating that provision of the Constitution for over twenty years now, and every judge in LA County has been receiving the same bribes that Yaffe has (also at considerable cost to We the Taxpayers).

Did we say "bribes"? Yes, we certainly did. Unless a reader submits a better (printable) suggestion in the Comments, below, we'll stick with that term to describe the relationship between judges who are illegally paid and Supervisors (in the form of "LA County") hardly ever lose a lawsuit filed against them when the judge is able to keep the decision from the hands of a jury. (The County's own Litigation Cost Management Reports exposed this outrageous fact, and County lawyers have even been rumored to have bragged about their win rate in appellate briefs.)

How's that for "integrity of the court"?! Sounds more like "bribery", "obstruction of justice", "misappropriation of funds", "pure arrogance" and other such things to us.

Decent Los Angeleans will hopefully turn out in droves at the Rally to Free Richard Fine (most likely best attended between 9:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., we hear) next Tuesday, April 20th on the steps of Yaffe's own courthouse. Media inquiries have begun arriving, a positive omen to Fine's support team who've struggled along with Dr. Fine lo these many months (though to nowhere near the drastic cost that Yaffe and his cabal of crooked cohorts have extracted from Dr. Fine, by any means).

Final note: Yaffe ordered Dr. Fine to pay sanctions to LA County of $47,000. Dr. Fine has now been behind bars, in a single cell, and accompanied by two specially-detailed armed guards anytime he's able to leave the cell, for over thirteen months now in a battle over his exposure of the Ten Million Felonies committed by California judges and Supervisors.

How much has it cost to house Dr. Fine all this time? (Another cost borne, by the way, by ... wait for it ... WE THE TAXPAYERS!)

Sheesh! We know they think little of our intellect, and they've even managed to get lower level media (the Los Angeles Times comes to mind) to not report in any meaningful fashion about the brink of collapse their cover-up shenanigans have brought us to, but they still haven't picked up on the fact that their credibility is far past "shot" and well into the realm of gossipy entertainment.

Behind-the-scenes bettors are wagering on who will be the first sacrificial lamb, and when he/she will be forced to go. Our bet is that it will be David P. Yaffe, the man who single-handedly brought the most dishonor on the court when he was forced to admit under oath that, but for one small exception, he'd always ruled in LA County's favor when it was a defendant in his courtroom. And given Yaffe's delightful personality, it would be hard to identify a more-deserving candidate. (But we could argue all day over who'll be second, third, fourth ... .)

Until anon, fellow decent Americans; we'll get there.

Heartwrenching Plea by Richard Fine's Daughter to US Supreme Court Concerning Her Father's Freedom and Her Country's Future

2010-04-15T17:56:00.000-07:00

Sayeth Victoria Fine:

"Please remember, that as you review my father’s case on April 23, you are considering the ... fate of a father, a husband, a friend and a deeply concerned citizen, [one] who has dedicated his life to upholding the decisions you make in your court."

The preceding portion of her plea to the Supreme Court may be viewed on Facebook.

Irony alert: Victoria alludes to an important point, which is that if the Court refuses to release Dr. Fine, it will have effectively thumbed its collective nose at its own precedent which, prior to this conference, left no doubt that exemplary integrity is the only acceptable behavior any judge may exhibit and still hold his seat.

Being confronted with what to do with 2,100 corrupt judges will surely be a grave moment for the Supremes next Friday, but there will be no future case by which the Court might restore its own integrity if it cannot find the courage NOW to enforce the basic human tenets that "right" does indeed trump "might", and that no innocent man should ever be forced to spend a single minute behind bars ... most especially for political reasons. It's humiliating, and it occurs only when small men are scared.

And let's not forget that California's citizens deserve to be protected from the theft of their monies and to have their Constitutional right to due process restored. There's no such thing while crooked judges populate the courtrooms.

Although the facts in the case are convoluted, the solutions are simple. We will learn soon enough whether the Supreme Court Justices also consider themselves above honoring their sacred oaths. Meanwhile, we sincerely hope they grant Victoria Fine's heartfelt plea.

Supreme Court to Consider Richard Fine's Petition for Release

2010-04-12T05:40:00.000-07:00

Okay, to catch up on recent events:

In late December 2009, Dr. Richard I. Fine filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to be released from jail pending the outcome of the appeal process. It was summarily denied by Justice Kennedy. Or at least that seems to have been the case. In actuality, Deputy Clerk Danny Bickell (Google him!) sent a letter advising that the petition had been denied, and there is no Order in the Court's file, signed or otherwise, addressing the true legal outcome.

Regardless, Dr. Fine then requested that the clerk transfer the file to Justice Ginsburg for consideration. The clerk did so, according to the docket, on March 30th. On April 7th, the docket was updated to include the notification that the case had been "distributed for conference of April 23, 2010."

On April 23rd, therefore, the nine ultimate guardians of American's right to due process, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, will consider whether corrupt California judges and county supervisors will finally be brought to heel. Will the justices be able to rein in any inclination to protect their embarrassing and felonious brethren? Will they be able to look past the arrogance of the unindicted judges who cavalierly assume the justices will compromise their own principles and legacies just to keep some crooks in robes out of jail? They knowingly stole taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and granted themselves retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability when they were finally caught. Yet who goes to jail? The one person, obviously, who refuses ... on principle ... to violate his sworn oath or kowtow to the faux muckety-mucks who've somehow fooled themselves into believing they are superior to their employers, We the People. Luckily, November is just around the corner.

Here's hoping and praying the honorable justices will show all Americans what "integrity of the court" truly means. We'll know soon after April 23rd whether or not they appreciate the gravity of their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.

The extermination of our basic right to due process, and to criticize judges who appear to have committed numerous high felonies over twenty years, MUST be addressed NOW. The alternative future is truly too horrible to contemplate. One thing is certain: Historians will record this monstrous corruption scheme that, given the involved ten million or so felonies, surely at least qualifies for a Guiness record or something. They will also debate at length the actions taken by the various entities and individuals Dr. Fine turned to. Generations of descendants will bear the awful stigmas throughout their lives if their ancestors today fumble a momentous decision and sanction the very evil behavior that is, in large part, a perfect example of what ails America these days.

We pray for the survival of Lady Justice. So does Lady Liberty, who is equally horrified at the present state of affairs.

Forecast: Sunshine & Rainbows? Not So Much.

2010-04-06T00:46:00.000-07:00

Californians just can't seem to catch a break.

Thanks to the massive judicial corruption scandal finally being picked up by the press, the story is now being regularly monitored and reported by numerous Wall Street media outlets, among them Forbes, The Street and Fox Business News (not to mention several overseas publications), according to website traffic reports and follow-up.

Unfortunately, although the attention on the guilty bodes well for our future in general, the near-term most likely will be filled with catastrophic consequences to the State of California as investors of all stripes elect to take their business elsewhere, searching for climes of judicial integrity. As the institutional dominoes collapse, smart investors will take their tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs elsewhere, the insatiable greed of California's "elite" finally reducing the Golden State to a pile of rubble worse than a 10.0 earthquake would leave behind.

How worried are those decent Americans trying to raise children in this environment?

Standing on Principle is a Dangerous Pastime These Days

2010-03-31T13:28:00.000-07:00

The old acronym, K.I.S.S., or "keep it simple, stupid" is difficult to put in practice in telling the story of rampant, in-your-face corruption in California's courtrooms, but the attempt has to be made before the backside-coverers cause the understanding of the actual facts to spiral out of control, so here we go:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Judge David P. Yaffe receives a legal salary of about $178,000 per year, plus about $30,000 worth of benefits, paid by his employer, the State of California.

Judge Yaffe also illegally received over $46,000 last year, and will receive over $57,000 this year, in an under-the-table deal with Los Angeles County Supervisors. Although these payments are called "judicial benefits" by the Supervisors, such payments are plainly prohibited by the California Constitution.

Even though Judge Yaffe receives money from LA County, he refuses to disqualify himself from hearing cases in which LA County is a party. In other words, LA County is paying Judge Yaffe at the same time it is a defendant in lawsuits he rules on.

Judge Yaffe knew the money he accepted was illegally given, as proven by his refusal to list that income on his mandatory financial disclosure form (Form 700), which educates parties to a lawsuit as to a judge's potential biases or influences.

Judge Yaffe was forced to admit, under oath, that, with one minor exception, he has always ruled in favor of LA County in cases in which the County was sued.

The LA County Charter states that Supervisors' salaries are to match Superior Court judges' salaries. It is believed, and Supervisors repeatedly fail to deny, that they are each also receiving the $57,000 per year, and their receipt of such payments is also illegal in that they were never presented to, much less approved by, the taxpaying public at any time over the past 20+ years that the payment scheme has been operating.

In the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles and Del Rey Shores Developments (principally owned and managed by Jerry B. Epstein and his wife Pat), the homeowners began petitioning in June 2007 to have an illegal vote rescinded by the Supervisors which favored redevelopment of the Del Rey Shores projects because the Epsteins had made significant campaign contributions to three Supervisors prior to their approval votes. Still, Judge Yaffe refused to overturn the vote, allowing the redevelopment to proceed, while at the same time he had received almost $100,000 from the same Supervisors, on behalf of LA County, all the while LA County was a defendant in the lawsuit.

(The County's own Litigation Cost Management Reports show that the County hardly ever loses a lawsuit when the decision can be kept from the hands of juries and the decisions and verdicts are given by these paid-for (bribed) judges instead.)

Meanwhile, attorney Richard I. Fine had spent a significant portion of his career single-handedly pursuing cases against LA County in which taxpayers had been cheated in various ways. He's managed to recover about $1 Billion Dollars that was misspent, all to the aggravation of the various powers that be. He was even able to cause the state government to close for a day when he successfully argued that the state could not continue with business as usual without an approved budget in place. This brought his name to the attention of all judges, legislators and other government officials who temporarily lost the day's pay due to their being forced to conduct business in a legal manner.

A graduate of the London School of Economics, Dr. Fine has an enviable education. His career has also been one few have obtained, having served with the US Justice Department early on, then coming to Los Angeles and establishing the County's first Anti-Trust Division. A man of unyielding principle was perfectly matched to pursue the wrongs inflicted by the unprincipled.

Then Dr. Fine stumbled across the payment scheme and, long story short, in following his oath to obey, protect and defend the Constitution, sought to disqualify a commissioner (a wannabe judge who also received the illegal payments from LA County) from a case. The commissioner, however, fought tooth and nail, then took almost $2 Million Dollars from Dr. Fine's client trust account to pay for the commissioner's own lawyers in the battle. On appeal, Dr. Fine lost when his case was heard by former recipients of the same illegal payments.

(When Dr. Fine is eventually proven to be correct, hundreds of powerful people will be facing prison time and restitution of the $1 billion stolen state-wide thus far.)

In the meantime, Judicial Watch brought a case challenging the legality of the payments. In the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, Judicial Watch eventually won in October 2008 when the payments were found to be unconstitutional (i.e., illegal).

Following this ruling, rather than cease the payments and atone for their crimes, the guilty parties, led by CA Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George, greased palms and got legislation secretly passed that audaciously granted retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution to the selfsame people who had now officially been revealed to be felons. (No reason to grant immunity if no crime had been committed, right?) The "crooks", who have collectively committed almost TEN MILLION FELONIES to date, were also granted immunity from civil liability and judicial discipline. In other words, their theft of almost a billion dollars, and the consequences to all the wronged parties to lawsuits, were simply ignored.

The new law granting the immunity, and now authorizing the payments up to a certain point in time, was labeled CA Senate Bill SBx2-11. It was illegally passed as part of the budget bill, and was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009. (It is believed that Judicial Watch will be attacking this law, especially its ex post facto nature, in the near future.)

After Dr. Fine's ruinous loss to the commissioner in the long battle over his receipt of the illegal payments, Fine found himself representing homeowners in Marina del Rey who were very displeased with the County's handling of redevelopment in the Marina, an area that is supposed to be protected, and concerning land owned by County taxpayers. Dr. Fine uncovered the fact that the County had given sweetheart deals to developers which had cost taxpayers approx. $700 Million in lost revenue, revenue that would have to be made up by taxpayers who had no idea what had been going on.

Developers Pat & Jerry B. Epstein

As Dr. Fine fought, on behalf of area homeowners, to have the illegal redevelopment projects halted in their tracks, Epstein hired two successive presidents of the CA State Bar to represent his interests. Dr. Fine then found himself facing disbarment, and he was eventually disbarred in March 2009 for "moral turpitude" in retaliation for having revealed the criminal payment scheme, which exposed the judges' and commissioners' felonies and pulled back the sacred curtain of secrecy to reveal the complete lack of integrity that had overtaken California's judiciary like a parasitic invasion in a world with only weak antibiotics. The disbarment also resulted in Epstein's redevelopment projects proceeding unhindered.

Going back to the Marina Strand homeowners' case against LA County and Epstein, after Judge Yaffe refused to rescind the Supervisors' illegal vote approving the environmental impact report which allowed the Del Rey Shores projects to proceed, Dr. Fine knew that Judge Yaffe had been compromised and made a motion that he disqualify himself from remaining on the case. Not only did Judge Yaffe refuse, he ordered Dr. Fine to pay the County $47,000 in attorney's fees. When Dr. Fine refused, Judge Yaffe jailed him for "contempt" to "coerce" him into dropping his resistance to capitulating to Yaffe's void order.

But Fine could not comply. It's the principle of the thing. Judge Yaffe was as hard on Dr. Fine as was possible, ordering that he even by denied pencil and paper while in jail with which to draft an appeal. (How the support team managed to help Dr. Fine with these side issues is a story in itself.)

Dr. Fine has been in jail, in solitary confinement, for over a year now ... since March 4, 2009. He's lost his license to practice law (which was his only source of income), his home is being lost to foreclosure, and the consequences to his immediate family have been horrendous. This seventy-year-old champion for We the People has given everything he has to fight for the principle of due process, compelled to obey his oath and not cower in fear and avoid serving his clients' interests.

Is there an end in sight? Frankly, that doesn't seem to be the case. The appeal to the Federal District Court was denied, as was the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any other ruling would have exposed their own members' prior receipt of the same illegal payments before their appointments to these higher courts. Even the CA Supreme Court is heavily tainted due to five of its seven members' receipt of the payments in years past.

Recently, even the US Supreme Court, in the form of Justice Anthony Kennedy, denied Dr. Fine's simple request to be released from jail pending the outcome of his full appeal. (A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was recently filed with the Supreme Court next week.) This type of request has been granted before, but not this time. (It was requested last week that the Application for release be forwarded to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but is there any reason to expect a better outcome there? A good outcome with the full appeal? Does this corruption really extend all the way to the top?)

The law very clearly says that a judge may not sit on a case where he has received monies from one of the parties to the case. Judge Yaffe has done that many times, not just in the Marina Strand case. The law says that a judge may not "judge his own actions", yet Judge Yaffe did exactly that when he was both a witness and judge at the contempt trial. The list goes on, ad nauseum, and so does the pretense that all is well.

But the principle remains. Does a sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution mean anything anymore? If not, let's just be honest and say so, and call it a day.

You see, Dr. Fine could do what they've officially commanded, which is to answer questions by the County which identify any assets. That's what he's being "coerced", officially, to do. He continues to refuse this simple request for the principle reason that to do so would have the effect of obeying a void order, even if the answers, as all involved WELL know, reveal that Dr. Fine no longer has any assets due to the criminal attacks against him, the loss of years' worth of income and the theft of rightfully earned fees.

The guilty have slowly and stupidly painted themselves into a corner, however. For example, Senate Bill SBx2-11 does not protect any Supervisor who received the payments. (It was thrown together too quickly, its genius authors failing completely to pardon those particular forms of possible embezzlement. SBx2-11 also does not protect any current aiders and abettors for their acts in furthering the payment scheme because of a nagging little technical problem: the payments are still unconstitutional. That's what $60,000 in, ahem, "lobbyist fees" will purchase, a protective umbrella that's turned out to have so many holes, its authors would be sued into bankruptcy for malpractice, had they not already given each other immunity. (Irony alert.) What has the world come to that such ridiculousness is actually reality, the same one you and I walk about in, slaves to a system populated by so many morally disturbed people.)

But perhaps the most important corner turned thus far in the Fine saga is California's capital city newspaper's editorial recognizing Fine's overlong incarceration as having developed into one of political imprisonment. After nearly a year's almost total silence on the details underlying Fine's situation, the mainstream press, lately in the form of the Sacramento Bee reporter's Dan Walter's pronouncement of his analysis of what can finally be proven as the guilty parties' desperation to avoid consequences for their criminal acts and forced repayment of the illegal "benefits".

The story of Dr. Fine's situation has finally become too big to suppress. Now, the enemy architects have, in their desperation, stupidly allowed themselves to be personally put on the financial hook for the massive damages Fine has become entitled to recover from his captors.

Whom to blame? The list includes:

Jerry Brown, current CA Attorney General and the Democrat's candidate for governor. Brown refuses to even acknowledge receipt of complaints filed concerning the judges' receipt of the illegal payments, etc., much less investigate as the laws require. It was discovered that Brown even went so far as to quash an investigation instigated by the Council on Judicial Performance, the entity responsible for disciplining judges which now questioned whether that obligation had been stripped from it by the terms of SBx2-11.

CA Attorney General Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown, left, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

CA Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George. Former head judge in LA Superior Court at about the time the payments began. (George and his cabal of crooked judges and administrators operate in secrecy. They have refused to reveal exactly when the payments began. There can only be on reason for taking that position, making it appear that George was the co-author of the payment scheme on behalf of the judges back in the late 1980s. George is also head of the Judicial Council, the legal body which drafted SBx2-11. Expensive lobbyists were then hired to grease the necessary palms. (When challenged, the bill will certainly be struck down (assuming the issue is heard by an honest court, an occasion of considerable rarity these days), not only for its outrageous ex post facto origin, but also by reason of their failure to follow even the basic rules concerning how and when certain types of bills may be passed.)

CA Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George

LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, Republican, is the only Supervisor presently on the Board whose tenure extends back to the late 80s, making him the only current member who could have co-authored the scheme on behalf of the County, committing millions in taxpayers' money for purposes the Constitution specifically forbids, and which it was discovered they clearly knew ... yet they proceeded anyway. You see, there was a memo written in Nov. 1988 on behalf of the judges requesting County Counsel's opinion of the legality of the payments. Counsel dutifully reported the two existing attorney general opinions which confirmed that the Constitution prohibited the type of payment contemplated, yet claimed that the benefits could be viewed as legal since they were to "attract and retain" supposedly higher quality judges (yet all that Los Angeles and California taxpayers have to show for it is a judicial system that is entirely corrupt from top to bottom.)

LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich

Darrell Steinberg, President of the California Senate, Democrat, was the (substitute) author of SBx2-11. (When its first author could not get enough support to pass it through committee, Steinberg was somehow induced to re-present the bill and get it passed, despite its very extraordinary contents, and while legitimate budget resolutions should have been the topic of discussion, given the massive budget crisis (caused in large part by the corruption which has become a super-parasite feeding from across the entire state's population).

Darrell Steinberg

US District Court Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle. These judges and others at the federal district court have been forced to confront the fact that many of the judges in their court were previously LA County Superior Court judges who'd received the payments. If they sided with Dr. Fine against Judge Yaffe in his appeal, their own colleagues faced dire consequences. It was easier to deny Fine and pass the buck to the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, the tenet about an innocent man being falsely imprisoned being one of the greatest sins that a court can fail to correct turns out to have been fiction; there is no such ideal when the same would reveal at long last the hoax of integrity of the courts being perpetuated on the citizenry.

Dr. Fine has committed no crime. And not only has he not been a "bad" citizen, he's dedicated his career to being an exemplary one. His work even eventually led to his being named as Special General Counsel for the Kingdom of Norway.

Dr. Richard I. Fine, right, with daughter Tory in happier times

Fate, however, placed a highly principled man at the forefront of a phalanx of honest and decent citizens, We the People, while towering over him and them is all the might amassed by the state's most powerful politicians (and their developer campaign contributors, among others). The integrity of LA County's judicial system has been missing for years, stories of corruption more common than grains of sand on Venice Beach.

On the horizon are the anticipated responses to complaints filed with the UN's Human Rights Commission, the World Court, the US Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the Chinese Embassy, Russia's "Pravda" news outlet, the US Supreme Court, and other entities of sufficient heft.

Unfortunately for the families of the judges and Supervisors, it must be humiliating to be the spouse, child, parent or friend of the instigators and perpetuators of the criminal payment scheme. But said instigators and perpetuators have brought it all upon themselves, sacrificing their dignity and reputations as news of their dirty deeds spreads across the globe. Surprisingly, the story is now being regularly followed by numerous Wall Street and stock trading entities. Unsurprisingly, although much later than expected, inquiries are beginning to be made by news organizations not under the thumbs of local corrupt powers, as the Los Angeles Times has proven itself to be.

Hundreds of individuals have also established contact to report nefarious goings-on in various courtrooms, and even attorneys ... who freely admit they're too afraid to make waves, given all the vicious retaliations certain judges have levied against attorneys who buck the system.

Humiliated family members.

California's judiciary is literally reviled by those in the know, as is the leadership of the State Bar and Administrative Office of the Courts. Reports of the internal machinations experienced in attempts to fend off the constant barrage of allegations of corruption and malfeasance revealed an atmosphere so toxic that these entities are likely to soon collapse under the weight of the lack of confidence in them.

But as a political prisoner, the longer Richard Fine is incarcerated, the greater the personal financial liability of each co-actor in perpetuating his illegal isolation. Unlike Judge Yaffe, Dr. Fine cannot be corrupted ("coerced") into disobeying his oath. Will Right be able to trump Might with no greater ammunition than "principle"? Stay tuned.

"There was a Crooked Man ...", coming soon to a theater near you! (We wish. Sigh.)

UPDATE: See attorney/psychologist Stephen R. Diamond's new piece, "Abolish Unlimited-Term Coercive Confinement for Civil Contempt", in which he calls the judges out as to the literal torture that Dr. Fine has been subjected to ... on American soil ... at the hands of "American" citizens.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Sanctions Jailing of American Political Prisoners

2010-03-12T17:31:00.000-08:00

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy today denied Richard Fine's "Application for Stay of Execution of Sentence of 'Coercive Confinement'" in which Fine asked to be released from jail during the remainder of the appeal process in his fight against corrupt judges populating California's benches.

American ideals have fully and fatally been sacrificed by the trusted few, to their eternal damnation.

Click here to read Fine's Application, here to read the personal letter to Justice Kennedy, and here to view the SCOTUS docket.

Commentary to follow, after we've had time to absorb the nationwide impact of this decision which effecctively nailed the coffin shut on America and what she stood for.

"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

Pssst!! Leroy! They went thataway!

2010-03-01T02:48:00.000-08:00

Sheriff Leroy D. Baca apparently needs a CLUE or five about who the real criminals are in Los Angeles County, so here's one:

Judge David P. Yaffe took money illegally from LA County Board of Supervisors members. In exchange, he always ruled in LA County's favor when they were sued in court. This is called "taking bribes". Didn't they teach that in Sheriff School? "Sleuthing for Dummies"? Surely somewhere along the line, before you made it all the way up to the top of the heap, you came to understand that part of your job is to protect the public from felons and their crimes?

Bloodhound

What Yaffe did is also called "obstruction of justice" and "misappropriation of funds".

These are crimes too. Go arrest the clown.

Senate Bill SBX2-11 does not protect him for two reasons: (1) it's an ex post facto law, and will be overturned as such as soon as Judicial Watch gets to argue it before the Court of Appeal in the Sturgeon II case; and (2), even if that weren't true, SBX2-11 only retroactively authorized payments received through May 21, 2009. Yaffe and the other judges continue to receive the payments to this day. There is no law in place to protect him for this. (SBX2-11 was sloppily written due to the rush circumstances under which it was passed.)

Go arrest him. Give us a reason to actually want to re-elect you!

You can find Yaffe on the bench at 111 North Hill Street, Dept. 86. He won't be hard to identify: he's an old man who, from what we hear, everyone avoids like the plague.

"Judge" David P. Yaffe

Unsurprisingly, we couldn't find a single person who'd be willing to risk being in Judge Yaffe's shoes approaching the afterlife after what he's done. And if Yaffe's entry into heaven hinges on Richard Fine's forgiveness ... well, we'd suggest that Yaffe give some thought to preparing for inhabiting warmer climes instead.

Here's another CLUE: Each and all of the LA County Supervisors have committed crimes with respect to the payments/bribes made to judges that are not immune under SBX2-11, even if it were bullet-proof. Even a cursory investigation would quickly provide evidence to support issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (a man who was caught in the past telephoning a judge to influence a case on behalf of a constituent).

Go investigate him and them.

"Which way did he go, George? Which way did he go?"

And while we're on the subject of idiocies, have you heard that the official defense by judges who received the illegal payments is actually "ignorance of the law"? That's right, judges (former lawyers) weren't aware of Article VI, Section 19, of our own California Constitution, which says quite plainly that judges may only be paid by the state. Bobby Fischer would rightfully see that as a checkmate. Stupid judges will continue to try and bluster it out, but once their last piece is taken from the board, they'll only have the blind remaining to pander to.

Seeing-Eye Dog

If you can't get it together soon, Leroy, here's what the public's image of your Department will be at re-election time:

Keystone Kops

Now go take care of that bad boy Yaffe, why don'tcha? America will sleep better knowing the tide has finally turned on corruption, and that yet another man stepped forward in bravery to help bring it about. (Hey, that's a better legacy than the "what-a-loser" one you have going so far, don't you think?)

Spread The Word: Jerry Brown Approves 2,100 Felons Sitting as Judges in California Courtrooms

2010-02-21T09:45:00.000-08:00

February 21, 2010
By: Savannah S. Winslow

LOS ANGELES - Senate Bill SBX2-11 granted retroactive immunity for criminal prosecution to over two thousand superior court judges and commissioners in California's courtrooms last February after twenty-plus years of an illegal payment scheme between judges and county supervisors was uncovered. (It should be noted that judges in San Francisco County, Mendocino County and Yolo County did not partake in the scheme; their numbers are therefore not included in the headline's calculation. However, their silence concerning their thievin' brethren hardly makes them pure.)

Although technically given amnesty (under illegal circumstances, but that's another story), these people committed many, MANY crimes ... which makes them felons, unindicted and unconvicted but felons just the same. (SBX2-11 also protects them from being sued civilly, and from being disciplined by the Judicial Performance Commission,)

Although they've fixed it so they cannot be prosecuted, the crimes were still committed and no records have been expunged. The pretense that these men and women are innocent and pure is the greatest legal fiction ever attempted in history.

The Internet is rife with references to the judicial community's lofty references to its "integrity." Sure, judges take oaths, swearing before God himself that they each will uphold and defend the Constitutions, state and federal. They even created "canons", a special set of rules governing their conduct. All these fail-safes failed spectacularly this year, however, when not one judge would come forward to correct the major scandal that taxpayer advocate attorney Richard I. Fine, and later Judicial Watch, exposed. (Which is why palms were quickly greased and SBX2-11 was secretly passed by the Legislature. Their pride in that work was evidenced by their deliberately omitting the amnesty provisions from the government code, thus concealing it from the public ... the same public that had financed the free-for-all to the tune of about a billion dollars and ten million felonies.)

Richard Fine was jailed on a trumped-up "contempt" charge last year as Judge David P. Yaffe scrambled madly to cover up his own role in furthering the parallel scheme in which judges saw to it that the County always won the lawsuits filed against it when they could keep the cases from the hands of juries. Dr. Fine, though, has become a national martyr against judicial corruption, locked in solitary confinement since March 4, 2009 in the nation's "worst" jail.

Meanwhile, 2,100 judges and commissioners continue to sit on their thrones in their courtrooms as if everything is just peachy. Then there are the county supervisors who reauthorize payments for the scheme yearly and, in the case of Los Angeles County Supervisors, also receive the same extra $57,000 per year that the judges receive ... illegal bonuses they could not convince the taxpaying public to award them.

"Moonbeam" Jerry Brown has either been bought off or he really is simple-minded enough to believe that he can become California's next governor despite the fact that he refuses to take any action whatsoever against the cabal of judges, even going so far as to quash an internal investigation that was opened at the demand of the Judicial Performance Commission concerning SBX2-11.

All of this is, of course, not only embarrassing, it's a ridiculous waste and very expensive for California's already over-burdened taxpayers. But it has become the pinnacle of 70-year-old Fine's altruistic career. Yet can one man of principle and his team of patriotic aides manage to inform the public before the entrenched regime finally squashes them? Already the guilty parties have managed to rob Fine of his license to practice law by conspiring to disbar him for "moral turpitude" for the crime of exposing the judges' receipt of the monies and objecting to their bias in favor of L.A. County, who'd made the payments to them.

What can you do? Call or write Sheriff Leroy D. Baca. (Call (213) 473-6100 or email ldbaca@lasd.org) Let him know that you understand that the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1218 and the "William Farr" cases all confirm that Richard Fine could not legally be kept in jail longer than five days even if he had committed the contempt alleged. Let Baca know if you think the fact that Fine has been there for a full year is outrageous. Remind him that you will keep Baca's handling of this case in the forefront of your mind when re-election time comes around.

Tell Sheriff Baca that you know that Judge Yaffe was being paid under the table by Los Angeles County while he ruled on their cases, and always in their favor, at the same time.

Ask why, if Judge Yaffe is in the right, is Sheriff Baca currently being sued in Federal Court for his refusal to allow the press access to Dr. Fine to conduct an interview? (Baca has said that Yaffe ordered the denial of media access, but Baca has not produced such an order, and there's no such thing in the court file.) Ask the Sheriff what he's getting in exchange for covering for a corrupt judge?

And when re-election time rolls around, be sure to vote all these crooks out of office.

(For the story background, read "The Best Courts (Your) Money Could Buy", not to mention the rest of this blog.)

Updates

2010-02-13T22:11:00.000-08:00

On February 10th, Ninth Circuit Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw released their order denying Richard Fine's petition for rehearing en banc.

On February 12th, the same judges denied Fine's motion to disqualify each of them due to their connections to Los Angeles County, a defendant in the underlying case and the entity which continues to make illegal payments to superior court judges in exchange for favorable rulings when sued. These bottom-rung judges are now getting more than even the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ed Asner Now Monitoring Richard Fine's Deteriorating Health Condition

2010-01-23T17:36:00.000-08:00

Full Disclosure Network is today reporting that:

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, [who is being held] in Los Angeles County Men's Central 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.

Details at above link.

Sheriff Leroy Baca: (213) 473-6100
Email: ldbaca@lasd.org

Did Ninth Circuit's Turn to the Dark Side Cost Americans Their Republic?

2009-12-17T13:30:00.000-08:00

The Ninth Circuit today issued a "Memorandum" denying Richard Fine's appeal. The decision may be read in its entirety here. Additional documents filed recently may be viewed at this link.

Commentary to follow.

Chief Judge Agrees With Richard Fine Concerning Conflict Created By Income Source

2009-12-11T04:18:00.000-08:00

[Judge Adrienne Grover, left, Monterey County Superior Court]

In discussing the constitutional prohibition against a judge's salary being reduced during his/her term in office:

"Adrienne Grover, presiding judge of the Monterey County Superior Court, said the provision ensures the independence of the judiciary. Judges might hesitate to rule against a law passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor if they felt their salaries could be cut in retaliation. [Judge] Maldonado said the protection is so central to American values that it was one of 64 grounds cited in the Declaration of Independence."

So reported the Monterey Herald on Monday.

This is exactly Richard Fine's argument with respect to the LA County judges receiving payments from LA County ... they might hesitate to rule against the County if they felt the payments could be cut in retaliation. And since the payments never were legal in the first place, they could have been cut at any time.

"So central to American values that it was one of 64 grounds cited in the Declaration of Independence"?? Hmmm. From California Superior Court judges' lips to God's/the Ninth Circuit's ears, one hopes, inasmuch as LA Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe clearly should have recused himself automatically from all cases in which LA County was a party. Any other conclusion is farcical and is highly offensive in its presumption that the public lacks any intelligence whatsoever.

The Declaration of Independence cited the colonists' reasons for revolution against King George III's abuses of power, including: "He has made Judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

King Ronald George I exercises much the same power over California judges today, and it's equally as reprehensible now as it was 233 years ago. In fact, in 1776, it was so wrong, it was worth starting a trans-Atlantic war over. We escaped tyranny then; do today's Americans' have the same fortitude? The efforts of the volunteer team supporting Richard Fine are welcome evidence that we do indeed.

We await now the Ninth Circuit's decision in Fine's appeal. Do Justices Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw possess the integrity and bravery needed to act at this historical nexus? Here's hoping that the hero worship that would follow a righteous decision will be a more attractive choice than the revilement that will follow a decision providing yet another coat of transparent paint atop the on-going cover-up.

Aha!

2009-12-05T22:41:00.000-08:00

Finally found some free time to calculate an approximation of the number of criminal acts forgiven by California Senate Bill SBX2-11 concerning payments received by state superior court judges from county supervisors:

Wikipedia reports that there are presently 431 judges in LA County, and 140 Commissioners.

571 LA Judges / Commissioners receiving payments

x 12 Payments per year

6,852

x 22 Number of years (since early 1988*)

150,744

x 6 Number of persons involved per payment
904,464 (1 recipient, 5 supervisors authorizing each)

x 3 Number of acts per payment (bribery?,
2,713,392 misappropriation of funds?, obstruction of justice?)

That's almost . THREE . MILLION . FELONIES . ... we could be talking about here ... just in LA County alone.

At his State of the Judiciary speech in September 2009, Ronald George mentioned that there are “more than 1600” California judges who’ve agreed to the one-day-per-month salary waiver (for which they had about a 98% sign-up rate) during the budget “crisis”. Therefore, there are approx. 1,632 judges in California.

If the same ratio of judges to commissioners in LA County applies across the state (33%), we have a total of about 528 commissioners in the state.

Now we must subtract the judges and commissioners in San Francisco County, Mendocino County, and Yolo County who’ve never received any payments. The 2009 Court Statistics Report (pg 42) states that there are a total of 92 judges and commissioners in those counties. (70 judges and commissioners reported for San Francisco County seems awfully low.)

Back to the math:

1,632 Estimated total number of California judges

+ 528 Commissioners

2,160

- 92 San Fran / Mendocino / Yolo judiciary

2,068

x 12 Payments per year

24,816

x 22 Number of years (since early 1988*)

545.952

x 6 Number of persons involved per payment
3,275,712 (1 recipient, 5 supervisors authorizing each)

x 3 Number of crimes per payment (bribery?,
9,827,136 misappropriation of funds?, obstruction of justice?)

That's almost . TEN . MILLION . FELONIES .

We also really have to wonder if the following, who’ve refused to help in any way, have been knowingly aiding and abetting the payment scheme:

* CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (who signed off on SBX2-11)
* CA Attorney General Jerry Brown (gubernatorial candidate)
* CA Fair Political Practices Commission

* CA Commission on Judicial Performance (ordered by Jerry Brown to cease investigation)
* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (CEO married to 9th Circuit Judge Reinhardt)
* Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ), state supreme courts (colleagues of Ronald M. George, Chief Justice of CA Supreme Court, co-author of SBX2-11)

* Unconfirmed and not included are possible payments made as far back as early 1987.

UPDATE: Retired Perdue Mathematics Professor Emeritus Daniel H. Gottlieb's review and finding of the above calculation as an acceptable approximation is welcome news ... despite the fact that it has substantiated our fears of the magnitude of the situation.

UPDATE: A number of our readers have asked whether the judges who failed to disclose the payments on the mandatory financial disclosure forms (Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests) acted legally. Many are also questioning whether the payments were paid as taxable income to the judges. Due to the sheer volume of inquiries on these subjects, we will endeavor to determine the answers as soon as possible. Stay tuned.

CHIEF JUSTICE of Ninth Circuit Fails to Recuse, Executes Power Grab

2009-12-05T12:14:00.000-08:00

Alex Kozinski, Chief Justice of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, did not recuse himself from an appeal brought by a member of his own staff, a Ninth Circuit attorney. TIME Magazine has the report.

Kozinski's move was a blatant power grab. It'll be interesting to see how the Obama Administration responds.

UPDATE: Kozinksi has influence over the Los Angeles Times? Hmmm.

UPDATE 2: Obama Administration slaps down Kozinski as the Office of Personnel Management concludes that Kozinski's order was only an "administrative" ruling, trumped by the DOMA.

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Professor Prepares Amicus in Support of Fine Appeal

2009-12-04T11:06:00.000-08:00

Daniel Gottlieb, a retired math professor with an exemplary career, has prepared an amicus curiae brief for filing in support of Richard Fine's appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Professer Gottlieb studied Fine's disbarment, and identified numerous troubling activities.

We leave it to the reader to decide whether California's State Bar acted honorably.

The WORLD Is Watching (Even Iran)

2009-12-04T01:38:00.000-08:00

<p>&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;tagzaniapaste&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;</p>

The "Free Richard Fine" websites have received multiple visits from these cities across the world. Click here for LARGE map. (This map represents about 50% of our traffic; additional cities will be added as we find time.) (Try "refreshing" the map; sometimes not all the flags appear.)

SUPRISE ANNOUNCEMENT: L.A. County Judges to Lose Payments From County to Avoid Conflicts

2009-11-30T14:42:00.000-08:00

Fox Business News has picked up Full Disclosure Network's scoop of Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich's surprise announcement that LA County would no longer pay "new" judges the illegal $57,000 yearly bonus.

LA Superior Court judges, who are employees of the state, not the county, have been receiving the payments since the late 1980s, but they were not challenged until many years later because they had successfully been kept secret. The late-2008 decision in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles confirmed that the payments were unconstitutional, but rather than conform their illegal practices, the judges managed to get a bill snuck through the California Legislature in February that forgave their crimes and made the payments "legal". (See Senate Bill SBX2-11.)

Antonovich's statement referenced the "now legal" payments, a surprising tacit admission that they had been, in fact, illegal.

Antonovich made the statement in response to a question about continuing public concern over the payments and the conflicts created in cases where Los Angeles County has been and is a party.

Will the new policy be applied to judges winning re-election? Will those currently on the bench be yanked back to reality when they receive their legal and still generous salaries of $172,000 a year? Will they (properly) blame the Supervisors for not informing them of the truth of the situation?

Time will tell.

Update: Whoa!

It seems that Full Disclosure Network's story concerning the Antonovich statement has caught the interest of:

Fox Business News
Forbes
ABC Fresno
AmeriTrade
TheStreet.com
ScottTrade

and many others. Yet from the Los Angeles Times, we hear ... *crickets*.

Documents Posted to Scribd

2009-11-29T01:13:00.000-08:00

The Fine volunteers have collected PDF versions of documents filed with the courts and evidentiary documents discovered along the way. The collection has been sorted and much of it put online at the Scribd document repository for public review.

Read 'em and weep. Really weep. Because after giving these the once-over, you won't be able to come to any conclusion other than that the Rule of Law is truly dead in California at present.

Next, we'll be adding our screenshots of LA Times articles and other things that have disappeared from their online pages.

Over 200 hundred years ago, Benjamin Franklin challenged us to try and keep the republic that he'd helped create ... the first in history of its kind, and going pretty strong ever since. But times have taken a hard turn for the worse of late, we can no longer just sit back and watch while a rare few of considerable courage lob spitballs at the ankles of giants whose law licenses ought to be recalled by Cracker Jack. Do your part, fellow citizen, and strongly consider refusing to vote for any incumbent in any election for the next few years. There's not much time left to clean house before the noose about all our necks is tightened with finality.

Think on it.

If a small group of people are willing to take all sorts of risks exposing the bad guys and their nefarious activities (just think of what it's cost Richard Fine), voting out incumbents is something very important that you can safely do to help.

And you might even consider making a donation to help with costs in the battle to return due process and an honest judicial system to California. For additional details, please follow this link.

Talk About Underhanded!

2009-11-07T21:37:00.000-08:00

On October 30, 2009, Richard Fine filed a new petition for writ of habeas corpus, naming as de facto respondents, among others, USDC Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle. Despite the impropriety of the situation and over Fine’s strenuous objections, Walter and Woehrle promptly assumed oversight of the case ... against them … then rushed through a dismissal. Fine’s recusal motions were then bluntly rejected due to the case being “closed”.

The petition was based upon Fine's allegation that Judge Yaffe committed frauds upon the courts by, among other things, making false statements and citing a non-existent order in his reply brief filed in response to Fine's appeal.

How long will decent judges remain complicit in this dreadful situation?

Fine will be filing for a writ of mandate with the Ninth Circuit and requesting a Certificate of Appealability from the USDC. We're not taking bets on the outcome of either.

Review the relevant documents (the "USDC Habeas II" case) at Scribd.

How much did your judge get?

UPDATE: Nov. 24, 2009

The Ninth Circuit has issued an Order denying Richard Fine's Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate which requested that the District Court judges be ordered to follow due process and not allow Judges Walter and Woehrle to dismisses cases against themselves. We don't know what to think of this unsigned "order" ... OR the judges who entered it. (See Full Disclosure's report for the Ninth Circuit's "explanation".)

Appeal Hearing Date Finally Set

2009-11-06T00:28:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Never mind. Ninth Circuit issued an order on Nov. 11th taking the hearing off calendar (meaning there will be no oral argument and nothing for the public to see). It also denied Richard Fine's motions to strike "respondents' answering brief" (without saying which one), and his request for judicial notice of California Government Code Sections 68220-68222 (the official record of SBX2-11 (except for the missing "immunity" paragraph)). Interestingly, it did not deny his request for judicial notice of the Notice of Appeal filed in the Sturgeon case (an acknowledgment that the issue of the county payments to judges is far from settled) and his motion to strike Judge Yaffe and the Superior Court's Supplemental Excerpt of Record.
_____________________________________________

Original post:

A hearing date has finally been set in Richard Fine's appeal. The media are making arrangements to follow the hearing on Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the Pasadena location (125 S. Grand Avenue) of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Activists and protesters are reminded to arrive 30 minutes early to meet in the parking lot across the street. (Allow an extra 10 minutes if you're arriving on one of the rented buses.) Security is expected to be tight! (Remember, they sent 8 burly detectives to haul the elderly, unresisting Richard Fine off to jail.)

Come see for yourself whether your right to have legal disputes and criminal trials handled by impartial judges will be restored.

By the way, did you know that, at the same time SBX2-11 was snuck through the legislature, another bill (SBX2-12) was also snuck through? This one raised court fines by 50%. Fifty Percent! We're afraid to even guess at what they'll be sneaking through next year.

Ninth Circuit Court Attempts Coup of U.S. Supreme Court?

2009-09-30T02:36:00.000-07:00

Rogue Court Ignores 82 Years of Legal Precedent in Protecting Unindicted Felons on the Bench

By Savannah S. Winslow

LOS ANGELES, CA: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has thumbed its figurative nose at basic precedent law by wholly ignoring the authority painstakingly established by the U.S. Supreme Court since 1927. These laws had been protected by the loss of the lives of millions of U.S. soldiers over the years who died guarding Americans’ freedom from oppressors. What has the Ninth Circuit done?

Rather than confront the problems created by the revelation of bribed judges remaining on the bench, Ninth Circuit judges Schroeder, Kleinfeld, Tashima and N.R. Smith launched more salvos against whistle-blower taxpayers' advocate attorney Dr. Richard I. Fine while attempting to prevent the criminal prosecution of LA County Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich and many others.

Why might the Ninth Circuit choose a shameful path rather than the honorable one? Because some of its members were formerly judges in Los Angeles County’s Superior Court who also secretly and illegally took huge amounts of money from County Supervisors while always ruling in the County’s favor in lawsuits where the County was a party. Now, they all find themselves cornered, desperate people trying to escape the consequences of crimes they thought they’d long since gotten away with. (In outrageously bold moves, they’ve even hidden several documents, keeping them out of the courts’ official files and their contents away from the public's view.)

Put on the spot to release Dr. Fine, who was incarcerated on a phony contempt charge (which they're calling "coercive confinement") by the lower-court judge he caught in the act, certain Ninth Circuit judges will also eventually face multi-count indictments for bribery, obstruction of justice, misappropriation of funds and more, according to Penal Code Sections 92-94, 146(a), 153 and 424, if the rule of law means anything at all anymore. When did it become preferable for our judiciary to protect criminals rather than confront and expel them? This case is certain to become a featured element in future law school "Ethics" courses if we are to survive as a nation of laws. (Judging by our website traffic coming from major institutions nationwide (including several mainstream news outlets and even the Administrative Office of the Courts in Washington, D.C.), interest, concern and condemnation are rapidly mounting.)

Using a tactic which has no value other than continuing to delay the inevitable, the Ninth Circuit judges have turned their backs on the sacred guarantee of “due process” (i.e., a fair legal process) and have ordered that Dr. Fine again prove what they already know … that Judge David P. Yaffe was required to “recuse” (i.e., disqualify) himself from presiding over a case in which LA County was a defendant. Dr. Fine, a 70-year-old taxpayers’ advocate attorney who, over the life of his distinguished career has forced the return to taxpayers of over $1 billion misspent dollars, followed his oath to protect and defend the Constitution by requesting Judge Yaffe’s recusal because of the clear conflict of interest created by the judge’s having illegally taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the County while at the same time hearing a case in which the County was a party. (Unsurprisingly, Judge Yaffe ultimately gave LA County everything it wanted, as he had in virtually all previous cases. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, got only the shaft.)

Courtroom observers report that Judge Yaffe, clearly enraged, and yet apparently also terrified at being caught out (so much so that he was seen to be trembling during the last confrontational hearing), jailed Dr. Fine on a trumped-up contempt charge, hoping that other judges would provide cover for him, rather than recuse himself from the case. Dr. Fine has been kept in isolation in the LA County Men’s Central Jail since March 4th, purposefully and maliciously denied access to a law library and basic materials with which to defend himself. (Every brief he has filed, all statutes and cases cited, were written from memory.) Entering his seventh month behind bars though he’s committed no crime, Dr. Fine’s mortgage has fallen into default and foreclosure is imminent. Because of the unsanitary conditions, he’s also contracted a deadly staph infection as a result of being locked down in the hospital wing of the jail.

In a surprising break from the pack, one seemingly courageous Ninth Circuit judge, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, has at least been willing to go on the record in recognizing that Judge Yaffe’s behavior was questionable and granted Fine the right to appeal on the issue of whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself. However, other Ninth Circuit judges continue to block Fine’s release pending the outcome of his appeal ... despite the complete lack of opposition to every motion filed of late ... egregiously compounding the serious financial harm begun by Judge Yaffe. Fine remains in jail even though the laws and precedent cases have always been clear ... absolutely crystal clear ... that Judge Yaffe was required to recuse himself, up front, for numerous reasons. Is this a man of unstellar integrity? Or a pawn (and, quite likely, soon-to-be a scapegoat) of the powerful County politicians? California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George’s role in this whole vendetta must also be thoroughly investigated. Why are the courts insistent upon keeping Dr. Fine in jail while having no legal leg upon which to stand and refusing to give any reason or cite any precedent law which might support their actions? (The fact that there is no such precedent has presented quite a problem.)

How intense is the pressure on the Ninth Circuit coming down from on high? Surely they would not be doing this, which is against all the principles and judicial philosophy of the “honorable” members of the court, for no better reason than to attempt to obtain hefty raises for themselves, using the ill-gotten gains that County judges received as a basis? So who is it, really, that is orchestrating the campaign to try and break Dr. Fine and save Judge Yaffe and his cohorts? Those are both lost causes because it is well known by now that Dr. Fine’s personal convictions prevent him from capitulating and turning to the dark side with them; doing so would allow the corruption to continue … as will the mugging of we taxpayers who have been tricked into financing the opulent lifestyles of these judges who, thanks to the illegal County payments of $57,000 per year in addition to their $179,000 state salaries and $30,000 benefit packages, are getting far more than even the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Did these judges all have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they took their own oaths?

There was NOTHING to be gained by Judge Yaffe's remaining on the case other than someone's need to control the outcome. Given that the developer and the Supervisors involved had great interest in the outcome, the list of candidates is pretty short.

"Veritas vos Liberabit" means "The Truth Shall Set You Free". Here’s hoping that we decent Americans will be able to find an honest and honorable judge … is there one left in California? … with the courage to do what needs to be done: deal with the corrupt judges and politicians and stop punishing Richard Fine for being the rare, decent man having the courage to do the right thing.

“Let every American... swear … never to violate ... the laws ...

and never to tolerate their violation by others. …

Let us have faith that right makes might,

and in that faith, let us, to the end,

dare to do our duty as we understand it.”

~Abraham Lincoln

For the whole story, see:

NBC Report

Full Disclosure Network

Free Richard Fine website

Right Trumps Might blog

Address any questions to: FreeRichardFine@gmail.com

"Missing Documents & Federal Court Rules"

2009-09-24T10:54:00.000-07:00

Emmy-winner Leslie Dutton, right, & T.J. Johnston; Full Disclosure Network

Full Disclsoure Network interviewed members of Richard Fine's all-volunteer national support team about critical documents disappearing from court files:

Fred Sottile

"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."

"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."

PACER Docket

"... 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."

Mardi Mason

Ronald George - What He DIDN'T Say

2009-09-15T06:28:00.000-07:00

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George lamented Monday, in an op-ed published by the Los Angeles Times, on the subject of the "sacrifice" being made by LA County judges in waiving a day's salary each month because of the budget crisis.

What a bunch of wonderful people, right? Makes you want to pat them on the back, even.

A powerful right-cross will instead come to the minds of some when informed that these self-same judges managed to wrangle yet another raise from the County just a month or so earlier (they won't tell us exactly when, judges are allowed to keep secrets, didn't you know?), so even after the loss of a day's pay, they're still making more than they were before!

Our electronic thesaurus bellowed black smoke when asked for a word to express this degree of unadulterated gall.

It's disingenuous, to say the least, to be the cause of a financial crisis, then cry about it when it occurs ... as you snicker behind your hand with the knowledge that you're making more than you were prior to your great "sacrifice".

And by the way, who are the seven ultra-greedy judges who refused to waive the day's salary?

The Chief Justice's op-ed waxes on about the glories of our judicial system, with special accolades for the Judicial Council, another entity he heads. What he didn't say was that it was the Judicial Council, under his guidance, that wrote and presented Senate Bill SBX2-11 to the Legislature, the bill which tried (and failed miserably) to illegally confer retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action against all involved for their, literally, hundreds of thousands of felonies.

It's not even fathomable how the Chief Justice could have written these words: "Legislation in 1997 that allowed for statewide funding of the trial courts addressed historic inequities in the quality of justice dispensed among California's 58 counties." He admits that the current system was specifically constructed to prevent inequities, but purposefully omits revealing that the scheme to give the bonus payments to LA County judges was a deliberate artifice to return the inequity under the table ... in exchange for judges always siding with the County when it was involved in a lawsuit. Pretty sweet, no? No! It's CRIMINAL! (The payments were and are a serial misappropriation of funds under Penal Code Section 424, and others, and People v. Sperl (54 Cal.App.3rd 43 (1976)), and others, for example.)

We know it ... you know it ... and the rest of the country and world is slowly learning about it.

<p>&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;tagzaniapaste&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;</p>
Right Trumps Might's map

The entirety of Mr. George's op-ed is a must-read ... for an example of a transparent gamble to elicit false sympathy for LA County's Superior Court judges who, despite the honor presumed by the wearing of the robe, are actually hiding behind its power for protection from consequences of acts committed by them that have been reviled by persons of true honor and decency since time immemorial.

With the discovery that the "immunity" provision of SBX2-11 wasn't properly codified (and was illegal in the first place, pursuant to the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws), you no longer have any pretense of a legal leg to stand on. The bonus payments to judges were always illegal, and you knew it. But when objected to by Richard Fine, a distinguished taxpayers' advocate who's returned over a billion dollars to the people when portrayed truthfully, you made things even worse by trying to cover up this scandal. As far as we're concerned, the whole lot of you should resign immediately inasmuch as you've managed to corrupt all three branches of our government.
We taxpayers are owed the $300 million dollars that was stolen from us, and we want it back! We were played for fools for years as we were used as unwitting and unwilling parties to this mess by being made to foot the bill. It's over! Hello?! There is no way that judges of the lowest-level court in the state are worth salaries higher than justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Four hundred and thirty LA County Superior Court judges need to get over themselves.

After what you've done to Richard Fine (whether actively or passively), and the lengths to which you've gone to try and keep this nasty secret hidden, we promise to do absolutely everything within our power to see that you are held accountable and subjected to the full force and effect of the law ... before an unbiased Federal judge and jury. (Yikes!) Mr. Fine honored his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It has cost him everything. You swore the same oath, but not only do you lack the courage to honor it, you have dishonored it by purposefully acting to destroy our constitutional protections. May it cost you eternal shame.

David P. Yaffe -- When Did Being "Honorable" Stop Being A Requirement For Being A Judge?

2009-09-11T00:43:00.000-07:00

Judge David P. Yaffe apparently has no fans ... in fact, he seems to be utterly reviled. Little wonder he's failed to act with any shred of honor in refusing to disqualify himself from judging cases in which LA County is a party while simultaneously receiving illegal payments from the County. (Given that LA County no longer loses lawsuits filed against it when decided by its judges, some are calling the payments "bribes".)

For example, on May 22, 2001, journalist Roger M. Grace of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reported with refreshing honesty:

"I can’t stand him. ... From what I’ve observed, Yaffe does, to his credit, read the briefs. And he has a substantial quantum of law memorized. To his discredit, however, he’s a nasty and arrogant SOB."

"Chief among the quirks is that he indulges in a fantasy of infallibility. He decides cases on bases not advanced by the parties, but conjured up by himself, and does not permit an opportunity to brief the propositions he’s interjected. After all, a proposition spawned by David P. Yaffe could not possibly be wrong."

"My negative perception of this jurist, I have found, is shared by others. If I bring up the topic of David Yaffe in conversations, I hear comments such as 'he’s crazy' and 'he’s a contrarian son of a bitch.' (Each of the persons so labeling Yaffe is a leading practitioner.) A Superior Court judge told me he avoided talking with Yaffe at a judges’ event, saying, 'I would have puked all over him.'"

In responding to Mr. Grace's questionnaire concerning Judge Yaffe, lawyers had these things to say:

A lawyer who says she appeared in Yaffe’s courtroom two or three times when he was in a trial department comments: "I never really had a pleasant experience with him," explaining: "I found him to be rude."

She notes that he "seemed to be consistent" — that is, consistently rude. It wasn’t like he was having a bad day," the attorney says. She recounts: "My reaction was: why is this guy a judge if he hates lawyers?"

If the presiding judge asked her opinion as to whether Yaffe should be returned to a trial department, she says, "I would recommend against it." Where does he belong? "Retired," she responds.

(In a letter last year to then-Presiding Judge Victor Chavez, I made a somewhat different suggestion: "The reassignment of Yaffe to some other court would be in the public’s interest. [¶] I believe he should be in Department 95. That, of course, has nothing to do with where he should preside.")

Another lawyer recounts:

"I served on a committee with him that revised the local rules in ’94, ’95. He was very jealous of judicial prerogatives.

"The goal of the committee was to make the rules uniform. ... We were trying to abolish the secret rules, the rules on the clipboard."

That goal, he observes, was not shared by Yaffe.

MUCH more at link.

On another site, Courthouse Forum, the following comment about Judge Yaffe was lodged:

The horror stories related by [Roger] Grace in 2001 are mild compared to the manner in which Yaffe has degenerated. In my experience, he has a fascist mentality and a sadist's heart.

In one case, the City denied the existence of a hearing audio tape that was central to the case. The city submitted false declarations under penalty of perjury about the tape's not existing. Petitioner insisted that it saw the meeting being recorded. Two days after Yaffe's adverse ruling, the hearing officer was caught trying to slip the "non-existent" tape back into the achieves. Within the required 10 days, Petitioner brought the tape to Judge Yaffe's attention, reminding him of the prior false representations that the tape did not exist. Rather than hear the Reconsideration Motion, Judge Yaffe promptly dismissed the entire case and refused to even hold a hearing on the perjury and withholding of evidence.

Yaffe acts more like a mob hit man than a jurist. While I doubt he actually kills people ... his job is to kill lawsuits that harm the special interests, primarily developers. The mob analogy is not out of line. The entire superior court system is run more akin to a mob operation than a system of justice.

Lawyers do not have to fear only retaliation from vindictive judges like Yaffe, but from a host of other judges. This systemic corruption of the California judiciary places attorneys ... in a double bind: When they are silent, they endanger the public by allowing men like Yaffe to remain on the bench, but if they speak up, they endanger their other clients to which they owe fiduciary duties.

More observations about Yaffe here.

David Yaffe swore an oath to defend the Constitution. If he is found to have violated that oath, he must be held fully accountable.

"The Flaying Of The Corrupt Judge Sisamnes"

1498-1499
Oil on panel
Bruges, Groenige Museum
http://www.aiwaz.net/gallery/flaying-of-the-corrupt-judge-sisamnes/gi637c101

Image credit: "There was a crooked man ..."
Scott Gustafson
http://www.scottgustafson.com/Gallery_DR_NR_CM.html

Ninth Circuit Grants Stay In Disbarment Action!

2009-09-02T18:25:00.000-07:00

The Ninth Circuit today entered an Order staying the disbarment OSC against Richard Fine.

"In light of the 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, disciplinary proceedings are stayed pending the resolution of the habeas petition."

A motion to set aside the disbarment action in the lower court, the U.S. District Court, based upon the Ninth Circuit's stay will be filed tomorrow.

Formal Appeal Filed

2009-09-02T02:02:00.000-07:00

Filed, Appellant's Opening Brief (ten days early) and Motion for Release, on Monday, August 31st. Response briefs, if any, to Opening Brief not due until October 9th. However, the Motion for Release should be considered within a few days.

The substance of the appeal is that there are numerous U.S. Supreme Court precedent cases which make it crystal clear that Judge David P. Yaffe should have recused (disqualified) himself, and NO precedent cases hold otherwise.

Simple decency and honesty among the honorable require that the Ninth Circuit free Richard Fine pending its ruling on the appeal, and that it ultimately find that Judge Yaffe should, in fact, have recused himself.

Will the Ninth instead attempt a coup of the U.S. Supreme Court? Stay tuned.

Got 'em!

2009-08-19T19:58:00.000-07:00

It's all over, they just don't know it yet.

We made the mistake of assuming that we were in an intellectual fight of sorts, but for all the supposed wisdom their side portended, it turns out that the operatives are nothing more than obsequious back-room connivers with spectacularly unremarkable IQs who acted far too rashly ... bringing about their own demise as their house of flimsy cards collapses about them.

And the silver bullet has turned out to be a forehead slapper!

The Constitution of the State of California – in Article I, Section 9 – says quite plainly:

“[An] ... ex post facto law ... may not be passed.”

Wikipedia, on types of "ex post facto" ("after the fact") laws, says:

"... a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments ... retroactively."

Translation: ANY law made concerning the consequences of an act, made after the act was performed, that affects the actor either positively or negatively as a result of committing the act (e.g., makes him guilty when he was innocent at the time, or innocent when he was guilty at the time), is illegal.

This means that our Legislators' callous and in-our-faces grant of retroactive immunity under SBX2-11 for the thousands of criminal acts (as many as 108 THOUSAND felonies, by our count) by LA County Superior Court judges in taking payments from LA County's Supervisors (Antonovich, Knabe, Molina, Yaroslavsky and Ridley Thomas) to the tune of over $300 million dollars (using stolen tax dollars), is unconstitutional. (They had to have known this, which leaves us with the obvious question hanging in the air ... what did they get for themselves in return? Here's hoping the press will hammer their doors down and find out!)

The judges knew the payments were illegal all along. They have known since 1988, twenty-one years, that what they were doing was illegal and corrupt. And yet they continued, month-in and month-out, year-in and year-out, buying trinkets and luxuries with OUR dollars. Luckily, the foolishness of the legislators' tacit admission that the payment exchanges were criminal acts is a bonus for the People, negating most every justification in one fell swoop!)

The judges even managed to get ANOTHER raise for themselves recently ... they're now each getting an extra $57,000 per year, up from the $46,000+ they were receiving previously ... and THEN they ever so graciously announced they'd take a cut-back in pay along with the rest of the court staff during this budget crisis ("in a show of solidarity with court employees who are facing furloughs"). The truth is that, even with the cut, they're still making more than they were!

[Readers of the sorely-missed "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strips will see and understand that the judges and Legislators have been playing a game of "Calvinball" with us; in Calvinball, the rules change whenever the rule-maker can think of a new one that will benefit himself. It was funny, imaginative and entertaining in the comics.

The characters in our story, however, are far from loveable. They're mostly pompous old men who have proven they no longer stand for anything decent. This whole thing will ultimately be humiliating to their entire families. We actually regret that part, but there's been more than enough time for the decent to act. And your deliberate failure to act amounts to aiding and abetting Mr. Fine's torture by Judge Yaffe.]

Here's a clue about the futures of those given "retroactive immunity" under SBX2-11:

Gov. Schwarzenegger had better start clearing out the prisons soon to make room; five hundred new prisoners will soon be coming their way. In the meantime, perhaps Arizona's Sheriff Arpaio can give us some guidance on setting up tent city prisons in the desert, and help us figure out how many pairs of pink boxer shorts to order for the new inmates.

Question of the hour: To whom do you turn yourself in if you want to get on the right side of the Law if it's not too late?

[Follow-up report: Who, exactly, is afraid of which LA County Supervisor behind passage of SBX2-11 (Antonovich, Knabe, Molina, Yaroslavsky, or Ridley Thomas) ... and why?]

HELP WANTED AD: Lawfirm needed to assist in defense of current and former Los Angeles County Superior Court judges and involved members of the Board of Supervisors, members of the Judicial Council, members of the Legislature, lobbyists, developers, their counsel, and others. Apply for consideration in the Comments section. (Just kidding, barely. Although your phones will be ringing soon, no doubt. We look forward to seeing your clients in court!)

Image credits:
http://www.californiacriminallawyerblog.com/civil_rights/

"Robert Kennedy speaks out against Retroactive Immunity"

2009-08-18T23:27:00.000-07:00

Oct 21, 2007, article by Glenn Greenwald at Salon Magazine:

The very idea of "retroactive immunity" ... is so radical, so repugnant to the most basic principles of the "rule of law," that only one prior attempt can be found in recent history (at least from my research): the efforts by some in Congress in 1965 to enact a law retroactively legalizing the mergers by six large banks which clearly -- as a federal court found -- were illegal under our nation's antitrust laws.

The banks knew when they merged that they were almost certainly violating anti-trust laws. But they did it anyway. And when courts began ruling that their behavior was illegal, they ran to Congress to demand that a law be passed granting them amnesty, claiming that the consequences would be ruinous if they were held accountable under the law.

But the very concept of retroactive amnesty -- the idea that corporations could break the law and then have Congress pass a special law legalizing their lawbreaking conduct -- was so profoundly offensive to Sen. Robert Kennedy (who had been the Attorney General when the banks broke the law with their mergers), as well as then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, that they engaged in extraordinary efforts to try to put a stop to this Congressional travesty:

Review the rest of this "Salon" article here.

Ninth Circuit Grants Certificate of Appealability, Denies Interim Release

2009-08-12T11:58:00.000-07:00

The Ninth Circuit today entered an order granting Richard Fine's request for Certificate of Appealability as to the issue of whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself. A second order commanded payment of $455 for filing fees, set a briefing schedule, and denied interim release.

Ninth Circuit Sets Hearing Date

2009-08-06T04:17:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: As of Friday morning, the most current information is:

On Monday, August 10, 2009, a two-justice panel will consider Richard Fine's Request for Certificate of Appealability (only, not the emergency motion itself yet). Only one justice is needed to vote in favor of granting it. If it is denied, Fine then has the option to request reconsideration. If it is granted, then the matter will be set for a full hearing, following a briefing schedule.

Monday's hearing will be in San Francisco. It is not open to the public.

For further information, contact:

David Madden
Asst. Circuit Executive for Court Information
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
(415) 355-8020

Richard I. Fine v. United States District Court
Case No. 09-56073
Emergency Motion for Immediate Release, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Relevant documents (click title to view):

Fine's Request for Certificate of Appealability to US District Court

US District Court Judge John F. Walter's denial of Request

US District Court Judge John F. Walter's SECOND denial of Request

Fine's Request for Certificate of Appealability to Ninth Circuit Court

Fine's Amendment to Request for Certificate of Appealability to Ninth Circuit Court

Fine's Objections to USDC Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle's Report and Recommendation denying petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Relevant Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:

Rule 22: Habeas Corpus and Section 2255 Proceedings

Rule 24: Proceeding in Forma Pauperis

Further details of the Fine saga available at the Free Richard Fine website.

Does the Ninth Circuit have the courage to save We the People?

2009-08-06T01:03:00.000-07:00

The Ninth Circuit must overcome a lengthy path of hurdles if it intends to further the corruption of LA superior court judges' receipt of bonus payments from LA County.

This Excel spreadsheet itemizes the plethora of issues which the Court must rationalize away to a learned audience if it intends to protect fellow judges and justify Richard Fine's continuing incarceration. Each column in the spreadsheet corresponds to each major event which led to today's circumstances. Each entry in that column is a fact which compels Fine's release. The Court must be able to justify the legality of every fact in that column before it may logically move to consider the facts in the next column, etc.

As yet another battle looms in the war on behalf of We the People versus the corruption that is seemingly everywhere, the Ninth Circuit justices will be forced to publicly reveal its bias if it exists. Will they turn out to be heroes? The People await this decision with bated breath.

Who will win? Will the Ninth Circuit have the ability to repel and defeat the conquering horde of superior court judges as they continue to pillage and plunder county coffers? Should we just go ahead and change the state's name to Georgifornia after Ronald M. George, Chief Justice of the state supreme court, actual and de facto leader of all state judges and under whose direction Senate Bill SBX2-11 was engineered and passed? If the Ninth Circuit chickens out and refuses to take the high road, should we all just move? Only two things can stop Truth from winning out: a lack of courage or a lack of morals.

Stay tuned for the next episode of "The Twilight Zone of Richard Fine".

For details of the continuing Fine saga, visit the official Free Richard Fine website. No citizen of Los Angeles County can expect fair and impartial treatment by the courts under the present circumstances.

"Freed Journalists Reunite With Families in United States"

2009-08-05T13:28:00.000-07:00

Dear Former President Clinton:

Next stop LA? Our political prisoner isn't nearly as pretty, but he too has been jailed by a petty tyrant.

"Judge tosses suit opposing payments to LA judges"

2009-08-03T19:14:00.000-07:00

In the matter of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (Part II), Judicial Watch sought an injunction to stop payments being made to judges by the County. The hearing was July 13, 2009. Today we learn:

"A state appeals court judge has thrown out a lawsuit claiming that Los Angeles County judges are unconstitutionally receiving both county and state benefits."

"Justice James Richman of the 1st District Court of Appeal says the benefits are permitted under a state law [Senate Bill SBX2-11] passed in February."

Inasmuch as this was a spectacularly bad move politically for those legislators who initially wrote and passed this subversion of the California Constitution, one can only wonder how they benefitted.

The "yes" votes on SBX2-11 in the secret midnight session of the California Senate Committee were cast by:

Ducheny Alquist Calderon Cedillo
Corbett DeSaulnier Florez Hancock
Kehoe Leno Lowenthal Liu
Negrete McLeod Oropeza Padilla Pavley
Romero Simitian Steinberg Wolk
Wright Yee

Motive Uncovered!

2009-07-26T07:34:00.000-07:00

We were literally stunned when we recently uncovered the fact that a representative for LA County's Board of Supervisors actually requested that local attorney bar associations submit amicus curiae ("friend of the court") letters to the California Supreme Court in support of judges in the appeal to overturn the Sturgeon decision which held that the payments the County had been making to judges for 20-some-odd years were illegal.

Suspicious and knowing there was no good reason for the County to take a position against its own interest and insist it should continue making huge bonus payments to judges, we investigated and learned that the following entities submitted amicus letters or briefs in the case: the LA District Attorney, the LA County Public Defender, and the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC). (See here, page 11.) (We note with interest that the LA County Bar Assn apparently rejected the request. We also note with great interest the ASCDC's surprising and naive revelation that "the California Legislature promised its continued support of local judicial benefits in return for judges' support of the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act and of the 1998 Trial Court Unification Act." There sure are a lot of people in bed together from what are supposed to be independent entities.)

If you are wondering, as we were, why on earth the LA County Board of Supervisors actually fought to continue making payments to judges after the Sturgeon decision relieved them of any possible obligation, here's what we found:

Article II, Section 4 of the county Charter:

"The County of Los Angeles shall have a Board of Supervisors consisting of five members ... They shall each receive as compensation for their services a salary, payable monthly from the County Treasury, which shall be the same as that now or hereafter prescribed by law for a judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles, except that retirement benefits shall be those now or hereafter provided by law for officers and employees of the County of Los Angeles."

That's right ... LA County Supervisors' salaries are dependent upon the amount that superior court judges get.

The California Constitution section which governs judges' compensation was specifically constructed to say that only the State may pay judges' salaries in order to avoid just this sort of improper situation. Yet here we are, with the guilty parties all grinning smugly like Cheshire cats after they managed to sneak through a late-night bill granting themselves retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution. (Note to Supervisors: nothing in SBX2-11 (may it soon rest in peace) grants you immunity for any monies you received as a result of your approval of the payments to judges.)

On a different subject, we note that LA County's payments to superior court judges were, all other arguments aside, illegal until February 20, 2009, when SBX2-11 was enacted. Because SBX2-11 granted retroactive immunity from prosecution, the payments cannot be recharacterized as having been legal all along.

And the 1988 Memorandum, an answer to their request for a legal opinion, proves judges and Supervisors knew all along that the payments were illegal. Yet they decided to do it anyway; it was many years before they were caught.

Richard Fine was factually, legally, morally and ethically correct and beyond reproach when he insisted the payments were illegal. As an officer of the court, he had a duty to press the issue.

Judge Yaffe was not wrong as a result of innocence about the payments' illegality. He knew full well, from several resources, that the payments were illegal at the time of Richard's disqualification demands. He also well knew:
* that the fact that he hadn't ruled in any substantial way against the County in years had the clear appearance of bias
* that he could not be both judge and adverse witness in the same trial
* that THREE Supervisors had illegally received campaign contributions from parties seeking project development votes in their favor
* that Richard had not received any notice of the secret January 8, 2008, hearing, thus the hearing could not lawfully proceed, making Judge Yaffe's order unquestionably "void"
* that his prosecution of Richard for his refusal to obey the "void" order was wholly improper, and his continuing refusal to release Richard in the face of all these facts is a crime against the tenets of justice
* that his judicial reputation is extremely unflattering, a black mark on the reputation of the superior court and judges as a whole.

One thing Judge Yaffe apparently doesn't know: taxpayers are no longer on the hook for paying damages when elected officials are found guilty of improprieties. Just ask Mike Antonovich.

Decent, moral, honest judges must be terribly ashamed of themselves by now for not having stepped up sooner. (Why didn't you?) Still, "late" is certainly better than "never," and the choice of never, even if by default, is not acceptable from one who wears a robe.

It's embarrassing enough as it is for us as citizens to watch it happen. Stop letting things get worse. Have you given any thought as to what will ultimately happen once this all plays out?

No, it won't be easy ... which is exactly how others of us know it's the right thing to do. If you don't understand why you need to stand up, read this. Then look in the mirror and, after reminding yourself of the purpose of the oath you took, the reason it was created in the first place, ask yourself if you're honestly abiding by it. When the whole story finally has a full airing, will you be perceived as part of the problem? Or will you be a part of the solution that leads the people out of this mess of apparent corruption that's being perpetrated against us all? Until then, can you give us any reason to have even an iota of confidence in the honesty of the judicial system in Los Angeles County?

We now await a ruling from the Ninth Circuit, assuming they can only conclude that being prevented from earning an income constitutes immediate, irreparable and continuing harm worthy of an emergency hearing. If it doesn't, nothing does.

[Next investigation: Did LA County continue to make payments to LA Superior Court judges after the Sturgeon decision was issued (10/10/08) and before SBX2-11 was enacted (2/20/09)? And if so, which judges, if any, rejected them?]

See "The Best Courts (Your) Money Could Buy" for additional details.

Also see "What Are We All Waiting For, Fellas?"

"Chronology of Events Shown By Court Records Demonstrates LA Judges Targeted Richard I. Fine For Upholding California Constitution"

2009-07-24T21:19:00.000-07:00

"In the process of winning the budget cases, in 1998, Fine won an injunction at the trial court level which stopped the salaries of the Governor, the members of the State Legislature, the judges and court commissioners and state employees during the 1998 budget crisis. This injunction effectively shut down the California government until an 'emergency legislation' bill of $19 Billion was passed to allow the government to function during a 'budget impasse' under the California Constitution. This action of 'emergency legislation' had never been taken before by the Governor and State Legislature to relieve the pressure of a 'budget crisis' upon the people of the State of California."

"The chronology of events as shown by the court records demonstrates that commencing in 1999, LA Superior Court judges and court commissioners then commenced deciding cases against Fine's clients or refused to award Fine attorney's fees in cases where he had prevailed. After these actions, Fine became aware that LA Superior Court judges and court commissioners were also receiving payments from the LA County in addition to their state salaries, and not disclosing such to the other party in any case where LA County was a party or to the public. In 1999 and 2000, Fine began challenging the judges and court commissioners for not having disclosed such and for having violated due process in the state court appeals of the cases and ultimately in two federal civil rights cases for violating the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act and the Code of Judicial Ethics."

"The Presiding Judge of the LA Superior Court, who had received the monies from LA Country and whose salary was stopped by the injunction then filed a complaint with the State Bar. Court records show a complaint was filed by James A. Basque, the then Presiding Judge of the LA Superior Court and the witness was LA Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell, whose payment of salary was stopped during a 'budget impasse'. Additionally, under the California Supreme Court decision in 2003, he would receive the salary after the crisis was over with an appropriation for such in the new budget. Bruce E. Mitchell was also a named defendant in one of the federal civil rights cases for receiving payments from LA County while he had LA County cases before him and not disclosing such."

Click here for full article.

What Are We All Waiting For, Fellas?

2009-07-20T02:23:00.000-07:00

Stalled on all fronts? What are we all waiting for, fellas?

The US District Court remains silent, pretending it has no clue it's actually required to issue a Certificate of Appealability (with detailed reasoning provided) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which was requested three weeks ago. Do the rules not apply to judges? (Never mind, stupid question.)

Meanwhile, Richard Fine still sits in jail.

The District Court is also playing games with documents in its PACER public access computer system. Richard Fine had two documents filed which do not appear in the dockets, both of a critical nature, and the handling of both is pointedly suspicious.

The first is a simple document listing several persons authorized to sign legal documents on Richard Fine's behalf. This was needed because, when Richard was first jailed, he was actually denied simple pencil and paper. He was eventually able to dictate his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (over the telephone, via collect calls) to a volunteer, and said volunteer wrote it up, signed same on Richard's behalf and filed it with the District Court without any problem. Subsequent documents, however, were rejected by Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle because she insisted that they contain Richard's signature.

Okay, fine. (sigh) No games going on here, no siree.

Meanwhile, Richard Fine still sits in jail.

So we prepared and filed a signature authorization on May 7th, providing a list of several volunteers' names that Richard authorized to sign documents on his behalf. Documents filed afterwards were accepted, but the signature issue was no longer a problem anyway as the support team had finally made some progress with the Sheriff's Dept. and were able to have documents delivered to Richard for him to sign personally. (We're talking mid- to late-May here; he was jailed on March 4th.)

On June 12, Judge Woehrle filed her Report and Recommendation denying Richard release for ridiculous reasons.

On June 25, Richard filed his objections to Judge Woehrle's report, including the objection that she clearly hadn't even reviewed the entire petition he'd filed.

On June 26, Judge Woehrle had the following entry made in the docket: "NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle, ORDERING proposed supplemental petition submitted by Petitioner Richard I. Fine received on 5/26/09 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Not signed by attorney or pro se litigent [sic]; ... "

Meanwhile, Richard Fine still sits in jail.

The signature authorization never appeared in the case docket on PACER. The signature authorization was filed 3 weeks before the rejected document was filed and almost 2 months before Judge Woehrle rejected it.

No document filed by Richard should have been rejected. Judge Woehrle knew that Richard was being prevented from signing his documents, yet she rejected what he was able to have filed, trying to inform the court just how maliciously he had been treated in being refused any means to communicate with the court as ordered by Judge Yaffe. (Aren't we still at least pretending there's such a thing as "due process"?)

Worse, Judge Woehrle clearly did not review the entire record, just as Richard noted, because she entered her Report the day before she rejected this document.

The other document missing from the PACER docket is in a different case, USDC case no. 09-MC-00129, titled "In Re Richard I. Fine". A team volunteer stumbled across this new case number in early June; the docket listed only an OSC (Order to Show Cause) requiring that Richard show cause why he should not also be disbarred from practicing before the District Court. The OSC was executed May 27th; there was no proof of service attached and no copy was ever served on Richard.

Richard dictated a response to the OSC and it was filed June 25th. It STILL does not appear in the docket.

Meanwhile, Richard Fine still sits in jail.

As we speak, our representatives in the Legislature are meeting secretly again, wrestling with the year's second budget crisis. The last time this happened, we were saddled with the horrific surprise called Senate Bill SBX2-11, the bill which last February rewarded the good ol' boys who'd been giving and receiving millions upon millions in illegal payments (judges, county supervisors and their middlemen), with retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution.

How nice for them.

Meanwhile, Richard Fine, who has committed no crime, still sits in jail.

The guy with the guts to honor his oath as an officer of the court and blow the whistle ... LOUDLY when nothing else worked ... is being purposefully destroyed. His jailers' message is crystal clear: mess with us and our buddies will help us extract a heavy price.

If they can get away with doing this to an honorable man like Richard Fine who has as tools a law degree and a lengthy successful career as a taxpayer's advocate, what chance would you have?

Here, we have missing documents, pretend delays, nothing but excuses, excuses, and more excuses. Meanwhile, no decision yet from last Monday's hearing in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, in which Judicial Watch is seeking an injunction to stop the bonus payments to LA County's judges. Judge Richman has been involved with the case for 3 years, yet he took the decision under submission in order to think about things another 30 to 60 days?

So again we ask: What are we all waiting on, fellas ... as Richard Fine still sits in jail?

Judges Fabricate Delays

2009-07-17T11:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/docs/forms/howtohabeas.pdf

NECESSITY OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (COA)

An appeal from either the denial of a writ of habeas corpus under §2254 or from a §2255 motion cannot proceed in the Court of Appeals unless a district or circuit judge issues, or denies a request to issue, a certificate of appealability (COA).

A request for a certificate of appealability should first be made to the district court judge who rendered the judgment denying the writ, or who denied the §2255 motion. The district court judge will either issue a certificate of appealability or state the reasons why a certificate should not issue. Often this language is contained in the order disposing of the writ or motion. The district court should then forward the certificate or statement to the Court of Appeals together with the Notice of Appeal.

In Richard Fine's case, Judge John F. Walter's final order said simply:

IT IS ORDERED: (1) that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge be accepted; (2) that judgment be entered denying the petition and dismissing this action with prejudice; and (3) that the following motions be dismissed as moot in light of this order: ...

Judge Walter's Judgment simply said:

IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and the action dismissed with prejudice.

The USDC docket shows:

#34 - 7/1/2009 - PETITION for Certificate of Appealability to USDC by petitioner Richard I. Fine; filed as Notice of Appeal to 9th [Circuit] from district court judgment, [docket # 31 filed 06/29/2009]. cc: Richard I. Fine; Attorney General. Modified on 7/6/2009. (Entered: 07/06/2009)

As of today, the document posted online as Richard's request for a Certificate of Appealability on PACER is identical to the one we filed; there are no modifications to it. The only other "modification" would be USDC's conversion to a "Notice of Appeal", but there is no such document in the docket.

NOWHERE in the 9th Circuit's docket do we see the 9th Circuit's receipt of the USDC's "Notice of Appeal" or issuance of its July 10th notification letter back to USDC informing it that it must rule on the request for Certificate of Appealability. And NOWHERE in the USDC docket do we see any order about converting the Certificate to a "Notice of Appeal".

As the USDC has been aware since Monday, July 13th, the 9th Circuit is refusing to set a briefing schedule and the appeal is stayed, absent an emergency, "until the district court and, if necessary, this court determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue."

Richard's request for a Certificate of Appealability was filed on June 29th. Now, almost three weeks later, the USDC has yet to rule. Strangely, a copy of the Request was forwarded by the USDC to the Attorney General, which was the first we learned there was any interest by the AG other than its intent to review of SBX2-11 at the behest of the Commission on Judicial Performance (which was later "withdrawn"). Why is the USDC court purposefully delaying? Are they waiting for some other development? Is "Son of SBX2-11" being drawn up during this week's emergency secret legislative sessions? Are you waiting to see how the superior court rules in response to the Sturgeon hearing held on Monday? (Having worked for 3 years on the case, one wouldn't think the judge could have any legitimate reason to take under advisement the motion for temporary injunction to stop the payments to judges.)

The USDC may someday claim their delay is due to the requests for recusals filed against Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle, but the requests weren't submitted until July 9th. (The docket reveals that the requests were converted to motions for disqualification, and assigned on July 13th to Judge George H. King for determination.)

28 U.S.C. § 2253, the controlling statute, is no help in that it contains no deadline for making such a ruling. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00002253----000-.html

The bottom line seems to be this: USDC is deliberately delaying its obligation to timely set forth with particularity why Richard Fine's case is appealable. The court has admitted its agreement that the case is appealable by sending up the Notice of Appeal and the entire court record to the 9th Circuit. (See docket.) And they do these things regularly, there's no legitimate reason for three weeks to have passed.

A decent man is sitting in jail ... unjustly ... day in and day out for FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS now ... while each week, it seems, a new judge takes a crack at embarrassing the judiciary in increasingly novel ways. There may well be no decent judges involved, for a moral one would long ago have put a stop to the campaign to cover up the uncoverable and deal with the mistakes made and criminal acts committed. Unless faith in the honesty of the judiciary can somehow be restored ... quickly ... the long-term consequences of such chicanery right in our faces is a collective insult that will be remembered with disgust every time the subject of judicial integrity is raised.
_______________

116 F.3d 1268

Upon the filing of a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability, the district court shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). If no express request is made for a certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal shall be deemed to constitute a request for a certificate. Finally, if the district court declines to issue a certificate, the Clerk of the district court shall forward to this court the case file with the notice of appeal, the district court's final order, and the order denying the certificate. Id. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability within 42 days of this order.

________________

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DENIED

If the district court judge has denied the certificate of appealability, the appellant may request the issuance of a certificate of appealability by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by making a formal motion.

"Schwarzenegger, California lawmakers plan late-night session to finish budget"

2009-07-15T22:10:00.000-07:00

Beware! The last time this happened, they snuck thru Senate Bill SBX2-11, giving retroactive immunity to judges.

Pleadings and Exhibits Filed July 15, 2009

2009-07-15T12:59:00.000-07:00

Exhibits:

1 - 11/10/88 memo to Zolin from County Counsel re local judicial benefits

2 - Supreme Court Docket, Fine v. State Bar

Pleadings:

1 - Request for Judicial Notice re Supreme Court docket, filed in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

2 - Request for Judicial Notice re 1988 memo, county budgets, county counsel reports, etc., filed in 9th Circuit

3 - Request for Judicial Notice re requests for recusals of Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle in light of State Bar's waiver of right to reply in Supreme Court case, filed in USDC in Fine v. Sheriff

4 - Request for Judicial Notice re recusals in light of State Bar's waiver of right to reply in Supreme Court case, filed in USDC in Fine v. State Bar.

California State Bar waives right to respond to Petition

2009-07-10T12:53:00.000-07:00

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Fine v. State Bar, the updated docket (link above) shows Fine's Petition for Writ of Certiorari ("disbarment" issue) has been scheduled for conference before the justices on Sept. 29, 2009.

Presumably finally realizing that its position has no merit, not the least of which are the First Amendment issues, the State Bar of California has filed a waiver of its right to respond to the Petition.