Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Got 'em!

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:

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

"Robert Kennedy speaks out against Retroactive Immunity"

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.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Ninth Circuit Grants Certificate of Appealability, Denies Interim Release

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.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Ninth Circuit Sets Hearing Date

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?

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.

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

"Freed Journalists Reunite With Families in United States"

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.

Monday, August 03, 2009

"Judge tosses suit opposing payments to LA judges"

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