Full Disclosure Network® "the news behind the news"

Attorney Richard I Fine's Jail Cell 9-1-1 Call Raises New Alarm: Video Here (13 min)

2009-07-06T08:23:00.001-07:00

CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE
TURNS INTO A NIGHTMARE FOR COURTS & ATTORNEY

Los Angeles, CA. Prominent former Attorney Richard I Fine, made a second 9-1-1 call from his cell in the Los Angeles County Central Men’s Jail to the Full Disclosure Network® raising alarming issues regarding the ethics and procedures of the U. S. Central District Court in California. Having spent the last four months in solitary confinement, Richard Fine has had nothing to do but document and describe the shocking tactics of what appears to be an insular Judicial buddy system that could only be compared to the “code of silence” deployed by street cops when one of their own is confronted with accusations of abuse.

WATCH VIDEO HERE
In an exclusive thirteen minute video news blog Full Disclosure Network® has combined the actual court records, audio report via telephone from Richard Fine who is representing himself against the entire California Judicial system, from his jail cell. At the end of the video viewers are asked to participate in an opinion survey and leave their comments.

LEGAL BATTLE AIDED BY VOLUNTEERS
With the help of cadre of dedicated volunteers acting as messengers, paralegals, secretarial staff and moral support base, Richard I Fine has used his total recall of the Federal Codes to dictate and draft dozens of court filings in several on going cases. He is determined to win his freedom from an indefinite jail sentence for civil contempt of court, and to win back his license to practice that was taken from him while fighting to reform the California Judicial System.

JUDICIAL CONFLICT?
In the Video and in court documents Fine describes how the Federal Magistrate Judge Carla Woerhle delayed action, issued court orders that were never acted upon and wrote a Report and Recommendation to deny Fine’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (request for immediate release from jail) without having ever read the petition. And, in conclusion, Fine reveals his discovery that both Judge Woerhle and Judge John F. Walter failed to disclose a serious conflict that should have precluded them from even hearing the case.

Attached are the documents mentioned in the video:

Full Disclosure Network® Links To Related Videos.

Gang Culture Evolves: To Organized Crime as Police Report Crime Down: Video Series Preview (11 min)

2009-06-27T14:20:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA As a part of an on-going series on Gangs and Gang Crimes , the Full Disclosure Network® presents an exclusive 11 min preview of Part 6 and 7 featuring retired 33 year veteran LAPD Lieutenant Gary Nanson, who was in charge of gang operations for the LAPD in the San Fernando Valley.

CRIME STATS INACCURATE:
Lt. Nanson describes how the gang problem has exploded, out of control, over the past three decades, while police officials have continued to report that crimes are down. By using inaccurate statistics and ignoring the gang evolution into major organized narcotic trafficking the culture of gangs has moved into white collar crime.

POLICE SEARCHING IN WRONG PLACES:
In the one hour interview Nanson details how gang members are removing tattoos, driving middle class sedans and dressing “like us” while perpetrating white collar crimes such as:

Identity Theft
Business Extortion
Medical Fraud
Credit Card Fraud
Counterfeit DVDs, designer fashions

GANGS ARE NOW A CULTURE. INSTITUTIONALIZED:
The culture of gangs includes the following mainstream-like traditions that are passed on for generations:

Gang Language
Rap Music
Gang Movies
Gang Fashion Clothing
Gang Signs

U S EXPORTING GANG CULTURE:
Lt. Nanson relates how the gang lifestyle has exploded and imported throughout the United States to other countries.

The two half-hour segments with Lt. Nanson will also be featured on over 40 cable television systems in California, Washington D.C., Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Arizona and more.

Copies of the DVDs of the entire gang series are available for purchase from the Full Disclosure Network “buy our programs” link at the top of the home page.

Monday: L A County Supervisors to Give Judges $Millions More Illegal Payments?

2009-06-20T15:05:00.001-07:00

MYSTERIOUS

County Budget Approval Process Revealed

Los Angeles, CA This Monday, June 22, 2009 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is poised to approve untold millions of dollars of what has been ruled as illegal payments to Superior Court Judges in an obsure Agenda Item listed on Page 9 Section V as " Other Budget Items" No. 17 #7 that reads:

......"For the purposes of Government Code Section 29125, Trial Court Operations shall constitute a single budget unit within the General Fund, with separate cost centers maintained for individual court Districts and Central Court Operations. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer and the Auditor-Controller to make appropriation adjustments between the above mentioned cost centers within the Trial Court Operations budget unit “without any monetary limitation”.

NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:
When the Full Disclosure Network requested supporting documentation for this agenda item from the Administrative Office of the Board, Amy Bennett informed us “there is no supporting documentation” and she went on to say of the authorization that “this is a boilerplate paragraph that has been used previously.”

BLANK CHECK FOR TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS?
Without supporting documentation it is difficult to determine just exactly how the County Administrative Officer and Controller will spend the $238,154,000 for Trial Court Operations as shown in Budget Summary (page 60.1) FY2009-10. This is especially curious since the 1997 enactment of the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act when the state assumed primary responsibility for funding of the trial courts, with counties providing maintenance of effort (MOE) payments.

APPROVAL OF $300 MILLION IN ILLEGAL BENEFITS TO JUDGES
This could explain how the judicial double benefits were mysteriously appropriated in the amount of approximately $300 million to L.A. Superior Court Judges over the last 20 years. A Fourth District 4th Appellate Court decision (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) held that the double judicial benefits were illegal and was affirmed when the Supreme Court refused rehearing even with letters of support from such notables as major law firms, all the special interest and ethnic Law Associations and Bar Associations, the L. A . County District Attorney Steve Cooley and the Public Defender.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LETTER TO SUPREME COURT DEC. 2008
“Because the County has paid these benefits for more than twenty years, virtually all judges came onto the Superior Court expecting to receive them. Taking them away now unfairly changes the salary –and-benefits packages after the fact and indisputably will force some judges to leave the Superior Court for far more lucrative positions in the private sector to become private judges or to return to their former jobs in the public sector.”

DID L A COUNTY STONEWALL DISCOVERY?
In an April 2009 interview with Attorney Sterling Norris, Full Disclosure® learned about the circumstances of how Judicial Watch had tried to obtain discovery from the County in the Sturgeon case Here he describes how he attempted to learn who authorized the illegal judical payments in excerpts below from the cable television interview:

NORRIS: We tried and tried in discovery to seek where and when these benefits were approved. And of course, it is our contention that nobody ever did. --We asked, in our discovery, is there any meeting wherever this was discussed, by the supervisors, or in session, in secret session, even then, we were given nothing by the County in terms of discovery. The only thing they said, well, there there's a final budget. All they had titled on it was Judicial Benefits, no meetings. no approvals, just Judicial Benefits. And that was like a spike on the final budget. That was the only thing that the County gave to us for justification of where did this money came from.

COURT OF APPEAL VICTORY
And of course, the Court of Appeals, in San Diego that gave us our victory, they asked many of those questions of where did this money come from? What bill? What authorization? And of course, we hope in our new litigation to exclude the bill (SBx2 11 Judicial Benefits, described by the Judicial Council as “legislative authorization” for the double benefits that were held illegal in the case of Sturgeon vs County of L.A.)
because of the violation of the extraordinary session and several other factors……. When that bill was passed up there, the only court in this state that benefited was L.A. County. None of the rest of the judges across the state had any, anything to do with that. And the Sturgeon case only dealt with L.A. County. Almost the last statement the court made at the Court of Appeals was that we express no opinion as to other counties, as to other benefits that they may receive.

DUTTON: In that immunity legislation (SBx2 11 February ‘09) that you're challenging, did it grant immunity to others besides the judges?

NORRIS: As I read the bill, it would grant immunity to everybody involved in that, the supervisors, the county counsel, anybody else involved, in those monies.

DUTTON: You mean like the County Controller that writes the check?

NORRIS: Could very well be. And of course, that's outrageous. I mean, what you're writing a blank check to acquit all these people of wrongdoing? See this to me goes to the audacity of the judiciary. Not only to go out seeking this money, but then to put in immunity and excuse (themselves) from liability clauses into that legislation. I think it smacks of the lack of integrity and to say the judges are doing this. It's kind of like AIG, and some of these great corporations that failed us during this recession. They knew way before, and I have to believe these judges knew well before 10 years that there was a problem here. And they should not have been in that arena.

DUE PROCESS THREATENED BY PAYMENTS TO JUDGES?
On July 13, 2009 there will be a Los Angeles Superior Court hearing in the Sturgeon vs County of L. A case. At which time the Judicial Watch organization is seeking an injunction to prevent the county from making further payments to the Judges. On that day Special Appellate Court Justice James H. Richman from San Francisco will again preside, due to the fact that all the L.A. Superior Court Judges have disqualified themselves from hearing the case as they have received payments from the County that were ruled illegal.

DUE PROCESS FOR RICHARD I. FINE?

In a telephone interview from his L.A. County Central Men's Jail cell, disbarred attorney Richard I Fine told Full Disclosure " the county benefit payments to the Judges are nothing more than a pretext to influence the judges to decide cases in favor of the County." Fine, has been in jail for over 110 days for contempt of court following his attempt to disqualify Judge David Yaffe from sitting on a case that involved L. A. County, an interested party in the case.

STATE BAR, COURT & JUDGE THROW IN TOWEL?

In reference to his Motion To Set Aside the Disbarment Judgment and the Writ of Habeas Corpus (for immediate release) Mr. Fine reports that "neither the California State Bar, Judge Yaffe or the Superior Court filed opposition to the argument there has been denial to due process by sitting on cases involving the county, when they have received money from L.A. County. CV-09-1914 CW-JFW and CV 08-2906 JFW(CW).

UNEARNED BENEFITS?

Both Mr. Fine and Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch maintain that the County payments to the Judges are "unearned" payments, contending the Judges do not have a contract to perform services with the County of Los Angeles, yet they have been paid. According to Fine, the judicial payments are in violation of Federal Mail Fraud Law, 18 USC 1341, 1343, 1346 covering the intangible right to receive honest services.

THE COUNTY & THE STATE CONSTITUTION

Article 6 Section 19 and 20 of the California Constitution states that the Legislature shall set the compensation and retirement benefits for the judges. Mr. Richard I Fine told Full Disclosure he is waiting to see if the County is going to authorize the Chief Executive Officer and the Controller to set the compensation for Judicial Benefits in Los Angeles County.

COERCIVE CONFINEMENT:

When asked why he has not been released from jail on a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mr. Fine responded: "I am still sitting here because the Magistrate Judge has violated Federal Law 28 us 2243 that says when we filed our Writ, it should have issued, but she failed to do so. "

Los Angeles Times, Judicial Bias, United States Supreme Court & The Case of Richard I Fine: New Online Video Here

2009-06-14T17:01:00.000-07:00

L A TIMES COVERAGE MISSES THE MARK ON JUDICIAL BIAS

Los Angeles, CA As a part of an on-going series entitled “Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption”, the Full Disclosure Network® presents the fifth segment in its' entirety, online for Internet viewers. The half-hour program is also featured on over 40 cable television systems in California, Washington D.C., Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Arizona and more.

Watch Video online here. (28:30 min)

NEWSPAPER SLANTED?

A June 7, 2009 Los Angeles Times article entitled “LAWYER TAKES A STAND FROM HIS CELL” provoked response and criticism from supporters of jailed Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I. Fine who is being held in civil contempt of court for over 100 days in L.A. County Central Men's Jail. Fine was arrested following his attempt to disqualify L. A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe from sitting on a case where Fine contends the Judge was biased. In the case Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles, Fine objected to Judge Yaffe having not disclosed illegal payments from L.A. County who was an interested party in the case. Featured in the online video, taking the L. A. Times to task, are court critics Fred Sottile, John Rizzo who had been interviewed for the Times article.

JUDICIAL BIAS?

Providing background and perspective on the issue of judicial bias and the recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling in Caperton vs Massey is prominent Appellate Court Attorney, Robert S. Gerstein, Ph.D. who is an Emeritus Professor in Political Science at UCLA. He describes the recent case that overturned a West Virginia Supreme Court decision where one of the Justices had received a $3 million campaign contribution from one of the parties in the case and who went on to vote in favor of the contributor.

VIEWERS COMMENTS SOUGHT:

At the end of the video viewers are asked to respond and leave their comments online or to a 1-800-867-7777 number regarding the practice of Judges receiving payments or contributions from interested parties in litigation before them.

OTHER RELATED VIDEOS:

Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption Pt. 3 Judicial Payments & Non-Disclosure (8 min)

Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption Pt. 1 Richard I Fine Interview Part 1 (28:30)

Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption Pt. 2 Preview 8 min Richard I Fine

Fear Rules in Los Angeles Court System: Anonymous Attorney Speaks Out

2009-06-07T08:49:00.000-07:00

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON

FULL DISCLOSURE COVERAGE OF THE RICHARD I. FINE CASE

Great work. You may be on the way to another Emmy. I could say that what you reveal is shocking, but I am getting used to it after 44 years of practice. From your story I am not clear what the 9th Circuit did. There is apparently no case number there and no formal order. If the District Court is doing nothing, what will make them act?

ATTORNEYS LIVE IN FEAR
We attorneys live in an atmosphere of fear. There seems to be more interest in maintaining the appearance that our legal institutions are just, than in allowing a critical examination of cases, where they appear not to be. The California Supreme Court in Fine’s Bar case is an example. The California Supreme Court failed to review his case and issued no opinion much less a well reasoned one. What this does is lead to arbitrary action.

PLIGHT OF RICHARD FINE
Fine appears to be in a legal no man’s land, where he has been judged by Judges, whose partiality is questioned, under laws which are not defined, under opinions which are not published, and with reasoning which is not disclosed, in a system where decent persons are afraid to speak out.

JUDICIAL REVENGE?
What appears to be the case here as in many others, is if those in authority can’t get a person for the legal action the person did, they will spend millions to uncover something to get him or her for something else. Fine’s case appears to be a simple one where he has failed to answer questions at a debtor examination, based on a judgment, which either has not been appealed or for which there is no stay pending appeal.

COERCIVE CONFINEMENT TILL SUBMISSION
Ordinarily a judgment creditor has a right to collect a judgment and the debtor examination is part of the process. I am sympathetic to Fine. He has some interesting constitutional issues to address, but my question is whether he is addressing them in a proper manner. What is wrong here, is that he is jailed during a protracted process to wear him down, to restrict him from preparing his case, and by isolating him from the tools by which he needs to prepare his case.

DUE PROCESS DENIED---COURT ORDER BY CLERK PHONE CALL?
Why can’t he get a stay from the District Court? Why can’t the District Court stay proceedings in Superior Court and release Fine pending its review? If the District Court won’t grant a stay but won’t rule, it might be appropriate to seek a mandate in the Court of Appeals for it to rule one way or the other. What appears strange is that apparently this is what the Court did by a phone call rather than a formal order. Why?

Breaking News: U S. 9th Circuit Court to Free Richard I. Fine?

2009-06-03T16:56:00.000-07:00

U S COURT OF APPEAL 9th CIRCUIT TO TAKE ON PLIGHT OF RICHARD I. FINE?

Los Angeles CA. After 93 days in L. A. County Central Men's Jail on a Civil Contempt of Court sentence, prominent Anti-Trust attorney Richard I. Fine has had enough. He has finally taken matters into his own hands by filing with the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Fine is representing himself "in pro-per" and has now been assigned a file number and placed on the official Court PACER website where the next steps in his on-going battle with the California Superior Court will be posted for all to see.

According to Mr. Fred Sottile, Volunteer Staff Coordinator for the FREE RICHARD FINE committee, the 9th Circuit Court Clerk "Bradley" contacted him by telephone today, June 3, 2009 , regarding the following actions of the Court saying, "Because this Writ should have been handled by the lower (Central District) Court, and because it was their responsibility to act on the original Habeas Corpus filing, we are returning the $455 filing fee as it would be improper for us to accept it."

U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit

File No. 09-71692

and the parties listed as follows:

RICHARD I. FINE
vs
JUDGE JOHN F. WALTER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE WOERHLE
(Sheriff of Los Angeles County has custody of prisoner)

EMERGENCY

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY

A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY

(23 U.S. C. 2241)

And Request For Immediate Release

after 90 days of unlawful incarceration

Sentence Date: March 4, 2009

No bail, no hearing date, indeterminate duration

After a plea of Not Guilty

Finding by judge without a jury

GROUND ONE: Violation of 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment (denial of due process) by having violated 28 USC Sec 2243

SUPPORTING FACTS: A petition for writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on March 20th, 2009 (Case# 09-CV-1914-JFW(CW) Magistrate Woehrle violated 28 USC 2243 by not ordering a response "forthwith" and instead waiting 18 days until April 7 to order respondent, Sheriff of Los Angeles County to respond to the petition.

The Sheriff did not identify any "interested party" other than the Sheriff and Petitioner on his notice of interested parties. He responded by claiming he did not have sufficient information to respond. His attorney claimed contact with the attorney for the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles and Judge Yaffe who indicated that they would respond if "directed" to do so by the Court.

On April 23, Magistrate Woehrle directed the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles to respond to the Petitioner by May 1, 2009. Such date of May 1, 2009 was greater than the 20 days allowed for a response to the petition under 28 USC 2243. Further, the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe were not within the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court as they had never appeared in the case.

The Superior Court and Judge Yaffe filed a response on May 1, 2009 and did not file a notice of interested parties or a notice of intervention. The response did not address the substance of the petition. Neither the response of the Sheriff nor the response of the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe addressed the petitioner's Ex Parte application for immediate relief filed April 9, 2009 to which Magistrate Woehrle ordered a response by both of them. As of May 30th, 2009, Magistrate Woehrle has not issued the writ of Habeas Corpus despite the fact that no opposition has been filed to the Petitioner by the Sheriff, the Superior Court or Judge Yaffe.

In summary, under the requirements of 28 USC Section 2243 the Court should have either awarded the writ on March 20th or March 21st or "issued an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted" on such days. The writ or order to show cause should have been directed to the Sheriff of Los Angeles County as the person who had custody of Petitioner Fine. The Sheriff "shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention" within three days unless for good cause additional time not exceeding twenty days is allowed." This means that the Sheriff had to respond by April 11th at the latest under the statue, and that the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe would also have had to respond by such days.

The statute further provides "when the writ or order is returned, a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed." This means that the hearing date should have been set for April 16th , at the latest. Petitioner is still incarcerated and has now been incarcerated for approximately 90 days without any substantive opposition to the petition and without any certification of the true cause of detention and without any hearing date being set. By these actions Magistrate Judge Woerhle and Judge Walter have violated the 5th and 14th amendment and 28 USC section 2243. The petition must be immediately granted and petitioner set free.

GROUND TWO: District Court Judges are themselves violating the law.

SUPPORTING FACTS: An original Writ of Habeas Corpus is being filed with the 9th Circuit because it cannot be filed in District Court. The District Court Judges are the ones now violating the law, 28 USC Section 2243, and the rights of the Petitioner . The District Court cannot hear the matter as the District court is biased and has conflicts of interest.

GROUND THREE: District Court refused to accept the writ without discarding all previous Habeas Corpus pleadings and filings; thus prolonging Petitioner's incarceration.

SUPPORTING FACTS: The District Court was presented with a federal writ. It was marked as received by the District Court but not filed. Petitioner has been illegally incarcerated for 90 days as retaliation by Los Angeles Judges for exposing illegal payments to 1,600 California Judges. Petitioner's disbarment appeal is also before the same District Court, Judge Walter is denying Petitioner both his civil liberties and his livelihood; contributing to his own illegal retaliation against Petitioner.

STATEMENT WHY U.S. COURT REMEDY WARRANTED:
State Court appeal not allowed under CCA Sec. 1209, Writ of Habeas Corpus to California Courts is exactly the sole remedy which was fully exhausted. Moreover, since incarceration on March 4, 2009 Petitioner has been denied all access to writing materials and to all written materials and legal documents. He was allowed into the library once in two weeks. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is based on Magistrate Woehrle's refusal to follow the requirements of 28 USC Sec. 2243.

(The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals posted on their Website receipt of the above Writ , a copy was provided to Full Disclosure by Mr. Fred Sottile of the FREE RICHARD FINE Committee who prepared and filed the document at Mr. Fine's direction)

Exclusive Full Disclosure Network video interview with Richard I Fine here.

Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption: Powerful Friends Support Judges Bid To Keep Double Benefits (Video 7 min)

2009-05-31T08:31:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a seven minute preview video featuring excerpts from Part 3 and 4 from an on going series entitled “Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption.” These two new episodes feature Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch attorney, whose 2008 successful lawsuit found the L.A. County’s payments of double benefits to Judges was unlawful. (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles).

The San Diego Appellate Court decision in favor of the Judicial Watch lawsuit was upheld when the Supreme Court refused to hear it. However, in this series Norris describes the behind the scenes court maneuvers conducted by the California Judiciary that is apparently determined to retain the illegal benefits, while serving as employees of the State of California.

Also featured in Part 4 of this series is court critic James C. Couri, a New York businessman who has a lifetime of experience in New York Supreme Courts. Couri describes the influence of money on the New York Court system and by comparison provides insight into similar problems facing the California Justice system.

Here are few of the points made by Norris in the two new episodes:

Failure of California Judges to disclose receipt of payments from counties either to the parties involved in lawsuits or on their economic interest disclosures.

In the last ten years each of the 600 Judges in L.A. have received $350,000 in illegal payments.

L.A. Superior Court hired a lobbyist for $60,000 to sponsor SBX211 legislation. Has the Superior Court hired lobbyists before?

SBX211 (part of the Feb. 2009 Budget Bill) legalized retroactively the judicial double benefits and

SBX211 provided retroactive criminal and liability immunity from prosecution to the Judges and County officials involved in the payments of public money. Norris asks why? They must have thought crimes were involved.

Have the L. A. Superior Court ever intervened in any other lawsuit, as they have with this issue of double benefits?

Judicial mind-set and integrity questioned as the battle over wages escalated.

Legal and law enforcement forces step forward to fight for judicial double benefits, ignore conflict and judicial bias potential

Major forces on record defending double benefits to Judges: L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley, County Public Defender, All Bar Associations, big law firms who appear before the Judges. Norris asks, did the Court stop to think about a resulting bias and prejudice?

Public Pension Crisis: The Ticking Time Bomb. Cable TV Series (12 min Video Preview Here)

2009-05-27T14:40:00.000-07:00

CABLE TV SERIES WARNS OF IMPENDING CRISIS

Los Angeles, CA Following a panel discussion entitled: "The Ticking Time Bomb" at the Milken Institute's State of the State Conference in the fall of 2006, the first public predictions regarding the "unfunded public employee retirement benefits of $300 to $400 billion are revealed"

The Full Disclosure Network® presents a two-part cable tv series that includes an exclusive interview with public finance expert B. Scott Minerd, CEO Guggernheim Partners Asset Managment who provides insight and analysis on the looming financial disaster in California. DVDs of the complete series are available from the website. A twelve minute video preview from the series is available here.

Featured in the series are:

B. Scott Minerd, CEO Guggenheim Partners Asset Management
Hon. Keith Richman, Calif. State Assembly
Carl De Maio, CEO Performance Institute
Jack Ehnes, CEO CALSTERS Pension System
Dave Low, CA School Employees Association
Barbara Lloyd, Sr. VP Lehman Brothers

Here are hightlights from each segment: of the series:

Segment #1: When serving as Managing Director of Credit Suisse Scott Minerd described how he exposed the risky derivative securities which directly led to the liquidation of the Orange County investment portfolio and the county's subsequent bankruptcy."

Segment #2: Will Municipal bankruptcies spread across California? Minerd suggests that pension benefit debt is unanticipated by the public and bond rating companies. The $300-$400 billion debt is "present value" but Minerd adds" the actual sum is more likely a trillion dollars."

Segment #3: Assemblyman Keith Richman cites San Diego, Contra Costa and Orange Counties have billions in unfunded public employee pension benefits. Minerd suggestions to head off crisis. (1) Attempt to fund now (2) Ignore and pay as you go (3) Break promises made to public employees by redefining benefits, employees work longer, caps on benefits.

Segment #4: Carl DeMaio CEO Performance Institute cites retroactive benefits approved by elected officials, and pension benefit debt is $130 billion before unfunded health care benefits that is three times all outstanding debt now in California. Keith Richman cites State Legislative Analyst reports that School Districts are likely to go bankrupt.

Segment #5: Only ten percent of Counties have funded or partially funded public employee benefit plans. Plans include coverage for spouses, survivors even after medicare age, according to Barbara Lloyd, Sr. VP Lehman Bros.

Segment #6: 2006 Infrastructure Bonds of $40 billion to cost $40 billion in interest. Minerd suggests that when voters approved the bonds "all it did was allow the state to spend more on other things and not to address the true fiscal issues."

FISCAL CRISIS: Illegal Payments Create Law For Judicial Criminal & Liability Immunity: Nominees For U S Supreme Court To Be Impacted?

2009-05-15T16:09:00.000-07:00

STERLING NORRIS
Judicial Watch Attorney (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles)

Los Angeles, CA While counties, cities and the entire state are on the brink of financial collapse all California Superior Court Judges are fighting hard, in court and in the State Legislature, to keep the illegal payments made to them by county governments. The Judicial Watch organization successfully challenged those payments made to Judges in L A County, where over the past decade it has been estimated that L.A. Judges have received up to $300 million dollars. A Fourth District Appellate Court decision in October 2008 (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) held those payments to the Judges were indeed unlawful. This action prompted the Judges to fight back.

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
Judges were apparently worried about being prosecuted for criminal acts and liability for taking the unearned money. At the urging of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the California Judicial Council quietly authored a provision that was slipped into the State Budget legislation SBX 211, without public debate or awareness. This provision granted retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution to all California Judges and County officials who received or made those illegal payments of public money. Depending on who you talk to the payments are referred to as "unearned benefits" or "Judicial Benefits".

NON DISCLOSURE FOR JUDGES?
Full Disclosure Network ® inteviewed Judicial Watch attorney Sterling Norris in April 2009 as part of an on going "special series" entitled Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption. We asked Norris what motivated the California Judicial Council to change the law giving retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution to the Judges and the Counties? His response was:

"they would not have sponsored the legislation unless they really felt the Judges needed immunity from criminal prosecution and liability".

Ironically, Richard I. Fine, a former prominent anti-trust attorney is still sitting in the Los Angeles County Central Men's Jail, in isolation, for more than 70 days. He was held in contempt of court, after he attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe from sitting on a case that involved the County of Los Angeles. According to Fine , Yaffe failed to disclose to the parties in the case (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles) that he had been receiving $46,000, on top of his State salary, from the County for years. Yaffe recently defended the practice of "coercive confinement" in contempt cases in response to a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Immediate Release filed by Fine in the Federal Court on March 29, 2009.

QUOTES ON NON-DISCLOSURE & PROSECUTION
Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch had these comments regarding unearned payments to Judges and their failure to disclose.

"There is no question that the judges should have disclosed they were receiving $46,000 from the County of L.A. , there is no way the judiciary, ethically, could get around it....""
"$46,000 each year is not a small amount, many people don't make that much all year and this, from the County, is on top their $200,000 State salary. In California they are the highest paid court judges in the nation".
"If (the Judges) are on the up and up, you go get a declaratory judgment (in court) saying, in spite of court consolidation, we are entitled to the money"
"We have never seen people excused from liability retroactively"

"There is a criminal doctrine of law that if you received money you are not entitled to, and you keep it, that is considered theft"

IMPACT ON JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS?
Without immunity for criminal acts, a complicating factor associated with the illegal payments to Judges, is that a number of Los Angeles Superior Court Judges have been appointed to higher courts during the past two decades. They now sit on the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court. The question is, does the fact they have accepted unearned money from other than their employer disqualify them from higher appointments? In his request for investigation and complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice Richard I. Fine points to both Appellate and Supreme Court Justices who have received illegal payments from the County and who have been granted criminal immunity.

JUDICIAL ETHICS AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CARLOS R. MORENO

The California Constitution (Sec. 17, 19, 20) states that Judges may not receive money from other parties than their employer, the State of California, and the Legislature has the sole responsibility for setting compensation and retirement benefits. On page 4 of the Fine request for investigation he names California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, who has been mentioned as a possible nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court by President Obama.

In a telephone interview on Friday, May 15, 2009 from his jail cell, Mr. Fine expressed concern about the possible U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Justice Moreno because he had not recused himself from two critical cases involving the SBX2 11 and the controversial retroactive criminal imnunity issue. First, by not recusing himself in the disbarrment case of Fine who had raised the illegal payments to Judges and second, on the Writ of Habeas Corpus, where Fine was seeking immediate release from L.A. County Jail for contempt of Court. In both instances Fine maintains that Justice Moreno had a personal conflict and that two Federal Judges (George Wu and Dale Fischer) recused themselves from the Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Richard Fine as they had been Superior Court Judges in Los Angeles and had received illegal payments from the County and retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution.

JULY 2nd COURT HEARING IN L.A.
The on-going controversy over the State's fiscal crisis, Judicial benefits and appointments is playing out in yet another court hearing on July 2, 2009 when San Francisco Appellate Court Justice James A. Richman will preside in an L A Superior Court to rule on the Judicial Watch motion for injunctive relief, to prohibit the county from making futher illegal payments to the Judges. At that time Sterling Norris will have an opportunity to raise thie issue of Constitutionality of SBX2 11 granting Judges retroactive immuity for liability and criminal acts without public discussion or debate.

FISCAL CRISIS & WHO PAYS THE BIG LAW FIRMS ?
The Judical Watch organization, has been been faced with formidable opposition from County of Los Angeles and their private lawfirm Jones-Day and the Superior Court of Los Angeles who retained Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who successfully obtained "Intervenor" status in the case. The "unearned benefits" going to the Judges, not to the public, raises the issue who will pay the big law firms? Will it be the taxpayers who pay or the Judges who personally benefit from the illegal payments? No matter who wins and who pays, this legal battle is going to cost a lot of money.

JUDGES ASSN. DECLINE INTERVIEW

The Full Disclosure® Host Leslie Dutton contacted Judge Mary Wiss, president of the California Judges Association for an interview for this two-part interview with Sterling Norris, Judge Wiss referred us to their lobbyist, Mr. Mike Beliote, who declined an interview saying "the Judges have decided not to be interviewed on this subject" The Full Disclosure series is to be released to 40 cable systems and on the Internet in June 2009. This is part three and four of the on-going series. # # # #

State Department Hosts Media Tour For Broadcasters From Saudi Arabia,Egypt,Syria,Yemen, Gaza, United Arab Emirates

2009-05-08T17:26:00.000-07:00

International Visitors Council of L.A. & State Department

Invite Full Disclosure to Meet With Mid-Eastern Media Operatives

Pictured Above from left to right
Ms. Naglaa Moustafa Mahomoud Farghaly

Script Writer & Media Channel 7 Egypt TV
Ms. Razzam Hejazi,

Director-Film Maker, Annimation Program (Syria)
Mr. Samir S. S. Abushammala,

(Gaza) Political Correspondent. Al-Jazeera Satellite
Ms. Lor Dib,

Correspondent, Al-Iqtisadiah Satellite Television (Syria)
Leslie Dutton,

Producer-Host Full Disclosure Network (USA)
Mr. Mohammed Al-Hassan A. Alemary,

Broadcast Correspondent-Presenter, Al Arabiya TV News Channel (Saudi Arabia)
Mr. Mohammed Nassar Al Momayiz,

Senior Producer, Dream TV (Egypt)
Mr. Samr Husain Mohamed Husain Al Marzouqi,
Channel Manager, MTV Arabia, Arab Media Group (United Arab Emirates)

Los Angeles, CA (May 9, 2009) The International Visitors Council of Los Angeles (IVCLA) and the U. S. Department of State invited the Full Disclosure Network® to meet with visiting broadcasters from the middle east who were part of an organized tour to learn how American media operations function. The May 6, 2009 meeting was one of many that were arranged for the visitors, with major media organizations, including the CBS Television Network in Los Angeles.

STATE DEPARTMENT PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Here are the State Department objectives taken from materials provided by IVCLA for the "Creative Broadcast Programming", a regional project on the near East.

Examine the role of popular culture and entertainment media in shaping public perceptions.
Learn about the relationship between the media, public broadcasting, entertainment industry, and the government and the policies that oversee this relationship.
Engage with writers, producers and media personalities involved in the broadcasting of news, current affairs education, music, arts, science and coverage of international issues, as well as drama, comedy and entertainment; and
Provide exposure to the geographical, cultural social and ethnic diversity of the United States.

AMERICAN MEDIA EXPLAINED
As Full Disclosure® is "the news behind the news" the visiting broadcasters got a candid report on the relationship between government and the Full Disclosure Network®. During the meeting there was a exchange of information on issues that impact broadcasters world wide, in particular the issues of government control of the media, and the impact of the Internet and bloggers on traditional media and government.

VIDEO REPORT TO COME:
Full Disclosure® is preparing a Video Report on the May 6th meeting to be released soon. The IVCLA arranged a prior meeting with Full Disclosure and visiting Russian journalists that was video recorded in October 2008 and is available for viewing.

“COERCIVE CONFINEMENT” Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption: Video Preview of Series (10 min)

2009-05-05T05:53:00.000-07:00

L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe

Los Angeles, CA. Why was prominent anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine sentenced to “coercive confinement” in the L.A. Central Men’s Jail for an indefinite period of time? It has been sixty days in solitary confinement and is growing each day. On May 1, 2009 Fine and his supporters learned the reasons why. In a ordered response to his Writ of Habeas Corpus and request for immediate release. A Ventura, California law firm representing the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe, filed a response and revealed the intent of the confinement was to “coerce” Fine into submission.

Full Disclosure Network® presents a ten minute preview from a two-part series covering this extraordinary case where Richard I. Fine and others discuss the circumstances and implications of Los Angeles Superior Court Judges, including Judge David Yaffe, of taking illegal payments from Los Angeles County while sitting in judgment on cases where the county is a party. Having raised the issue of Judicial corruption since 1999, Fine maintains that over a period from 2005 through 2008 only two cases have been decided against the County by a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge.

JUDGE YAFFE'S RESPONSE

Here is a quote from the Court Ordered response filed by the Ventura, California law firm of Kevin M. McCormick (BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM) hired by L. A. County Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe where they are opposing the release of Richard I Fine from solitary “coercive confinement”.

“The use of COERCIVE CONFINEMENT resulting from civil contempt has been approved and found appropriate by the United States Supreme Court, federal district and appellate courts and California state courts, regarding the right of a civil judgment creditor to pursue and of a trial court to impose for purposes of an individual’s compliance with a valid court order.”

JUDICIAL BENEFITS AT HEART OF CONROVERSY

This is an on-going series covering the issue judicial benefits and court corruption. Part Three and Four feature a one-hour interview with Judicial Watch organization and former prominent L. A. Deputy District Attorney, Sterling Norris, whose landmark case (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) found that payments made to Superior Court Judges from the Counties was illegal. Judicial Watch has vowed to challenge the legislation enacted in February 2009 as part of the California budget bill SBX 211 that provided retroactive immunity from prosecution for all state judges and county officials who received or approved the illegal payments since 1988.

The entire series is featured on 40 cable systems and the Full Disclosure Network website.

Will L A Public Cable Channels Comeback? A Plan To Restore Public Studio Facilities

2009-05-03T13:38:00.001-07:00

PUBLIC ACCESS SUPPORTERS LINE-UP TO TESTIFY
Stanley Sheinbaum (at podium) Leslie Dutton, T.J. Johnston

Los Angeles, CA Almost sixty people lined up to testify on Wednesday, April 29th at the City Hall hearing before the Budget and Finance Committee on ITA funding for public cable channels. There was only one proposal presented to the Committee to restore public studio facilities. First to testify were PUBLIC TELEVISION INDUSTRY CORPORATION (PTIC) officials who outlined in their one minute presentations how they would restore the public cable facilities. A complete video news report is to be released on the Full Disclosure Network this week.

Members of the non-profit PTIC Board of Advisors who addressed the plan were:

Stanley K. Sheinbaum, Ron Kaye, Scott Wilson, David R. Hernandez, Arthur Poma, Xavier Hermasillo, Sandra Needs, Dr. Charlotte Laws, Leslie Dutton, H. Andrew Thornburg and T. J. Johnston
Many other supporters testified as well and are featured in the upcoming video report.

FUNDING AVAILABLE
The PTIC proposal presented a plan to restore public cable studio facilities, one each year for the next four years. Fourteen public studios and channels went dark this January when Time Warner Cable opted out of providing public access, instead under the new DIVCA legislation they are required to pay the city $5 million per year to be used exclusively capital costs for replacing the public studios. This 1% cable franchise fee cannot be used for any other purpose according to the legislation and city officials told the Council committee they expect to receive the first payment of this money in just a couple of weeks.

HELP PUBLIC VOICE BE HEARD
The concept of public access cable channels, as intended by the FCC mandate, was to provide opportunity and facilities whereby independent producers could record their shows in sound proof studios with editing rooms, professional assistance and training. The FCC concept was to encourage citizen involvement and coverage of issues and events by enabling the public's voice to be heard in contrast to the main stream media and government perspective.

MORE CHANNELS COMING?
With the telecoms now providing Internet access and video delivery under the DIVCA legislation, A-T-T and Verizon are also required to provide public channels in the same manner as are the cable companies. Currently A-T-T has proposed a plan to place all Southern California Cities public programming on one channel in an "On Demand" fashion so that they will be downloaded rather than cablecast. The City of Los Angeles is opposing the A-T-T plan known as U-Verse and insisting they provide separate public channels.

PUBLIC TELEVISION INDUSTRY CORPORATION
A NON-PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
For more information on PTIC's Plan call:
David R. Hernandez, Vice President, PTIC 818-448-3403

Leslie Dutton, President 310-822-4449

BIG MEDIA AND ANTI-TRUST LAWS

2009-04-25T06:54:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA. In a ten minute video news blog the Full Disclosure Network® presents leaders of the Screen Actors Guild ( SAG) membership who point to the real danger of the proposed contract with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). They say the conditions are very similar to why Anti-Trust laws were enacted by the Congress years ago. And, the question is asked why are those laws are not being applied to the Big Media that now controls the production of movies and television, while distributing the product and transmitting it over cable companies and the internet that they also control.

Featured in the video news blog are:

Scott Wilson, Screen Actors Guild Membership Leader
Alan Rosenberg, President, Screen Actors Guild
Edward Asner, former President of the Screen Actors Guild
Ted Turner, Founder of Cable News Network
Leslie Dutton, Moderator

The divided SAG leaders describe themselves as threatened with extinction or they call themselves “Moderates” who are more compliant with the power that controls the industry.

Ed Asner. Unhesitatingly describes the “moderates” as “walking softly and carrying a little stick” when it comes to negotiations. While Scott Wilson, says that “the collective bargaining is all about the Internet where the Big Media has a stranglehold”.

This is the first in a series of Full Disclosure Network® programs covering the future of Hollywood facing Media Consolidation and globalization and will it survive?

Judicial Critic Richard Fine Fights For Freedom: Sheriff Baca To Defend Judge Yaffee?

2009-04-08T00:47:00.000-07:00

WILL SHERIFF LEROY BACA DEFEND JUDGE YAFFE

OR RELEASE JUDICIAL CRITIC?

Los Angeles, CA Sheriff Leroy Baca is the "Respondent" referred to in U. S. Judge Magistrate Carla Woehrle's Order to Respond on the writ of habeas corpus filed by judicial critic Richard I Fine.

After spending over a month in L A. County Central Men’s Jail, having been sentenced indefinitely for Contempt of Court on Tuesday, April 7, 2009 the first break occurred for Mr. Richard I. Fine. For two weeks his writ of habeas corpus had been assigned to U. S. Judge George Wu, and for a while there it looked like all the Judges, State and Federal , would keep Fine locked up for some time, without any action on the case. When Full Disclosure Network contacted Judge Wu’s clerk to find out what was causing the delay and why there had been no action on Fine's writ of mandate, we received a prompt response referring us to U. S. Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle. After all, a writ of habeas corpus is supposed to generate action “forth with” which means RIGHT NOW and two weeks seemed like a long time, especially to Mr. Fine.

However, by the end of that afternoon, the U.S. Central District Court posted on their website an ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE OF HABEAS CORPUS signed by Judge Woehrle that states:

“An answer must address both the merits of all grounds for relief asserted in the petition, and any applicable procedural issues. If Respondent (Sheriff) concedes the issue of exhaustion, (of all legal remedies) Respondent shall so state, expressly, in the answer.” And Respondent may file, a motion to dismiss on grounds other than the merits of Petitioner’s claims, such as failure to exhaust state remedies or untimeliness.” (read entire order here)

RICHARD I. FINE

Richard Fine’s long and distinguished legal career paid off when he had no choice but to represent himself. While in L A County Men’s Central Jail. He dictated from memory, via the jail telephone to his loyal volunteers. He gave them, the exact wording and citations to be included in his writ of habeas corpus. Then, they filed the writ in the U.S. Central District Court of California, on his behalf and without his signature as he had no access to even paper or pen.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:
According to Richard I. Fine here is a brief summary of the issues contained in his writ of habeas corpus to which the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department must now respond in fourteen days:

1) Can Judge Yaffe legally sit as a Judge in a contempt proceeding where one of the parties (Fine) has raised the issue of his taking illegal payments from one of the parties in the case?
2) The Original declaration and Order to Show Cause supporting the contempt proceeding did not give notice of all documents used in the proceedings.
3) The lawyers used by the Court in the Contempt proceeding were lawyers who were actually working for the benefit of a party whose order they were trying enforce.
4) The Commissioner who required Richard I. Fine to answer questions was not a Judge or duely appointed Referee and did not have the legal power or authority to order Fine to answer questions.
5) The underlying order (for Fine) to pay money to the County and Del Rey Shores Developers was unconstitutional because there was never any notice given to Fine and Fine was not present at the hearing when such order was made.
6) The charge of practicing law without a license, is a criminal charge and there was a denial of due process, in the absence of a jury trial option.
7) There was no evidence presented in court to support any of the charges upon which Judge Yaffe held fine guilty to: a) Not answering questions to a commissioner, and b) practicing law without a license
8) Judge Yaffe had taken illegal payments from the county, a party to the case, and therefore was not qualified to sit as a judge
9) No order by the California Supreme Court that ordered Fine to be “inactive” or “Disbarred” was presented at the contempt Trial.
10) Judge Yaffe was disqualified from the case by Civil Code Section 170.3 (c) (3) objection for having taken money from the county and for not disclosing the receipt of this money. Judge Yaffe did not respond to this complaint and thereby consenting to the disqualification.

MEDIA INTERVIEW REQUEST IN JAIL DENIED:
When the Full Disclosure Network® contacted the Film and Media Office of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to arrange for an interview with Mr. Fine in the Central Men’s Jail, Twin Tower #1, we were asked for his booking number and release date.

Full Dislosure informed Deputy Johns there was no release date and that Fine had been sentenced for an indefinite period of time, without bail, without an attorney and there was no future hearing date scheduled. The Deputy started to laugh and said you have got to be kidding, we don’t keep people here indefinitely. We have overcrowding don’t you know?

This was reminiscent of the Paris Hilton episode a few years back, when she was released from County jail early for some reason but mainly due to overcrowding. But Paris Hilton was not in the cross hairs of the Superior Court of the State of California and Richard I. Fine had dared to attempt to disqualify Judge David Yaffe for having accepted illegal payments from a party involved in the case before him.

That was March 11, 2009 and the Full Disclosure request for interview with Fine was denied. According to Deputy Johns, it was denied because Fine had been sentenced for Contempt of Court and the Sheriff would not approve an interview and only Judge Yaffe would do that.

Despite his family’s pleas for help to legal aid organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Judicial Watch organization, Mr. Fine was unable to obtain legal representation of any kind. Both Judicial Watch and the ACLU claimed that they turn down many people due to lack of resources. The ACLU told Full Disclosure they turn down hundreds of people every week By way of explanation Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU, Southern California wrote “if it were an important case that would affect many, many people we might do it but we just cannot.”

New filings and updates on this case are to be provided soon.

LA Court Transcript Reveals Judicial Immunity, Curious Proceedings, Conflict

2009-04-04T13:50:00.000-07:00

JAILED ATTORNEY RICHARD I. FINE

Serving an indefinite sentence, without bail, no release date, no hearing set.

COURT TRANSCRIPT REVEALS CURIOUS COURT PROCEEDINGS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
For the County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT NO. 86 HON. DAVID P. YAFFFE, JUDGE

March 4, 2009 Contempt Sentencing of Richard I Fine (Open Court)

CLOSING STATEMENTS BELOW

View entire Transcript (27 pages) here

THE COURT (Judge David Yaffe): All right. Mr. Fine, I will give you an opportunity to comment on the changes before I impose sentence.

MR. FINE: First of all, your Honor, as your Honor is aware, given Senate Bill SBX 211, (California Budget Bill Provision, Feb. 2009) the payments that you received are unconstitutional and, consequently, you will be given immunity for receiving those payments and any action you have done receiving those payments. Therefore, the action that you’ve taken in this contempt proceeding is illegal.

JUDGE FAILED TO DISCLOSE ILLEGAL PAYMENTS?
The reasons that you’re saying as (my) not having brought up the disqualification of you in the underlying case are, therefore, invalid because of the fact that, given the bill and the disqualification and the immunity that you’re given and the fact of the Sturgeon Case, (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) which says the payments are unconstitutional, I was not under any obligation to bring up the disqualification on behalf of my client with respect to you if the client didn’t want to have this done.

IMPROPERLY ORDERED SANCTIONS?
So therefore, what you are talking about as an earlier disqualification of you in the underlying case really doesn’t have any relevance. We are now in the situation of you’re ordering sanctions against me personally and the payments of money by me personally to the County of Los Angeles, an order which you issued without notice or hearing which is unconstitutional in and of itself. That order is illegal and invalid and an order for which the State Legislature has found that you did an illegal act.

JUDGMENT FAULTY?
So in dealing in that part of it where you’re now saying that I should have disqualified you in the underlying case, that reasoning doesn’t hold water. So consequently, on this part of your judgment, you’re entirely wrong and that part, needless to say, would get overturned.

NO JURISTICTION ?
With respect to the issue of you not being served with a copy of the April 11th disqualification, unless I’m mistaken, I believe, and I think we can pull it, that the April 11th disqualification shows that your Honor had proof of service. I may be wrong on this, but I’m pretty sure that it does, in fact -- it was filed in this court, so you knew about it. You knew that you were disqualified, and the fact of the matter is, even if you hadn’t been served with it, you were disqualified under section 170.3(c) (4), by law, because of the fact that you did not respond to the March 25th C.C.P. 170.3 objection that was personally served upon you.
So consequently, you are out. There is nothing that you can really do about it. So you didn’t have any jurisdiction to go forward and make any type of orders.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER FOR CONTEMPT?
Now, granted, you have now shown in here that the April 15th order that is the order that actually made an order of $46,000.00 to be paid to real party in interest, which is the party that Mr. Comer and Mr. Rosen represent, that order you are not relying upon here. So really, what we have in this case is we have an order of January 8th—is the only order that is existing that says that I should pay any attorney’s fees and that order does have an amount in it.
So what you’ve got here is you’ve got a judgment where you are holding me in contempt for an order that was unconstitutional..........

GOV, LEGISLATURE FOUND JUDICIAL PAYMENTS ILLEGAL?
.......and also which the State Legislature and the Governor say is illegal to pay money of a non-existent sum to people where you are now saying I am in contempt based upon an order of a Commissioner who has not been appointed as a referee because --

COMMISSIONER POSING AS A JUDGE?
just because someone is assigned to a Department, because a Commissioner is assigned to a Department, does not mean that he has the ability to preside in the Department because being assigned to a Department does'nt mean he’s sitting there. In order to preside in the Department, he’s either going to be a temporary judge or he has to have the stipulation of the parties, litigants, under section -Article 6, section 21 of the California Constitution, or C.C.P. section 259(d), which Commissioner Gross did not have or he has to receive an appointment as a referee.
And you do not even show that he had received any appointment as a referee. You don’t even refer to that in here. You just say he’s appointed to preside in the Department. That does not make him a referee.

COMMISSIONER ACTIONS REVEALS DECEPTION?
And there are specific sections. In order to be a referee you have to be appointed as a referee. There is no order in this case which shows that Commissioner Gross was appointed as a referee. And in fact, when we dealt with the objections and so forth -- and, in fact, the motion to quash the subpoena, motion to quash the writ, Commissioner Gross didn't even handle that. He sent it out.

COURT'S JUDGMENT HIGHLY FALLACIOUS?
Using your theory, if he were, in fact, the referee in the case, he would have had the ability to deal with that particular issue because he would have the ability to deal with the questions. He would have the ability to deal with whether, in fact, the writ was properly issued. But he didn’t. He sent it out. So consequently, we have a situation that we have a person that is a Commissioner who is not a referee and whom you even admit there is no specific order making him a referee. So you’re wrong throughout this judgment. It is highly fallacious.

PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT LICENSE UNSUBSTANTIATED?
Now, we get to the other part of the judgment which is dealing with the facts of practicing law without a license or holding himself out as practicing law, or entitled to practice law. There is no order in this particular trial which says that I was ordered inactive. There is no order that says that my license was taken away. That’s not even existing. And in fact, you don’t even refer in this judgment to any evidence that says that. And if, hypothetically, there had been such an order entered, that would have been invalid because of the fact that the underlying state bar proceeding was involving the issue of my having brought the LACHAYOS Case and the Silva versus the County of Los Angeles case, which alleged that the L.A. County payments to judges were unconstitutional as a violation of Article 6, section 18, of the California Constitution and unconstitutional under the United States Constitution of Article 1 and Article 14.

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FOR JUDICIAL CRIMES?
Now, as we know, the Sturgeon Case (Sturgeon vs County of L.A.) held that those payments were unconstitutional under Article 6, section 19, of the California Constitution. Senate Bill SBX 211 affirmed the Sturgeon Case and gave the governments, the public officials, the government employees and everyone immunity for actions relating to those government payments. The State Bar, who is the authorized administrative arm of the California Supreme Court, California Supreme Court being a government entity, ends up prosecuting me for having filed those cases claiming that the filing of those cases was frivolous and, therefore, it was moral turpitude. They got immunity for that illegal act.

FRIVOLOUS JUDICIAL ACTIONS ?
What I did is I appealed the hearing judge’s statement or conclusion that those were frivolous and recommendations of disbarment and an order being inactive that went to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court did not order me to be inactive and only denied the petition for review under B&P Code 6084 (a).
The California Supreme Court has to enter an order, and on the case of in re rose, it specifically says that when one makes a timely petition for review, The Court must enter the order. They must independently review the situation. So there is no order by the California Supreme Court.
But it goes even further because three members of the California Supreme Court received immunity by having been judges that received payments from their counties, and these judges were Chin, Corrigan and Moreno. So they were even out from even being able to decide that issue.

SUPREME COURT + JUDICIAL COUNCIL = PREDJUDICE?
And in addition to that, you have the Chief Justice George and Justice Baxter who are the Judicial Council who are the group that wrote Senate Bill SBX 211, so they’re out because of the fact that they were prejudiced because of the fact they wrote the bill that gave the immunity to the judges. So even if there had been some type of a decision, the Supreme Court was out on it. So basically, what you have, if they even had put in the order, the order didn’t work.

The Court: is there any judge or justice in California that can order you to do anything?

Mr. Fine: yes, there is, and basically, those are:

The judges that are in San Francisco County who did not receive the payments.
The judges in Yolo County who did not receive the payments.
The judges in Mendocino County who did not receive the payments.
The justices on the California Court of Appeal who did not receive the payments.
The justices on the California Court of Appeal who did not receive the payments.
And two judges on the California Supreme Court, Judge Wordegar, and Judge Kennard, having been in the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1988 and even though the payments started in 1988, she, I believe, left the Los Angeles Superior Court in August of 1988 and, therefore, may have been off The Court before the payments began.

So the answer to your question is yes, there are judges within the county -- California judicial system that can order me to do something. You are not one of them. And approximately 1,600 of these superior court judges are not one of them. And a certain amount of Court of Appeal justices are not part of them. And a minimal three to five justices of the California Supreme Court are not one of them.

CLEAN VS DIRTY JUDGES?
Yes, there are people in the California judicial system who are clean. There are a lot of people who are not clean, and those are the people who cannot order me to do something with respect to this particular case and who cannot order people to do things involving payments from counties. Unfortunately, your Honor, you are in this group that is disqualified. Not by me and not by my opinion, but by the opinion of the Legislature of the State of California and the Governor of California who have passed the law that have given you immunity for your illegal acts.
So essentially, the judgment that you have tendered is basically void because of the fact that you do not have the jurisdiction to go out and enter this judgment. You didn’t have jurisdiction to sit on this case, and no matter how much you want to try and get around that and no matter how much you want to dance around it, legally speaking, and no matter how much you want to avoid an act of the Legislature of the State of California and signed by the Governor of the State of California, you cannot do it.

CALIFORNIA IMMUNITY FOR JUDICIAL MISDEEDS?
We are no longer dealing in your interpretation of law versus my interpretation of law. We are now dealing with the law of the State of California which said that the acts that you have done are illegal. They gave you the immunity for it. You cannot be prosecuted criminally in the State of California for your acts. You are not -- you cannot be held civilly liable in the State of California for your acts. You cannot be punished by the Commission on Judicial Performance in the State of California for your acts.

NO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR FEDERAL CRIMES?
On the other hand, in the federal system, it’s a different story. There, under 18 United States Code Section 1346, you can be held liable for the violations of the implied or intangible right to perform honest services. You are still subject to federal criminal prosecution and you are still subject to federal liability. So that is where we are sitting.

ILLEGAL JUDGMENT?
Now, you may take your position, which you obviously have, against the federal law. You may take your position with respect to claims that you have jurisdiction to do something. I have my position, which is taking you up through The Courts and going into the writs of habeas corpus, which will ultimately decide these particular issues. You have done your thing here and I am respectfully advising you that it’s void; that it is illegal and it’s an illegal judgment.

The Court: All right. Thank you, Mr. Fine.

Mr. Fine: and that is where we are sitting. I respectfully suggest to you that if you’re thinking of any type of imposing of a sentence and—which you are indicating in here, I suggest that you may want to delay the actual serving of that sentence until such time as we end up finishing off all the writs because of the fact that what does happen is that even though you may have immunities under state laws, you don’t have immunities under federal laws for any type of false imprisonment or anything else on this particular order. So we’re both dealing in risk here.

The Court: All right. Thank you, Mr. Fine. Anything, counsel?

Mr. Comer: Yes, thank you, your Honor. Most of the arguments you heard before and I don’t need to respond to those. We would ask The Court to enact sentencing today, and on one amendment to the ruling is paragraph 7 of page 14. We respectfully request The Court to amend that sentencing today and order Mr. Fine to take down the website www.richardfinelaw.com which is still up to date.

Mr. Fine: Well, your Honor, in response to that, your Honor, the State Bar’s, quote, “disbarment order,” has not gone into effect. So consequently, there is no disbarment of me as of the present time according to the California Supreme Court, see, because you are dealing only on what is being considered an order of the State Bar of California, which itself is an invalid order. And if they are trying to go by anything done by the California Supreme Court, that order doesn’t go into effect until, I believe it’s March 13th.

The Court: I don’t think this is the appropriate time for me to order the contempt nor to do other things because then what if he doesn’t do those and, you know, this proceeding…

Mr. Comer: Thank you, your Honor.

The Court: -- proceeding has got to have a terminating point, and I think this is it.

Mr. Comer: Then we have nothing further, your Honor.

911 CALL FROM ATTORNEY IN JAIL: Video Here (8 min)

2009-03-19T06:18:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles CA The Full Disclosure Network® once again brings "the news behind the news" covering the on going drama unfolding in the L. A. County Jail. Here is a video report of a 911 call for help from prominent Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I Fine who has been confined in the L A County Men's Central Jail, in isolation, since March 4, 2009 following his Superior Court contempt of court hearing in Department 86. Judge David Yaffe ordered Fine to turn over all of his personal financial records and until he did so would be incarcerated without bail, without at release date and without a scheduled hearing, making the term of his sentence, indefinite. Watch and listen here

The contempt sentence imposed by Superior Court Judge David Yaffe followed a request made by Richard Fine, representing him self "in pro per" that Judge Yaffe disqualify himself from hearing the case due to the fact the Judge had received unconstitutional payments from the County of Los Angeles that was party to the case (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles).

IN PRO PER RIGHTS: In the telephone recorded conversation, Fine describes to Full Disclosure the conditions where he was being held and that he was being denied his Constitutional right to represent himself and even access to paper and pencil, thus preventing him from filing an “IN PRO PER” writ of Habeas Corpus in Federal Court that could possibly free him and provide him an opportunity to fight what he calls "Judicial Corruption".

Details of the contempt hearing and arrest of Richard I. Fine can be found here on this webpage.

A one hour exclusive Full Disclosure® videotaped interview featuring Attorney Fine prior to his incarceration along with government opposition supporting his incarceration and disbarment is to be released to 40 cable systems and on the Internet.

GANGS, LA CITY COUNCIL POLITICS & ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

2009-03-13T06:19:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a seven minute preview video featuring Part 4 and 5 from an on going series on Gangs and how local government deals with the growing threat of violence in the their community.

This Part 4 and 5 of the series features:

KEVIN JAMES, Former U.S. Prosecutor. Radio Talk Show Host Week Nights 9-11 p.m. KRLA 870 AM Los Angeles
DARYL GATES, Former Los Angeles Police Chief
JACK WEISS, Los Angeles City Councilman
REV. JEFF CARR, L.A. Deputy Mayor and Gang Czar

Here are some the points covered in the six segments of the series:

L A City Council Public Safety Committee held a hearing to consider a resolution to reform LAPD Police “Special Order 40” because due to concerns it was protecting illegal alien gang members.
Councilmember Jack Weiss is accused of bias due to the long delay to hold a hearing and the inequity in allotting time to citizens speaking.
Protesters intimidate the Councilmember Ed Reyes who was expected to support the motion of Councilmember Zine
Hearing is dubbed a “charade” when the council committee fails to take a vote.
Fearful of retaliation by gang supporters, two days after the hearing, Council passes resolution praising the gang supporters who testified at the hearing.

The Full Disclosure Network® Gang series continues with the next episodes number 6 and 7 will feature former LAPD Chief who explains the history and intent of enacting SPECIAL ORDER 40 regarding police policy on illegal immigrants. The full programs appear on 40 cable channels and are available on DVD from http://www.fulldisclosure.net/

Jailed Attorney Speaks Out On Judges, Corruption, Circumstances

2009-03-08T22:32:00.000-07:00

RICHARD I. FINE
Attorney at Law

EXCERPTS FROM FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK®
Interview With Leslie Dutton On March 3, 2009

LESLIE: You've been up against some formidable challenges. But none quite like the one that's facing you today. Would you say that tomorrow's (contempt hearing before Judge David Yaffe) is -- how would you compare that to all of the challenges you've had before this?

RICHARD FINE: Well, tomorrow's hearing is interesting because the challenges that I've had before are basically challenges that we can say work within a functioning system. And when I was getting all of this money back and so forth, I was dealing with a system that was functional. I mean, you have a case, you go into a court; it either gets settled, you win it or you lose it, and you're dealing with a system that has integrity. Tomorrow's case, or the case that we have now, is dealing with a dysfunctional system because of the fact that this is now pure politics and retaliation. We are dealing now with a judge who took money from the County of Los Angeles, who then made an order that I should pay money to the County of Los Angeles, holds me in contempt for refusing to answer questions about my personal assets to force me to pay that money, and now wants to send me to jail because I'm in contempt for not obeying his illegal order, which was illegal because he took illegal money from the County. We're dealing with a dysfunctional system and a judge that is dealing with political retaliation. So we're not dealing in a justice system anymore. We're dealing with what some people would call a third-world country; we're dealing with all the things that America condemns about other countries. That is what we have in this courtroom tomorrow. So I wouldn't say that it's really a comparison. We aren't dealing in a system that this country was set up to operate.

LESLIE Tomorrow when you go into court, Judge Yaffe is going to make a -- he's going to give you a sentence; is that it? He's already found you in contempt?

RICHARD FINE: Yes. He's -- he's found me in contempt for refusing to answer questions from a commissioner about an illegal order that he has made. And he wants to sentence me to jail until I answer those questions. Now, I have gone to the Court of Appeal with what is known as a writ of habeas corpus, which means "bring in the body," and I have asked the Court of Appeal to enter a stay stopping Judge Yaffee from doing anything. I haven't heard yet, as of day, whether they've entered that stay or not. If they enter the stay, Judge Yaffee is dead in his tracks. If they don't enter the stay, then I'll go into the California Supreme Court, and if the California Supreme Court doesn't enter the stay, then I'll go into the United States District Court. Sooner or later, I will win. Whether I win before he sends me to jail, I don't know. But that -- that is what we are dealing with.

LESLIE Tell us how this all started.

RICHARD FINE: Well, this -- this all started in a very innocent type of way. It started back in 1999, and in 1999, I brought a lawsuit called John Silva vs. Garcetti -- Gil Garcetti, Los Angeles District Attorney. And that lawsuit was based upon the fact that John Silva had paid money as part of his divorce -- child support money. And child support money was being paid into the County of Los Angeles because the County of Los Angeles, as you know, collects child support money. Now, what we found out is that he had paid his child support money in, but the child support money wasn't going to his wife. The County was not distributing it. And the County wasn't distributing about $14 million of child support money. What the County was doing is, the County was taking this money in and it was holding it. Now, there's a law that says that the County must distribute the child support money within six months or give it back to the father. And they will only give it back to the father if they can't find the wife or the children. Now, in John's case, he knew where his wife was, and he knew where the children were, because his wife was friendly. You know, he was giving the money to the County support system; the County wasn't giving it to his wife. His wife knew that the money was going in, so she was cooperating with us, and we found out that all these other women and children were not getting their money.

So I sued the County to have this money distributed. The County answered and told me how much money was there, where the accounts were. All they had to do was distribute it. They were refusing to do it. I went into court, and we got to the end of the trial. The County moved to dismiss, and the judge dismissed the case. And I was astounded. And I went up into the appeal, and after the trial was over and before I filed my first brief, I found out that the judge, Judge James C. Chalfant, had received money from the County of Los Angeles. That's how it started. That was one case.

The second case that it started out with was the case that I mentioned earlier about the County of Los Angeles taking money from the environmental fees, and in that case -- that was a case called Amjadi and Lacaoehs vs the Board of Supervisors of County of Los Angeles. And I was brought into that case to get that money out of the general fund of the County of Los Angeles and into a special fund. And I won that. I got the case, you know, got the special fund established. I got $11 million that they still had in the general fund put into the special fund. I got the fees frozen for three years until that $11 million was used up, and then when it came time to get the attorneys fees, Judge Kurt Lewin, who was the judge in the case, refused to award the attorneys fees, saying that I was representing a County union, and unions shouldn't sue the County. And in addition to that, that unions were always in negotiations with the County for wages. And therefore what the union was really doing had really brought the case, not to help the public, but really for its own benefit. Well, I also found out that Judge Lewin was getting money from the County. And to pay the attorneys fees, the attorneys fees would be coming out of these funds, which was County funds.

LESLIE When you talk about these judges getting money from the County, how is it that money is coming to them? For what purpose? Under what..?

RICHARD FINE: Okay. What -- the -- to answer your question, the way that the money comes from the County to the judges is that every year, the County, as part of its budget, under what is known as Trial Court Funding -- if you look in the budget, you'll actually see this under Trial Court Funding, you will see money going to the judges, and that money in this particular year is approximately $20 million, or $46,370-some-odd per judge. Now, how it started was, back in 1988, the County of Los Angeles, decided, through its Board of Supervisors, that they wanted to pay judges -- and these are their -- somewhat their exact words -- to attract and retain qualified judges and qualified candidates to sit as judges in this -- meaning LA -- County. And that was their reason. Now, they knew -- and we actually -- I actually have a copy of the document -- they knew at that point in time that they couldn't do this. They knew that to do this was illegal because under the California Constitution, under what is known as Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution, only the State legislature could prescribe the compensation of the judges.
[Edit]

RICHARD FINE: There's a document in November of 1988 which was written by the -- at that point, the County Counsel to Frank Zolin who was the Clerk of the Courts, and it actually went from the County Counsel to the Clerk of the Courts, explaining these things. So the L.A. Superior Court actually got this document. In that document, it said that the Attorney General had given the opinion that this could not be done, and so what the County Counsel tried to rationalize is, he said, "Well, this part of the Constitution really only meant salaries and it didn't mean compensation," so they're gonna try and get around it in that way. They knew they were doing wrong. They also knew that the Attorney General had given opinions that you couldn't pay this money as part of a statute as compensation for judges. So they knew right then and there that what they were doing was wrong. The other thing that they knew is that if you're giving the money to attract people as candidates for judges, judges are elected officials -- they're State elected officials under the California Constitution. We vote for a Superior Court judge every six years. So if you're going to be giving money to a judge to attract him to be a candidate, you'd be giving money to his political campaign, and that would be a gift of public money to a private individual, and that would be a violation of Article 16, Section 6 of the California Constitution.

LESLIE How much was this money that they were giving them?

RICHARD FINE: It turns out that at that point in time they were giving them about 27 percent of their salary, and back in '88 I'm not sure what the salary was, but it was probably, maybe around $20,000-some a year. Now it's doubled to $46,000 a year.

LESLIE So would they be able to give that kind of money as a campaign contribution?

RICHARD FINE: As a campaign contribution in 1988, they wouldn't have been able to give that amount of money to a judge because the campaign contribution limits the State to $1,000 per candidate.

LESLIE So would you say, then, that basically the County was buying judges?

RICHARD FINE: The bottom line of it is yes, because the only reason that the County could be giving this money -- the only underlying reason -- is that the County had -- had cases in front of these judges. The County is a major litigant in the California courts, and it's the same thing as if Tony -- the fictional Tony Soprano had been giving money to the judges. In fact, the County has an average, as far as normal cases are concerned -- when I say "normal," that's excluding child custody cases, that's excluding criminal cases -- just taking your regular cases. The County has about 700-800 new cases a year in the Superior Court. So when the County is giving this money, the underlying thought, in my opinion, is that the County wanted to influence the judges to decide the cases in the County's favor. Now, this thought of mine actually came true because we have documents from the County Counsel to the Board of Supervisors that show that in the year 2005 and in the year 2006 and 2007, not one case that was decided by an L.A. Superior Court judge was decided against the County of Los Angeles. So basically nobody won in that period of time. And for the year 2008 -- 2007, 2008, in that fiscal year, the documents are a little bit more vague, and possibly two cases were decided by a judge against the County of Los Angeles. But that was about the most. So that gives you the effect of the monies.

[Edit]

LESLIE Now, you made that statement, "That gives you from the beginning of the payments with respect to the payments," but you've only cited 2005, 2006, 2007. You don't know what the win/loss ratio was from 1988 to 2005?

RICHARD FINE: There -- there are no documents that I know of that tells me the win and loss ratio from the years in between, because the only documents that I have been able to pick up are the ones that started in 2005. Now, the County may have internal documents that were not published or that have not been made public that might have -- might tell us what's happened in the previous years. And I don't know if the court is keeping internal documents as to what has happened on the various cases. Somebody actually -- if somebody wanted to go in and do the survey, you could go into the court system and take every case where the County of Los Angeles is named as a defendant and then go in and look to see what happened in the cases and whether it was a judge decision or a jury decision. That would be a fairly large project, but one could do that. And because you're looking at from 1988 to, say, 2005, you're looking at approximately 17 years of cases, and 700, you know, cases per year. So you're looking at maybe 13,000-some-odd cases. It would take a little bit of time for someone to do the survey and dig up the records. But you could actually find out the exact number.

LESLIE Now, you have given us the background of why you're coming into this hearing tomorrow. It's basically because of the predicament that the judges are in. What happened, legislatively, at the State level to change the future for the judges?

RICHARD FINE: Well, what happened at the State level is very interesting, and this is somewhat involved with the State Bar proceeding against me also. On February 1st -- and it actually was e-mailed in on February 2nd -- I filed a Federal complaint against the L.A. Superior Court judges, in particular Judge Yaffee, who is involved in tomorrow's hearing, uh, Judge Brugara (ph), who is the judge that dismissed the cases regarding Marina del Rey where we, the people in the County of Los Angeles have lost approximately $1 billion of income from the developers in Marina del Rey that should have come to the County, and against Supervisors Antonovich, Knabe and Molina, who voted in favor of the development of the Del Rey Shores project here in Marina del Rey, while receiving contributions from the developer, Jerry Epstein, within a 12-month period of time. And then also against the State Bar judge, Richard A. Hahn, who made the decision recommending that I be disbarred, while in fact he sat on the Board of Governors of the Special Olympics of Southern California that had received $30,000 in contributions from L.A. County. So that was -- and I filed this complaint with the Justice Department on February 2nd of 2009. I gave a copy of that complaint, as part of my State Bar case, to the California Supreme Court, on February 2nd.

On February 11th, the Judicial Council--- Senator Stein- -- President Pro Tem of the State Senate, Darryl Steinberg, introduced a bill called Senate Bill SBX 211 into the State Senate, which stated that all the judges and all the government officials and all the governments that were involved with any activity of judges receiving money from counties received immunity from civil liability, criminal prosecution, and disciplinary action.

LESLIE Now, why haven't we heard anything about this?

RICHARD FINE: Well, let me just trace it -- before we get to that, let me just trace how this came about so you understand the whole story. The next thing that happened is that the -- this -- my complaint -- it is my belief, and I think I'm correct in this -- went from the California Supreme Court to the California Judicial Council, because the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court is the Chairman of the Judicial Council. The bill that I just mentioned, according to its legislative history, came from the California Courts Administrative Office. The Court Administrative Office is located in the Judicial Council. So it was written in the Judicial Council. It went from the Judicial Council to Darryl Steinberg's office. It was voted on by the State Senate three days later -- February 14th -- and passed. It was passed by the State Assembly one day after that, February 15th, and it was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger as part of the budget package on February 20th. And that answers your question as to why you didn't hear about it, because it came up as part of the budget package, and as part of the budget package, every -- all the news media and everything else were basically looking on the fact that there's a budget that was passed, and nobody looked at the fact that they had sneaked through this bill that gives these judges immunity. And also the bill says that even though the previous payments are illegal because there was a case called the case of Sturgeon vs. the County of Los Angeles, that held that the payments to the judges are unconstitutional, and the bill recognizes this, and then the bill says, "Well, future payments can be made from the County." So what happened is that the bill admits that the payments were illegal, gives the judges and these other people immunity for their actions of having received the payments, the supervisors the immunity for having given the payments, and immunity for everything that occurred with respect to these payments.

Now, to take this a step further, the effect of this is that every Superior Court Judge in every county in Los Angeles, with the exception of San Francisco County, Yono County, and Mendocino County, has received these payments. So all of these judges are tainted. Every Court of Appeal Justice who had previously been a Superior Court Judge has now been given immunity for all of their actions as being Superior Court Judges, so they are tainted. On the California Supreme Court, you have the Justice Corrigan, who was a former Alameda Superior Court Judge, Justice Chin, who was a former Alameda Superior Court Judge, and one other justice whose name slips my mind, who is a former -- Moreno, I believe it is -- who is a former Los Angeles Superior Court judge. All of them are tainted because of these payments.

LESLIE Are we talking about Moreno on the Supreme Court?

RICHARD FINE: Yes. The last three men -- people that I mentioned are justices -- Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court. So three of the seven Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court are tainted. You then had the tainting going to the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Justice George, who's the Chairman of the Judicial Council, who wrote the bill, and Justice Baxter, who is the -- the Chairman of the Committee of the Judicial Council that wrote the bill. So we end up with five of the justices of the California Supreme Court who are tainted. Now, you ask why are these people tainted? Because another thing that happened is that this bill is personal to the judges. This bill is not helping the judicial system of California. This bill says that all of these judges can continue getting the money which is personal to them because the money goes from the County to the Judge. It doesn't pass through the State of California. It's personal money going from the County to the Judge, and it gives immunity, personal immunity, to all of these people. So what the judicial council did is, the Judicial Council took our public money and wrote a bill for the personal benefit of these individuals. Then the Judicial Council spent public money on its lobbyist to go in and lobby for this bill. So you have the tainting of these two supreme court justices. So effective five out of the seven supreme court justices at this point in time are tainted by this action. And the result of this is that by legislation -- and I repeat, by legislation, the California Judicial System has been legislated to have been corrupt and to have committed illegal acts and to have been given immunity for the commission of those illegal acts.

LESLIE Wow! So the legislature itself has basically condemned them as guilty?

RICHARD FINE: Absolutely. They condemned them as being guilty by one, say, that the payments were unconstitutional, and by affirming the decision of -- the Sturgeon (vs L.A. County Board of Supervisors) decision. And then by going through and taking the second step and giving them immunity.

LESLIE Now, when you say "immunity," are we talking about retroactive?

RICHARD FINE: Retroactive immunity. The immunity is retroactive all the way up to the -- as it says in the bill, the effective date of the bill. And the effective date of the passage of the bill was February 20, 2009. However, that brings us to a new problem: And that means that these judges who are sitting in office today are still biased, because the money that they got up to February 20th from these counties is biasing them for any decision that they make on February 21st. So basically every judge that is dealing with a decision of a county, on February 21st, is being influenced by the money that he got or she got on February 19th. So we do not have an unbiased judiciary in the State of California at the present time, with the exception of the judges who did not receive the money, which you --

LESLIE Are there any?

RICHARD FINE: Yes. Once again, that's Yolo County, Mendocino County, and San Francisco County, and any judge that might be sitting on the California Supreme Court or on the Court of Appeal that did not receive this money. That is what -- that is what is left in the California judicial system at the present time.

LESLIE Let me ask you: Do you believe that the individual judges are aware of what they've been doing is illegal?

RICHARD FINE: Absolutely. There's no question that they knew that it was illegal. These people aren't like you or I, you know, that are unaware of the law. These are judges. These are people that are supposed to uphold the law. They have a code of judicial ethics that makes them liable and makes them aware that they have to uphold the integrity of the court. They have to obey the laws of the California. They have taken an oath to obey the law of the State of California. They have taken an oath to obey the law -- the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws of the United States of America. And under Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, they are bound to obey the law, the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States. There is no question whatsoever that they knew that they were taking illegal money. None whatsoever. They knew the California Constitution; they knew that the Constitution said that only the State could prescribe their compensation; they knew that they're State-elected officials; they knew that they're State employees; they knew that they weren't working for the County; and they knew that this money was illegal. And they took it. No way that they can get around that. And that's why I filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, because they violated the Federal law of what is called the implied or intangible right to honest services, and that's 18 United States Code, Section 46, because the case law that holds is that when a judge takes money from an individual -- or even a government -- and then does not disclose it, he violates that particular code section. And he violates it by the fact that he is not giving honest services to his employer, which is We the People, or the State of California. And he's not giving those honest services because we're paying him a salary to go in and do his job as a judge. And what the judge is doing is, the judge is taking money from another source to do the job, and the judge is not disclosing it, because none of these judges have disclosed this money on what is called their Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest, which requires them to disclose any income from another source. And they -- they wouldn't have to disclose the income if it came from the County for expenses to go to a convention or something else. But because this is compensation that they're getting, they had to disclose it. They didn't disclose it. And I had called the Political Reform Commission -- the Fair Commission on Political Reform, and I asked them about this and they said, "No, nobody's disclosing it." And then I checked on these judges. I checked on Yaffee. He didn't disclose it. And I checked on -- you look on the Form 700 on any Supreme -- and of the three Supreme Court judges -- justices. They didn't disclose it.

So none of these judges are disclosing this income. So consequently, they're violating the Political Reform Act, they're violating the Federal law of the implied or intangible right to honest services. And by doing that, they are sitting in another position. They're violators. They're violating a criminal law. Now, that is a reason why the legislature gave them immunity. It's the reason why the Judicial Council wrote that immunity in -- because the Judicial Council knew that they couldn't save them from the Federal law violations, but at least they could save them from the State law violations.

LESLIE Well, let me ask you -- I mean, this is just astounding. It's -- it's just astounding. How can our government possibly deal with this when it's so widespread?

RICHARD FINE: Oh, it's very simple. I mean, it's just like dealing with a single judge that took a bribe. Back in -- and I'll give you the precedent for it. Back in the 1970s, you had a number of judges getting involved in doing illegal activities in Illinois, and it was called the Graylord Cases. I think it might have been 30 or 40 judges. I don't remember the exact number. Government came in, they prosecuted the judges, got the judges out. So here we're dealing with maybe 1600 or 1700 judges. You know, the number doesn't really make that much difference, you know. It's the same violation. The legislature has already said that the violation occurs, so you go in and just prosecute the people.

LESLIE Now let me ask you: You mentioned the Graylord Case, I guess. Tell me, what type of bribery were those judges getting? Were they getting being bribed by government officials?

RICHARD FINE: The bribery there, I think, was -- I think it was private, you know, private individuals. But here the analogy exists because the County of Los Angeles, as far as being a party to a lawsuit, is the same as you or I. You know, just because they're the County of Los Angeles, it doesn't make them any different from you or I, because the employer of the judges is the State of California. And this is where a lot of people seem to get confused. They seem to think that because it is the County, that the County seems to have some sort of a right to be able to pay the judges. The County doesn't have any more right to pay the judges than you or I, because when you look at the government of California, the government of California is the State. It is not the County. The State of California has three parts to it: It has the executive, which is the governor and the governor's office; it has the legislative, which is the State Senate and the State Assembly; and it has the judicial branch, which are the courts, or is the courts, depending upon how you want to look at it, as one thing or lots of courts. Those are the three branches of the State government.

The County of Los Angeles is a subdivision. It is an independent entity, and it is not a governing branch of the State. So consequently, when the County comes into court, it comes in in the same way that you or I come into court. When you sue the State of California, you are suing the State of California with its permission to be sued because it's part of the government that you're suing. When you're suing the County of Los Angeles, you're suing it with its permission as a county, but you're suing it in a court that is run by the State, because the County of Los Angeles doesn't have any courts. We don't have any county courts anymore. There isn't the county judicial system that is existing.

LESLIE Didn't we have at one time?

RICHARD FINE: At one time we had a municipal court system that was existing, but all that has been unified into a State court system at the present time. So everything now is under the State, and so the County does not have any rights with respect to anything in the State system. And in fact as a litigant, the County never did have any rights greater than you or I.

LESLIE Let me ask you: You've described the judges and their illegal actions -- their knowingly illegal actions. What about the County? Who instructs the County? Are the supervisors liable?

RICHARD FINE: The immunity-- the answer to that question is yes. According to -- interestingly enough, according to the immunity that was given, the immunity goes to the government entity, which the immunity goes to the County, and the immunity goes to the government employees and government officials. So the immunity actually went to the County and it went to the Supervisors.

LESLIE Is that possible that they could get away with this?

RICHARD FINE: Well, the -- the answer is yes. They -- they have gotten away with it. Now, there might be some questions as to whether, under the United States Constitution, you can grant immunity, you know, for past -- whether a State can grant immunity for past acts. But the State is only granting immunity under the State's powers. Remember, this immunity is not going to the -- any United States law. It is only dealing within the State. So what we still have -- and I'm gonna jump a subject here with you -- is that you as a litigant still have your rights, your First Amendment rights to petition the government to redress grievances is still existing, and in fact that right has been infringed upon. And your 14th Amendment right to due process has been infringed upon.

So if I can take you one step further in saying what can be done? Every case in which one of these judges has ruled against you, as an individual, or you had a problem with the County, can now actually be overturned, because of the fact that they've legislated this immunity and they've given them the immunity for this bad act or for this illegal act. We have what is known as a writ of quorum nobis. And the writ of quorum nobis says that if there's a new fact that has come in to show that what's happened with the case, you can now come in and say, "Look, I want my case overruled and I want my case redone." So that is a side effect of this legislation. For every person that had a case that went bad under one of these judges, come in on the writ of quorum nobis and ask to have the case re-heard. That's one of the things that can take place.

LESLIE And that's a case that involved the County?

RICHARD FINE: That is a case that involved the County. Now, to give you an idea of how wide that can be, that can deal with eminent domain, that could deal with any kind of a homeowner case, that could deal with child custody cases. If a county was involved in any type of a custody case or any type of a case with children or Childrens Services, and the County paid the Childrens Services Department or if the County gets involved with support payments, or if the County gets involved in a divorce case and suddenly the County's brought in as part of the child custody with respect to an evaluation or something and the judge is following that, you can get that case overturned because the judge could be biased in looking at what the County did in deciding the custody situation. So you have all of these cases that can go in and get overturned at this particular point in time.

LESLIE Let me ask you: You've been dealing with this for some time now, and I know you're always thinking ahead of what could happen. You're prepared for the hearing tomorrow. You've taken action here to try to head it off -- your being incarcerated, if you possibly can. But what if -- what if you're successful with your Federal complaint? How does this situation get reconciled? You said 1600 judges could be prosecuted. What would that mean?

RICHARD FINE: It's very simple because when you get down to the bottom line of things, solutions are very, very simple. Let's assume that 1600 judges are prosecuted. These 1600 judges either resign or they get impeached. Now, let's assume that they don't resign and they try and stay in office, and let's assume that the state legislature doesn't impeach them. So you now have 1600 judges who are under indictment who stay in office. Every one of these judges is going to come up for re-election because the judges come up for re-election every six years. So they are rotating into re-election as of now. One thing that the public does: The public looks at the judge who's sitting in office, the public sees the judge is sitting in office -- votes him out. So what would happen is that the only thing that would keep an illegal judge in is public apathy. Real simple. If the public is so lazy that they're going to let a judge who they know has taken bribes stay in office, then that judge is gonna stay in office. If the public decides, "Look, we don't want someone that's taken illegal money to be in office," they'll vote 'em out. That would take from now until six years from now dealing with any judge that got elected during the last election. So that would take you six years.

A more pro-active thing that could happen is that the legislature could go in and pass a bill saying that we want to have an emergency election, and every judge that has received money across the entire California system -- Superior Court judges, Appellate Court judges who are elected every 12 years, and California Supreme Court judges, who are elected every 12 years -- are now up for re-election. We could do that within 30 days. Because you have Superior Court judges. Anyone can run for office. On California's Appellate Court judges, you vote 'em "Yes" or "No." There's only one person on the ballot. So the guy's name is on the ballot. You either vote "Yes" to keep him or you vote "No" to get rid of him. California Supreme Court judge, exactly the same thing. "Yes" to keep 'em, "No" to get rid of 'em.

That would clean up the system. It would actually clean up that system within a 30-day period of time. Then what would take place as far as all the Superior Court judges are concerned, the 1600, you would have new Superior Court judges that would be elected, and the only thing that you have left is, you would have the Court of Appeal justices and the Supreme Court justices where new appointments would have to be made. And those appointments would be sitting until the next election, normal election for that office. Now, the appointments would be made by the governor. The governor now has a problem because the governor isn't going to be able to appoint anyone who had received this money. They wouldn't be able to pass the scrutiny. So we would end up getting new Supreme Court justices who did not receive the money, and we would be getting Court of Appeal justices who did not receive the money. And we'd have a clean system.

LESLIE Well, you are definitely doing what it takes to bring this to a head, but even almost -- what -- two, three weeks after this momentous bill passed giving the judges immunity, admitting that they're criminals and giving them immunity, nobody knows about it. Is the news media complicit in this?

RICHARD FINE: I think it's beginning to get to the news media now. I think what happened is that, number one, the news media first of all probably didn't understand it. That's probably the first thing. And second of all, by not understanding it, they didn't pick up on it. Now that it is beginning to get out, the media will start picking up on it and I have a very firm belief in the American news media. It's like -- it's the pack method. Once it begins to get out, then the media will pick up on it because once one person starts publishing it, then the rest will publish it because they don't want to be behind it. Whether they were complicit or not, I don't know. I personally do not believe in conspiracy theories. And I don't believe in conspiracy theories because of the fact, first of all, it is very difficult to maintain a good conspiracy over a long period of time. Self-interest will destroy any conspiracy over any extensive period of time. And second of all, I believe in the stupid theory, and that is that most people are just too dumb to be able to maintain a conspiracy. I mean, what you really have is, you have mistakes more than you have conspiracies. To put together a good conspiracy really takes a lot of effort, and I'll give you the example of OPEC.

There's no question OPEC is a conspiracy. None whatsoever. But the OPEC members cheat on each other every day of the week, so the only thing that keeps the OPEC crisis going is not the OPEC members. They go out and set their prices in Vienna all the time. They then cheat on their prices, and the only people that are keeping their prices going is the buyers. It's the fact that the buyers are willing to pay their prices that's keeping OPEC going. It's not the fact that the OPEC people are setting the prices and adhering to them. They're cheating on themselves. It's the fact that you've got Mobil and Exxon and these other people that are going in there, that are willing to pay the prices, that will keep the conspiracy going. And so it takes two types of people in order to keep a conspiracy going. It takes one, the people to be able to put the thing together; and second of all, it takes the second group of people to be able to go along with it. And so therefore, I don't think there is a, you know, a, quote "media conspiracy." There might -- you know, you might have a certain amount of perceived fear, and I think that this exists in a lot of places. I think people perceive a fear and therefore are unwilling to do things. You'll -- you can call it self-restraint, which is a nice way of putting it.

[Edit]

Attorney Jailed In Attempt to Disqualify L.A. Judge For Taking Bribes

2009-03-04T21:37:00.001-08:00

Richard I. Fine

Attorney At Law

Los Angeles, CA On Wednesday, March 4, 2009 the Full Disclosure Network attended a Los Angeles Superior Court Contempt hearing in Judge David Yaffe's Department 86 courtroom where he sentenced prominent Anti-Trust attorney Richard I. Fine to county jail indefinitely, until such time as he provides to the Judge his personal financial information. Judge Yaffe's actions came after attorney Fine pointed out the Judge had taken illegal money from an interested party in the case.

TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
Immediately following the sentencing an entourage of ten or more Sheriff Deputies and Court personnel surrounded the slightly built, grandfatherly 69 year old attorney and placed him in handcuffs. Fine who was dressed in a charcoal grey suit, white dress shirt and red bow tie, readily cooperated and did not appear to be a flight risk. However, the Court was taking no chances as the procession led down the halls of the Los Angeles County Court House to the prisoners exit where the Sheriff's Department provide transportation to the jail.

DEVELOPERS VS HOMEOWNERS
The hearing involved the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles and was prompted by attorneys representing the Del Rey Shores Development who sought to collect legal fees awarded to them. Richard Fine challenged the credentials of the Debtor Court Referee and Judge Yaffe who he claimed had been receiving illegal payments, estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from the County Board of Supervisors since 1988. The attorneys for the developer asked Judge Yaffe to order Fine to take down his website from the Internet, the request was denied.

EXCLUSIVE TELEVISION INTERVIEW
One day prior to the com tempt hearing, Full Disclosure conducted a one hour exclusive interview with Richard Fine who warned of the possibility that Yaffe would likely commit another illegal act by refusing to disqualify himself from conducting the hearing and that any ruling would be illegal as well. In fact during the hearing Fine admonished the Judge his participation would only continue the criminal activity. The Full Disclosure interview is to be shown on 40 cable systems and the Internet in April 2009. A transcript of the entire hearing will be posted on the Full Disclosure Network website soon.

DISTINGUISHED LEGAL CAREER
This extraordinary judicial action of ordering the indefinite incarceration of such a prominent attorney whose long and distinguished career included service in the U. S. Department of Justice in Washington D. C. followed an intensive exchange where attorney Fine objected to Judge Yaffe's failure to disqualify himself. According to Richard Fine, Judge Yaffe along with all of the Los Angeles County judges have each been accepting up to hundreds of thousands of illegal dollars from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, that is specifically prohibited by the California Constitution and the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
The fact that the Judge insisted on hearing the matter, which involved the County of Los Angeles, was challenged by Fine in a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed with the California Supreme Court just moments before the hearing. Fine pleaded unsuccessfully to the Judge to delay sentencing till both the State and Federal courts had an opportunity to consider his requests for re-hearing.

JUDGES CRIMINAL ACTS FORGIVEN BY LEGISLATURE?
In concluding his argument before Judge Yaffee's ruling, Richard Fine noted on the record that the California Legislature, the Governor and Judicial Council, all have admitted and recognized the illegal and criminal acts committed by Judge Yaffe and all Los Angeles Superior Court Judges and Supervisors when the Governor signed into law the State Budget legislation this February. Inserted into the budget bill was a provision granting Judges and elected officials immunity for illegal acts specifically prohibited by the State Constitution.

$24 Million L A Gang Program to Bring Redemption?

2009-02-11T22:54:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® is releasing the first three parts of an on-going Cable TV Series exposé on the failures and successes of gang prevention programs across the nation starting with the City of Los Angeles. Full Disclosure host Leslie Dutton interviews major players in previous L.A. Gang Wars and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's new "Gang Czar", L.A. Deputy Mayor Rev. Jeff Carr, who is implementing the Mayor's new gang strategy, a $24 million Program called "The Gang Reduction and Youth Development Program".

Featured in this 10 minute preview are the following experts:

L.A. Deputy Mayor and "Gang Czar", Rev. Jeff Carr, who is planning to augment the current gang suppression effort by law enforcement with Mayor Villaraigosa's two prong strategy, prevention and intervention using "gang members can be redeemed."

* Sgt. Richard Valdemar, a 32-year veteran of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and an International Gang specialist, who predicts that "the use of gang members to intervene during gang violence will not work."

* David R. Hernandez, a long time Los Angeles civic activist, who says, "The City is either ignoring or concealing the all out race war between local gangs."

WHAT STRATEGY WORKS AND DOES'NT
This preview contains video clips from the first of three parts in the new series. Viewers will learn what strategy works and what doesn't when dealing with vicious gang members who commit heinous crimes. You can watch the first three installments of this series on your local cable television by checking our channel listing on the website. Or you can purchase a three-set DVD from Full Disclosure.

UPDATE: Missing Millions, A T & T , PEG Cable-Video Channels

2009-02-05T16:46:00.000-08:00

DAVID R. HERNANDEZ

President Los Angeles Public Access Coalition

www.savepublicaccess.wordpress.com

Los Angeles CA The Los Angeles Public Access Coalition members who attended the February 3, 2009 City Council meeting are reporting the closed session resulted in a unanimous vote to delay legal action against A T & T for thirty days, while negotiations continue regarding delivery of City Public Educational and Government (PEG) channels.

MISSING FUNDS NOT ALWAYS LOCATED?:
The missing AT &T Franchise Fees, reported by Full Disclosure Network last week, have been located, according to the Information & Technology Agency. The funds had been transferred to the wrong city account but have purportedly been located. A recent City Controller audit of LA Government run channels 35 and 36 found reimbursment for production costs provided from proprietary agencies such as DWP, CRA, LAPD Commission, Harbor Dept. had "not always transferred" to the ITA account, with no mention of final disposition (see page 37 audit report)

VIDEO: MISSING MILLIONS IN FRANCHISE FEES?
Watch Video news report (six min) revealing public concern and distrust ABOUT City use of multi-millions in cable-video franchise fees.

PUBLIC CHANNELS MANDATED:
Franchise fees paid for 25 years to the City by cable operators are now collected from ATT, Verizon and other telecom companies who are competing for video delivery to consumers. Fees come from gross revenues collected from monthly subscribers paying for cable and video channels, that by law are to include public access (PEG) channels.

WHAT HAPPENED TO MULTI-MILLION$ CABLE & VIDEO OPERATOR FEES?

2009-02-01T18:00:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a video news report (six minutes) covering public testimony at a City Council Committee meeting on Information & Technology Agency held on Tuesday, January 27, 2009. The video reveals public concerns and distrust as to how the City has been using multi-millions in cable and video franchise fees. Among those testifying in the video at the public hearing are:

David R. Hernandez, President L.A. Public Access Coalition
Arlene Peck, Journalist- Public Access Producer

PUBLIC CHANNELS MANDATED: Multimillions of dollars in Franchise fees have been paid each year to the City by Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications and now ATT, Verizon and other telecom companies. The fees are from gross revenues from monthly subscribers who pay for an array of cable and video channels, that by law are supposed to include public access (PEG) channels.

COUNCIL TO SUE ATT ON PEG CHANNEL DELIVERY? The City Council Committee meeting on Information & Technology Agency has sent two measures to the full City Council to decide on Tuesday February 4, 2009. Here is report on committee action that recommends the Council abolish the board of Information Technology Commissioners and to file legal action against ATT (see report here) for non-compliance in providing DIVCA required public access video channels.

L.A. Budget & Finance Committee Scuttles Hearing on Public Cable Access Funding

2009-01-12T09:08:00.001-08:00

DAVID R. HERNANDEZ

http://www.savepublicaccess.wordpress.com/

Los Angeles, CA According to David R. Hernandez, president of the Los Angeles Public Access Coalition (LAPAC) the City Council Committee on Budget and Finance deliberately avoided a confrontation with the public when they failed to schedule a public hearing for this Monday, January 12th to consider funding for a designated public cable access channel.

EXTRAORDINARY MEDIA COVERAGE
It is believed the extraordinary publicity generated by the Los Angeles Times Patt Morrison column and front page coverage by Reed Johnson and Fox 11 News was responsible for the delay. ABC Nightline Special to air on Wedesday, Jan 14th 11:30 p.m.

COMMON CAUSE JOINS BATTLE
Hernandez announced on the LAPAC Blog today, that Common Cause has joined the battle to save public access and sent out a massive Email appeal to their members, nationwide, to facilitate Email letters to Attorney General Gerry Brown and City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo to seek injunctive relief under the Business and Professions Code 17200 Section 3 (Unfair Business Practices)against Time Warner Cable for loss of 12 channels and studios.

VIDEO APPEAL FOR ACTION
Here is the Video News Blog, where Full Disclosure Network first revealed the eminent demise of “public access” cable television channels. Featuring L.A. City Councilman Bill Rosendahl with David Hernandez, describing the 2007 (DIVCA) legislation that enabled the Cities to take seize control of the public access TV.

L A Mayor's Gang Money Controlled By Anonymous Committee: Watch Video Here (11 min)

2009-01-07T08:59:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles, CA. According to a December 23, 2008 report written by Daniel Heimpel, Investigative Journalist in the L A Weekly publication L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa’s new gang prevention and intervention program is going to protect the identity of fifty individuals who will be deciding which non-profit gang organizations will get generous city grants for prevention and intervention activities, only in the high violence areas of the City.

WATCH VIDEO HERE
The Full Disclosure Network® presents an eleven minute exclusive video news blog revealing how approximately $24 million taxpayer dollars will be doled out to groups that have both gang members and former gang members on their staffs. The area targeted is the high violence areas of the city, according to the City's new Gang Czar. When told that the committee selecting the gang organizations to receive grants was going to remain anonymous Heimpel described the plan as "fishy".

Appearing in the video:

Rev. Jeff Carr, Gang Czar and Los Angeles Deputy Mayor

Daniel Heimpel, L A Weekly Investigative Journalist

Leslie Dutton, Host, Full Disclosure Network

REPORTER DEPICTS THE INTERVIEW
In the video Heimpel describes his interview with Rev. Jeff Carr and his response to the questions raised about the unusual procedures being used the Mayors office to select the grant recipients, which any effort toward providing transparency.

REDEEMED GANG MEMBERS
Rev. Carr describes the Mayor’s gang program and the prevention and intervention strategies and reassures Full Disclosure that the young adults working in the program would include persons who have been incarcerated but who have been redeemed.

Ed Asner Attacks Progressive LA City Council on Public Access Demise

2009-01-02T08:32:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles CA Full Disclosure Network® presents a nine minute video news blog with Ed Asner who appears to attack the "progressive" members of the Los Angeles City Council and challenges them to stop the neglect of the public cable access television channels and to start funding the facilities here in the heart of the media world and Hollywood California. Asner, was especially critical of the City's practice of diverting the vast majority of $25 million in annual cable franchise fees, paid by the cable operators, into the city's general fund rather than supporting the public access channels, as it was intended

FORMIDABLE FORCES FIGHT DEMISE
Ed Asner is considered one of the most prominent activist actors of his time. He has emerged as the second political powerhouse to voice concern about government actions that would destroy America's public access cable television system, joining Stanley Sheinbaum, the former UC Regent and President of the L A Police Commission who has been waging a campaign to convince the California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, to file for injunctive relief to stop the closing of the Time Warner Cable public access channels in Los Angeles.

CITY FAILS TO PROTECT PUBLIC CHANNELS
Without opposition from the Mayor or the City Council of Los Angeles, Time Warner Cable has shut down public access cable channels in I.A. as of January 1, 2009. The City has failed to designate or provide for even one public access channel to fill the void, while approving a plan to retain four government controlled public cable channels.

PROGRESSIVE COUNCIL ACUSED OF KILLING FREE SPEECH
Asner, who won seven Emmy awards for his “Lou Grant” TV series focusing on the news gathering and reporting operations, tells Full Disclosure of his concern that the “Progressive" members of the L. A. City Council have lost their way and forgotten about the importance of free expression and the public's right to public "venting" their issues of concern.