Full Disclosure Network® "the news behind the news"

The Fight Against Illegal Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption: Video 6 min

2009-11-14T11:27:00.001-08:00

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a special six minute “preview” covering the ten-part cable television series. The Video Reveals the on-going Court battle between Superior Court Judges, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Court Administrators, a prominent jailed anti-trust attorney and the Judicial Watch organization. The legal battle began when Richard I Fine challenged Superior Court Judges who had been receiving illegal payments from the County of Los Angeles and who did not disclose those payments on their Economic Disclosure Form 700 nor to the parties appearing before the judges in their court rooms in cases that involved the County of Los Angeles.

Appearing in the six minute video are:

Richard I Fine, who is serving an indefinite sentence in L.A. County Central Men’s Jail since March 4th, 2009 for attempting to disqualify Judge David Yaffe
Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch Attorney (Sturgeon vs. County of L.A.)
Paul Orphanedes, Judicial Watch Attorney (Sturgeon vs. County of L.A.)
Professor Emeritus Daniel Gottlieb, Purdue University (ret.)
Leslie Dutton, Full Disclosure host and moderator

Issues covered in this preview presentation of the complete series are:

Senate Bill SBX2 11, Legislation granting retroactive criminal and civil immunity to all California Judges, County Government and Court officials who participated in the illegal payment scheme, since 1988 to present.
L. A. County Sheriff Leroy Baca’s fight to prevent Full Disclosure Network’s access to interview jailed attorney Richard I Fine.
Richard I Fine’s incarceration in the L. A. County Jail

Chief Justice Ronald George Attacks California Intiative Process & Direct Democracy

2009-11-13T16:35:00.000-08:00

THE PERILS OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY: THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE

REMARKS AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY: CHIEF JUSTICE RONALD M. GEORGE
INDUCTION CEREMONY AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCES
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
OCTOBER 10, 2009

It is an honor to speak as a representative of the new class of Academy members. I would like to share some thoughts with you on a matter that has been of recent and continued professional concern to me, but that I believe may be of general interest to members of the Academy, because it fundamentally implicates how we govern ourselves. This is the increasing use of the ballot Initiative process available in many states to effect constitutional and statutory changes in the law, especially in the structure and powers of government.

A not-too-subtle clue to my point of view is reflected in the caption I have chosen for these remarks — “The Perils of Direct Democracy: The California Experience.” Although two dozen states in our nation permit government by voter Initiative, in no other state is the practice as extreme as in California.

By the terms of its Constitution, California permits a relatively small number of petition signers — equal to at least 8% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election — to place before the voters a proposal to amend any aspect of our Constitution. (The figure is only 5% for a proposed non-constitutional statutory enactment.) If approved by a simple majority of those voting at the next election, the Initiative measure goes into effect on the following day.

The legislature (by two-thirds vote of each house) shares with the voters the power to place proposed constitutional amendments before the electorate. California, however, is unique among all American jurisdictions in prohibiting its legislature, without express voter approval, from amending or repealing even a statutory measure enacted by the voters, unless the Initiative measure itself specifically confers such authority upon the legislature.

The process for amending California’s Constitution thus is considerably easier than the amendment process embodied in the United States Constitution, under which an amendment may be proposed either by a vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress or by a convention called on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. It can be ratified only by the legislatures of (or by conventions held in) three-quarters of the states.

The relative ease with which the California Constitution can be amended is dramatically illustrated by the frequency with which this has occurred. Only 17 amendments to the United States Constitution (in addition to the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791) have been adopted since that document was ratified in 1788. In contrast, more than 500 amendments to the California Constitution have been adopted since ratification of California’s current Constitution in 1879.

Former United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was known to pride himself on carrying in his pocket a slender pamphlet containing the federal Constitution in its entirety. I certainly could not emulate that practice with California’s constitutional counterpart.

One Bar leader has observed: “California’s current constitution rivals India’s for being the longest and most convoluted in the world . . . . [W]ith the cumulative dross of past voter initiatives incorporated, [it] is a document that assures chaos.”

Initiatives have enshrined a myriad of provisions into California’s constitutional charter, including a prohibition on the use of gill nets and a measure regulating the confinement of barnyard fowl in coops. This last constitutional amendment was enacted on the same 2008 ballot that amended the state Constitution to override the California Supreme Court’s decision recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. Chickens gained valuable rights in California on the same day that gay men and lesbians lost them.

Perhaps most consequential in their impact on the ability of California state and local government to function are constitutional and statutory mandates and prohibitions — often at cross-purposes — limiting how elected officials may raise and spend revenue. California’s lawmakers, and the state itself, have been placed in a fiscal straitjacket by a steep two-thirds-vote requirement — imposed at the ballot box — for raising taxes. A similar supermajoritarian requirement governs passage of the state budget. This situation is compounded by voter Initiative measures that have imposed severe restrictions upon increases in the assessed value of real property that is subject to property tax, coupled with constitutional requirements of specified levels of financial support for public transportation and public schools.

These constraints upon elected officials — when combined with a lack of political will (on the part of some) to curb spending and (on the part of others) to raise taxes — often make a third alternative, borrowing, the most attractive option (at least until the bankers say “no”).

Much of this constitutional and statutory structure has been brought about not by legislative fact-gathering and deliberation, but rather by the approval of voter Initiative measures, often funded by special interests. These interests are allowed under the law to pay a bounty to signature-gatherers for each signer. Frequent amendments — coupled with the implicit threat of more in the future — have rendered our state government dysfunctional, at least in times of severe economic decline.

Because of voter Initiatives restricting the taxing powers that the legislature may exercise, California’s tax structure is particularly dependent upon fluctuating types of revenue, giving rise to a “boom or bust” economic cycle. The consequences this year have been devastating to programs that, for example, provide food to poor children and health care for the elderly disabled. This year’s fiscal crisis also has caused the Judicial Council, which I chair, to take the reluctant and unprecedented step of closing all courts in our state one day a month. That decision will enable us to offset approximately one-fourth of the more than $400 million reduction imposed by the other two branches of government on the $4 billion budget of our court system.

The voter Initiative process places additional burdens upon the judicial branch. The court over which I preside frequently is called upon to resolve legal challenges to voter Initiatives. Needless to say, we incur the displeasure of the voting public when, in the course of performing our constitutional duties as judges, we are compelled to invalidate such a measure.

On occasion, we are confronted with a pre-election lawsuit that causes us to remove an Initiative proposal from the ballot because, by combining insufficiently related issues, it violates our state Constitution’s single-subject limitation on such measures. At other times, a voter Initiative — perhaps poorly drafted and ambiguous, or faced with a competing or “dueling” measure that passed at the same election — requires years of successive litigation in the courts to ferret out its intended meaning, and ultimately may have to be invalidated in whole or in part.
One thing is fairly certain, however. If a proposal, whatever its nature, is sufficiently funded by its backers, it most likely will obtain the requisite number of signatures to qualify for the ballot, and — if it does qualify — there is a good chance the measure will pass. The converse certainly is true — poorly funded efforts, without sufficient backing to mount an expensive television campaign — are highly unlikely to succeed, whatever their merit.

This dysfunctional situation has led some to call for the convening of a convention to write a new Constitution for California to replace our current 1879 charter, which in turn supplanted the original 1849 document. Yet, although a recent poll reflects that 79% of Californians say the state is moving in the wrong direction, only 33% believe that the state’s Constitution requires “major” changes and approximately 60% are of the view that decisions made by Californians through the Initiative process are better than those made by the legislature and the governor.
Add to this mix a split among scholars concerning whether a constitutional convention, if called, could be limited in the subject matter it is empowered to consider. Some argue that a convention would be open to every type of proposal from any source, including social activists and special interest groups. There also is controversy over the most appropriate procedure for selecting delegates for such a convention.

A student of government might reasonably ask: Does the voter Initiative, a product of the Populist Movement that reached its high point in the early 20th century in the mid-west and western states, remain a positive contribution in the form in which it now exists in 21st century California? Or, despite its original objective — to curtail special interests, such as the railroads, that controlled the legislature of California and of some other states — has the voter Initiative now become the tool of the very types of special interests it was intended to control, and an impediment to the effective functioning of a true democratic process?

John Adams — who I believe never would have supported a voter Initiative process like California’s — cautioned that “democracy never lasts long . . . . There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” The nation’s Founding Fathers, wary of the potential excesses of direct democracy, established a republic with a carefully crafted system of representative democracy. This system was characterized by checks and balances that conferred authority upon the officeholders of our three branches of government in a manner designed to enable them to curtail excesses engaged in by their sister branches.

Perhaps with the dangers of direct democracy in mind, Benjamin Franklin gave his much-quoted response to a question posed by a resident of Philadelphia after the adjournment of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Asked the type of government that had been established by the delegates, Franklin responded: “It would be a republic, if you can keep it.” And, as Justice David Souter recently observed in quoting this exchange, Franklin “understood that a republic can be lost.”

At a minimum, in order to avoid such a loss, Californians may need to consider some fundamental reform of the voter Initiative process. Otherwise, I am concerned, we shall continue on a course of dysfunctional state government, characterized by a lack of accountability on the part of our officeholders as well as the voting public.

# # #

L. A. PUBLIC ACCESS TV DIES A SECOND DEATH? Video 2 min

2009-11-01T20:18:00.000-08:00

From Left: Stanley Sheinbaum, Bill Rosendahl, Leslie Dutton on October 29, 2009

Los Angeles, CA Full Disclosure Network® is releasing a two minute video report featuring a short excerpt from a meeting with L.A. City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, held on October 29, 2009 where he informs Stanley Sheinbaum, the former LAPD Police Commission President and First Amendment powerhouse that Public Access television is finished in Los Angeles. The meeting was videotaped during an interview by Full Disclosure Network's® Host Leslie Dutton, as part of Documentary Series entitled “Saving The Public Channels in America”. In the interview Council member Rosendahl repeatedly called for citizens to come forward and pressure elected officials, his colleagues, and Congress to save public access channels.

SHOCK: COUNCIL BACKS OFF FROM PUBLIC ACCESS TV SUPPORT
It was a shock when Councilmember Rosendahl informed Sheinbaum and Dutton that public access in L.A. is now finished and not expected to come before the council again. The entire Los Angeles City Council and the Mayor had unanimously signed off on a budget proposal that provided for a public access channel. That proposal was submitted just a few months ago by Sheinbaum and Dutton, Founding members of the Public Television Industry Corportation (PTIC) resulting from months of rallying public access TV supporters to testify a number of times before the City Council, the ITA Council Committee and the Budget and Finance Committee meetings. The PTIC plan received a recommendation from the ITA Agency and when the Mayor did not opposed the unanimous Council vote, or the ITA recommendation, it appeared that the proposal to restore public access TV in Los Angeles had full support.

CALL CITIZENS TO BATTLE ONCE AGAIN
The Full Disclosure Network® video video report is being distributed by to public access producers via Email in an effort to rally the troops for yet another push at the City Council in order to rekindle their commitment and restore the public channels. PTIC leaders have expressed a concern that a most of the public access viewers and producers can no longer be reached as the channels have been dark for almost a year. The elderly, low and moderate income citizens who are computer and Internet illiterate are without a means to receive local and neighborhood news via independent television programming. The mainstream media has long ago abandoned public affairs and local issues.

CITY DIVERTING MILLIONS IN PUBLIC ACCESS CABLE FEES?
Currently the city receives $25 million dollars from cable franchise operators plus a yet to be reported amount from telecom giants ATT and Verizon who are now competing for subscribers and required to pay similar fee to the city. A 2007 State Law known as DIVCA mandated State control of public cable and telecom franchises. Included in the legislation however was a provision for an additional 1% ($5 million) exclusively reserved for public access facilities, also controlled by the City. The current fiscal crisis has led to speculation and questions regarding where the money will go.

WATCH THESE VIDEOS ON THE BATTLE TO SAVE PUBLIC ACCESS

How To Investigate The U S President: Video Preview (9 min)

2009-10-25T20:49:00.000-07:00

From Left: Christopher Schroeder, Richard Thornburgh, Ediwn Meese (hidden)
Hon. Shirley Hufstedler, Bob Woodward, Leslie Dutton, Chesterfield Smith

Washington, D.C. Full Disclosure Network is re-releasing a nine minute Video preview from "The Prosecutor & The Presidency" covering how America investigates the Presidency, from Watergate to Whitewater. Available on The Full Disclosure Network® website featuring excerpts from a two-hour forum videotaped in Washington D.C. on March 6, 2000 and hour-long interviews with former U. S. Attorneys General and Special and Independent Prosecutors.

MOST POWERFUL LEADERS
The Interview Series entitled "The Rule of Law and The Special Prosecutor Process" covers the Presidential prosecutors and U. S. Attorneys General, documenting the cataclysmic struggle among the most powerful American men and women who shaped domestic political policy for over the thirty years span from 1972 through 2000.

ATTORNEYS GENERAL FEATURED
Richard Thornburgh, Edwin Meese, III, Benjamin Civiletti, Elliot Richardson, Richard Kleindienst, Former U.S. Solicitor General Robert Bork, Asst. U.S. Attorney General Chris Schroeder.

SPECIAL AND INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS
Judge Kenneth Starr and Robert Fiske (Whitewater) Hon. Lawrence Walsh and Craig Gillen (Iran Contra) Joe di Genova,(Passportgate) and Archibald Cox (Watergate)

PANELISTS

Journalist: Bob Woodward, Hon. Shirley Hufstedler, Chesterfield Smith, and Full Disclosure Moderator Leslie Dutton

GUN OWNERS TAKE AIM AT OC SHERIFF: ARMED CITIZENS REVOLT Watch Video Here (15 min)

2009-10-18T22:23:00.000-07:00

Orange County, CA .. The Full Disclosure Network®presents Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, the National Rifle Association’s Ed Worley and , former OC Sheriff Lt. Bill Hunt in a video news report covering the new policy implemented by Sheriff Hutchins regarding issuing CCW’s in Orange County.

During the 15 minute video, (watch here)citizen gun owners who attended a hearing before the Orange County Board of Supervisors testified their dissatisfaction with the Sheriff, a political appointee and her new policy. Many speakers suggested that she has her own agenda, is intending to impose the undesireable policies of Los Angeles County on the citizens of Orange County. The Board of Supervisors came under fire for having appointed someone who does not represent the concerns of the citizens.

Sheriff Hutchens stood her ground refuting the interpretation of her new policy saying “I do not see this as a Second Amendment Issue. The policy does not impact the right to have a gun at home or in a place of business.”

Bill Hunt, who is expected to challenge Sheriff Hutchens in the 2010 election was critical of Sheriffs and other Police Chief’s who do not share the fundamental beliefs in values held in the communities which they serve.

The following points were made during the citizen testimony:

Why should permits be given only to those who transport large sums of money?
Personal protection and family protection should be considered as primary issue
Restricting use of Concealed Carry Weapon permits does not make the county safer.

Viewers are asked to participate in an opinion survey at the end of the video and to leave comments on the video blog for discussion.

WATCH RELATED VIDEO DEBATES ON GUN ISSUES

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

2009-09-30T20:39:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

GREED v. POWER: WHAT CAUSED FISCAL CRISIS IN AMERICA

2009-09-29T20:39:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles CA. Full Disclosure Network® presents B. Scott Minerd, Chief Investment Officer of Guggenheim Partners provides his insight on many of the critical issues facing America and California in a one hour video interview for cable television conducted by Leslie Dutton.

Guggenheim Partners is a diversified financial services firm with more than $100 billion in assets under supervision. Previously he was a managing director for Morgan Stanley and later Credit Suisse, where he oversaw fixed income credit trading in the United States, Europe and Asia.
In the six segments presented here Mr. Minerd outlines the causes, effects and solutions to the financial crisis that emerged in late 2008 at the end of the Republican Administration of George W. Bush and is now escalating under the Democrat Administration of President Barack Hussein Obama.

Segment #1 Insolvency, Public Indebtedness, Sale of Public Assets (8 min)
Scott Minerd describes government “solvency” and comments on the current threat of state and local “insolvency” and possible solutions. Other issues covered are: Toll Roads, Electorate Ignorance, Education, Lease Backs, Legislative Priorities, Public Unions

Segment #2 Federal Intervention, Regulations, Fees & Taxes (8 min)
Minerd points to where government has re-paid massive debt in the past and offers confidence in the electorate’s backing for such measures, while elected officials appear to be disinterested in supporting the solutions needed to resolve the crisis. Other issues covered here are: Socialism, Free Market Capitalism, Massive Inflation, Fed Policies, Individual Responsibility, Creation of Crisis

Segment #3 Government Subsidies, Accountability, TARP (8 min)
It is impossible to expect that government is capable of providing accountability on the massive TARP programs and “bail-outs” according to Minerd who discusses allocating capital efficiently in a Free Market vs government environment. He maintains that fraudulent behavior should be punished to the extent of the law. Other issues covered: Housing Market Collapse, Victim Mentality, Fraudulent Behavior, Free Market Solutions, Government Subsidies, Unethical Activity

Segment #4 Personal Responsibility & Political Correctness (8 min)
Vote-hungry politicians rush to exploit irresponsible homebuyers with promises of government charity that created exorbitant home prices and homeowners without ability to pay the generous irresponsible lenders. This is a short summary of Scott Minerd’s assessment of the current predicament and collapse of the housing market. Other issues covered: Personal Responsibility, Manipulating the System, Lower Living Standards.

Segment #5 Responsibility, Government vs Private Sectors, False Promises (8 min)
Scott Minerd describes how management failed the American automobile industry and now, elected officials are failing the public employee sector. He predicts a massive crisis at the local level when lifetime health care benefits start to kick in for public employees threatening the solvency of municipalities and school districts. He describes what he says are “easy” solutions to the momentous problems. Other issues covered: Business Exodus, Higher Taxes vs Raise Retirement Age

Segment #6 Solutions: Greed vs. Power, The Decline of America (8 min)
In this final segment Scott Minerd summarizes the long-term crisis facing U.S. cities and schools, where costs will outstrip ability of pay. He points to the cause of the crisis and the role of the Federal Government. Then he predicts what will happen if the policies are allowed to continue without reversal or limitation.

Please let us know what you think about the following questions by posting in the comment section below.

Do you think the current economic emergency could result in interventions that could lead to the end our American way of life?

Do you think that it is unrestricted Free market Capitalism or Government Policies that are encouraging lenders to make bad loans?

Video: Missing Documents & Federal Court Rules: The Richard I Fine Case

2009-09-25T08:15:00.001-07:00

Los Angeles, CA Important court documents have been reported missing from the U. S. Courts website known as “PACER” in the Richard I Fine case. Here is a 14 min video and transcript of the telephone interview with Mardi Mason and Richard Fine regarding the missing documents.

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH MARDI MASON September 3, 2009

Mardi Mason: I have worked on very sophisticated and complicated cases but I have never seen any kind of situation like I’m looking at here in terms of problems with documents not even appearing in the docket. That’s a new one for me entirely.

Mardi Mason: It’s basically an index. It’s a typed list of what documents comprise the file. It would tell you the date received, it would assign a number in sequence when it came in, a short description of the document, maybe some notes from the clerk as to when it was actually entered, things like that. It’s just basically a simplified index of the documents that are in the case file.

Leslie Dutton: You found in past practices that if you wanted to check the Federal court website that the documents were usually there and posted properly?

Mardi Mason: Before all of this happened, it never would even have occurred to me to question the integrity of a court docket. Now, I never will again.

Leslie Dutton: Just tell us … how many have been missing?

Mardi Mason: Well, for example, in the district court case concerning disbarment, there are a total of seven documents in the docket. But they’re only identifying them by Numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7, meaning Number 2 and Number 6 are missing. Both of those are Mr. Fine’s pleadings that he has filed. One is the Response to Order to Show Cause Re Disbarment, and the other is a Motion to Set Aside Order of Disbarment. What they’ve done is erase Richard’s restatement of the facts and his defenses from the record. They won’t let the public view the documents or even acknowledge that they exist. Yet the fact that the docket numbers were assigned and skipped proves they have them, they just don’t want the public to see what’s in them. At least that’s what I’m left to conclude; what other legitimate reason could there be?

Mardi Mason: I called yesterday on the latest one to turn up missing and I was passed to about five different clerks who essentially shrugged their shoulders and couldn’t explain why it wasn’t in the docket even though two other documents that we’d sent within the same package by FedEx that got there on Monday. Those other two are in the docket but the third one, a current Motion for Release, is missing. They don’t know … they transferred me to another clerk, she didn’t know … finally one said, “Well, maybe you should give it more time and call us back in another day or two. And I said, “Well, under normal circumstances, that’s probably reasonable, but considering we have someone illegally incarcerated, every additional minute is worth taking into account and trying to get to the bottom of what’s going on. So can you help me find the person who knows?” She transferred me to someone’s voicemail.

Leslie Dutton: And you’ve not heard back from that person?

Mardi Mason: No.

Leslie Dutton: Apparently, this isn’t the first time documents have been missing. Share with us a couple of examples of what could be serious malfeasance of the court.

Mardi Mason: Well, it was an order for him to show cause why he shouldn’t be disbarred from practicing before the district court. So … it was extremely important. I found it by luck when I was doing research through the PACER system. The problem was, they … not only did he not get it, it’s not like it was misdirected, they never even served it. There is no Proof of Service connected to that document. On top of that, once Richard found out about it and we prepared a response, this is now one of the missing documents.

Mardi Mason: Then, they issued an order disbarring him. He filed a response to that … that is another missing document.

Leslie Dutton: We asked her if in her professional opinion did she think that this is a purposeful action on the part of the court to inhibit Mr. Fine’s ability to defend himself?

Mardi Mason: It’s making it nearly impossible. Between the documents being missing, the fact that he was denied a way to even write out his documents for the longest time, the fact that he was denied access … er, the press was denied access to him … It’s happened far too many times for it all to be accidental. This is the third case … not the third document, but the third case in which documents that have been filed have not shown up on the docket. And in one other instance, the missing document was used to justify striking one of his pleadings for failure to follow a certain rule … except that he had and they knew it, but it was the only way to justify denying his habeas corpus petition. So … the rules don’t provide for playing “hide and seek” with legal documents. Which is one reason we provide the documents ourselves on the website, so at least the public can see what they contain and know what’s going on and know Richard’s side of the story.

Leslie Dutton: Now you used the term “hide and seek” … play “hide and seek” with the documents. Could you tell me, are there court rules about the handling of documents, official documents, that would prohibit this “hide and seek” strategy?

Mardi Mason: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule Number 27, is pretty straightforward in terms of the clerks are required to accept and file and publish pretty much everything that is submitted to the court other than certain pre-agreed sealed documents … you know, extraordinary things like that. So there is no legitimate reason why these documents aren’t appearing in these cases.

Leslie Dutton: And the “hide and seek” that the court is playing with the legal documents have a decidedly negative effect on the 70-year-old Mr. Fine.

Leslie Dutton: Well, this morning I checked the docket and Mr. Fine’s motion for emergency release, based on the brief that he’d prepared for the appeal, is now listed as having been posted on August 31st. But it didn’t appear on the docket until today, September 3rd. Has that in any way impeded his ability or their consideration?

Mardi Mason: Considering we understand that some of the judges meet on Mondays to consider such motions, yes, they cost him another week in jail. This is the same case that I called in about yesterday where I got transferred to five different clerks looking for what happened to this motion. So, now I guess now it has appeared after I questioned so many people about it yesterday.

Leslie Dutton: So phone calls, public scrutiny and pressure is having some effect on the questionable behavior of the court. To document the inconsistent behavior, Mardi Mason now uses her computer to take screenshots of PACER, the official website of the court so she can accumulate proof of the irregularities.

Mardi Mason: Well, I have learned to make copies of the PACER dockets online every time I go and so I can provide a copy of the screenshot I took yesterday … and it wasn’t there then.
Leslie Dutton: So you have a screenshot of all the dockets for every day.

Mardi Mason: Every day that I visit a particular case. I’ve just learned that things come and go, so I capture a screenshot just to be able to prove something like this … it’s not the way you’re trying to make it look.

Leslie Dutton: Why would the court not want certain documents to appear on the docket?

Mardi Mason: In this case, those documents show rampant judicial corruption.

Leslie Dutton: Mr. Fine agrees. He talked to us on the phone from solitary confinement in jail and explained exactly how and why the dockets are being manipulated by the court.

Richard Fine: We know that the documents went to the judges … because the clerk got them and first marked the document “received” instead of marking the document “filed”. And the person that makes the decision ultimately as to whether the document is filed or received is not really the clerk. It’s the judge.

Richard Fine: So the clerk has to take the document in. Then the document goes up to the judge and the judge is going to decide if that document’s going to be filed or if it’s not going to be filed. So the ultimate decision is with the judge.

Leslie Dutton: If people wanted to complain or address the situation, who can they turn to? We asked Mardi Mason, “Who can be held responsible?”

Mardi Mason: I do know the Administrative Office of the Courts … I researched and found out last night … this entity is what ultimately presides over these computer systems. So they probably would be … they work in conjunction with a national judicial commission, so they would be who I would approach for answers on how to address this kind of highly suspicious activity by a senior appellate court. … The bottom line is that every relevant Supreme Court precedent case supports Richard Fine in holding that, under the circumstances, Judge Yaffe was obliged to recuse himself. It’s absolutely crystal clear. There are no holdings which oppose that position, and that means that Judge Yaffe has no legal leg to stand on.

Leslie Dutton: Wow. This is just incredible. Whoever dreamed that this is going on in our court system.

Mardi Mason: I didn’t, and it’s still hard for me to accept that you can’t trust the basic things to have any integrity. I’ve had other people make comments to me about problems with the dockets and I kind of didn’t really listen because it just didn’t permeate my brain that that was even remotely possible. And yet I have seen now, In the past four months I’ve been working on this, so many different examples. And they all have to do with critical documents concerning Richard’s case.

AG Jerry Brown: Did Governor & Legislature Wipe Away The Penal Code for Judges & Government Officials? .......... SBX 2 11 The Culprit?

2009-09-20T09:44:00.000-07:00

Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

AG OPINION & IMMUNITY CLAUSE MISSING IN ACTION

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network has been investigating California Senate Bill SBX2 11 that was enacted into law on February 20, 2009 and became part of Government Code Sections 68220-222 on May 21, 2009. This controversial bill signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was intended to legalize "Double Benefits" for Judges by the county governments.

NO DEBATE BUT LOTS OF SECRECY

There was no debate or public scrutiny of the bill prior to the vote. These county payments to Judges were ruled illegal in an appellate court decision in a case brought by the Judicial Watch organization in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles that held the Judges who are State employees were not entitled to "double benefits" from the county due to a Constitutional Provision that Judges Salaries and benefits are to be set by the legislature and cannot be delegated.

WHY MISSING PARAGAPHS ON CRIMINAL IMMUNITY?

Most notably three important paragraphs in SBX2 11 were missing from Government Code Sections 68220, 68221,68222. These paragraphs included the most critical and controversial part of the bill, being that California Judges and county government officials were given retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for crimes committed prior to May 21, 2009. What the bill doesn't say is what happens to the crimes committed after May 21st 2009? Is criminal behavior for government officials now legal?

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR NOW LEGAL FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?
"This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of the bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law. "

MISSING PARAGRAPHS = CONFUSION FOR COURT & COUNTY?

Why were these paragraphs missing? What impact does this have on conferring immunity for past crimes and future crimes? On September 9, 2009 Full Disclosure began to seek answers from the author of Senate SBX2 11 Senate Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg, the California Judicial Council who apparently wrote the bill, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown whose job it is to prosecute criminal acts of public officials.

ATTORNEY GENERAL & JUDICIAL COUNCIL MUM

So far we have received answers to our questions from Senator Steinberg's spokesman, Jim Evans. We received a brief note from the Judicial Council Legislative staff basically concurring with Steinberg's office and NO response from the Attorney General, the Department of Justice or their Press Office. We sent a copy of our request to the Attorney General's "Opinion" supervisor Susan Lee, who wrote "we do not provide opinions to the public, only to elected officials".

ATTNY GENERAL OPINION SCUTTLED: Opinion Request Withdrawn May 31, 2009
09-401 (April 1, 2009)

Requested By: Commission on Judicial Performance

Assigned To: Deputy Attorney General Marc J. Nolan

Question(s):

1) Does the legislature have the authority to enact legislation that purports to preclude the commission from disciplining California superior court judges for authorizing supplemental compensation to be paid to themselves from public funds and/or receiving that supplemental compensation, on the ground that such benefits were or are not authorized by law?
2) Does section 2 of SB(x2) 11 (a) simply identify which judges are permitted as of the effective date of SB 11 to continue receiving supplemental compensation from the effective date forward, on the terms and conditions in effect on July 1, 2008, or (b) retroactively authorize all or some portion of supplemental compensation provided by counties to judges, or to judges by the judges themselves, so long as it was being provided as of July 1, 2008?
3) Has the Legislature adequately prescribed the supplemental compensation purportedly authorized by SB(x2) 11?
The above was posted on the DOJ website 4-1-09 and withdrawn 5-31-09

WHY NO ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION?

Full Disclosure Network asked Senator Pro-Tem Steinberg's Spokesman Jim Evans to clarify some points regarding SBX2 11. Here are all the questions and answers (in a PDF file format) posed concerning SBX2 11. Basically, we were told the Senator (author) did not request an Attorney General opinion and when asked if they would seek one, the answer was "no" it is not necessary. Below is one of the many questions we asked about the retroactive criminal immunity.

QUESTION:
Is there any immunity covering present payments(to Judges by counties) of supplemental benefits which occur under the first paragraph (Government Code Section 68220) commencing as of May 21, 2009, the effective date of SBX2 11? I have read that the immunity to be retroactive only and not applying to the present benefits because of the use of the words "prior to" the enactment date.
ANSWER:
The immunity clause applies retroactively only. There's no need to apply it prospectively because the statute makes lawful that which everyone in the world thought was already legal before the Sturgeon decision. (Jre)

BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENT

A complaint was filed with California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office on September 14, 2009 by former Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I. Fine is seeking prosecution of Superior Court Judges and government officials who have participated in the receipt of illegal payments from public funds, which he estimates at approximately $300 million, without disclosure while sitting on cases involving County government. Mr. Fine, who has been sitting in solitary coercive confinement in the L. A . County Central Men's Jail, prepared the complaint using the top of his bunk bed as a desk, citing the Penal Codes from memory. After 45 years as a practicing attorney with the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. and private practice, he holds a Ph.D. in International Law.

JAILED INDEFINITELY AFTER CHALLENGING THE JUDGE

Fine was sentenced indefinitely for Civil Contempt of Court by Judge David Yaffe, whom he alleges testified in court on December 22, 2008 that he had received the illegal "benefits" (payments) from the County and had failed to disclose to litigants in Court and on his Economic Disclosure Form 700. Mr. Fine had attempted to disqualify Judge Yaffee from the case before him (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles.) Fine has appealed for release from jail, all the way up to the U S Ninth Circuit Court, where a hearing is expected to be scheduled; however, there is no indication it may be soon.

FULL DISCLOSURE VIDEO LINKS:"the news behind the news" ON CORRUPTION

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/540.php (10 min) Judical Watch On Court Corruption

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/541.php (28:30 min) "L A Times Misses The Mark"

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

2009-09-15T17:03:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deception of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George

2009-09-14T17:11:00.000-07:00

REBUTTAL TO L A TIMES OP-ED

By Richard I. Fine

In his September 14, 2009 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George stated that the Judicial Council of California decided to close the California Courts one day a month until June 2010. He acknowledged the hardship on Californian’s and praised the Superior Court Judges who volunteered to take a one day pay cut.

FAILED TO DISCLOSE AUTHORSHIP

However, he did not disclose that the same Judicial Council of California of which he admitted he is the Chairman, also wrote Senate Bill SBX2 11. This bill was introduced by Senate President Pro-Tem Daryl Steinberg on February 11, 2009 passed by the State Senate on February on 14th , 2009 and passed by the State Assembly on February 15, 2009 signed by the Governor on February 20, 2009 and became effective on May 21, 2009.

EXTRA JUDICIAL BENEFITS & CRIMINAL IMMUNITY
Such bill reinstated “supplemental county benefits” to Superior Court Judges in addition to their State Salary and compensation. Such supplemental County benefits have been held to be “unconstitutional” in the case of Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles 167 Cal Ap 4th 630 (2008) review denied 12/23/08. Such bill also gave retroactive immunity to the Judges and others from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action.

$30 MILLION MORE DURING FISCAL CRISIS?
By omitting to disclose Senate Bill SBX2 11 and it’s retroactive immunity, Chief Justice George did not inform the people that the loss to the taxpayers in L.A.County alone of these supplement payments to the Superior Court Judges in fiscal year 2009-2010 is estimated at $30 million dollars this loss is greater than the contributions of all of the Judges of one day’s pay per month over a year. In effect, under Senate Bill SBX2 11 the judges are making more money during this financial crisis while the citizens of California suffer.

DUE PROCESS DENIED
Worse yet, because of the retroactive immunity the decisions of the judges receiving county payments before 05-21-09 violated the due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and the California Constitution. The recent case of Capperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 566 US--, (2009) decided June 8, 2009 has reaffirmed a long line of Supreme Court cases since 1927 and previous common law. Such cases hold that it is a violation of due process when a Judge is in a position where there is a “potential for bias” or he is not “likely to be neutral.” Payment of money to the Judges fulfills these criteria.

BENIFITS TO FORCE JUDGES TO RECUSE FROM COUNTY CASES
Since Senate SBX2 11 does not give immunity for the current payments to the Judges the Judges receiving the current payments must recuse themselves or face criminal prosecution , civil liability and disciplinary action. Additionally, the county officials who are appropriating the funds for the payments are subject to the same sanctions as their immunity under Senate Bill SBX2 11 has also expired.

PERSONALLY AWARE OF PROBLEMS
Chief Justice George personally knew of these problems as they are issues presented in the petition for writ of Certiorari in the case of Richard I Fine v. State Bar of California, Supreme Court of California US Supreme Court Case No. 08-1573. Such petition shows that the California Supreme Court’s action to disbar Fine for bringing Federal Civil Rights cases against L.A. County and L A Superior Court Judges challenging L.A. County Payments to L A Superior Court Judges and filing other truthful documents in Courts violated the first, fifth and fourteenth amendments.

NINTH CIRCUIT RECOGNIZES CONFLICT
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals presently is also deciding the issue of whether L A Superior Courts judge David P. Yaffe should have recused himself from a case where he received payments from L A County and then presided over a contempt proceeding to enforce an order in favor in L A County and it’s co-applicant for an environmental impact report. The case is Fine v. Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Case No. 09-56073.

JUDICIAL BIAS CONCERNS
In a companion case the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals has refused to acknowledge the California disbarment of Fine. It has stayed any disbarment proceedings of Fine in the Ninth Circuit until a decision has been rendered in the case of Fine v. Sheriff Leroy D. Baca. The Ninth Circuit has stated that overlapping issues in the two cases occur.

$30 MILLION WINDFALL FOR JUDGES
So one day a month closure of the Courts is miniscule compared to the massive undisclosed windfall to the Judges and the denial of due process to Californians that Chief Justice George, the judicial council, the state legislature and the Governor have accomplished with Senate Bill SBX2 11.

It is no wonder that Chief Justice George omitted to mention Senate Bill SBX2 11 and it’s massive effect upon Californians in his Op-Ed article?

VIEW RELATED VIDEO HERE

Volunteers Fight Court Corruption.......... To Free Richard Fine: Video (10 min)

2009-09-13T09:40:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA Here is a ten minute Full Disclosure Network video news report about how volunteers are fighting what appears to be Court Corruption that is making it very difficult for Richard I Fine to win his freedom. The volunteers are trying to Free Richard Fine from L A County Central Men's Jail where he has been in solitary coercive confinement for going on seven months. He was jailed following a civil contempt judgment for having attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, for failing to disclose that he received illegal payments from a party involved in the litigation (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of L.A.)

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION SEEN AS THREAT
The video features Fred Sottile and Full Disclosure Host Leslie Dutton a with a description of how Richard Fine is representing himself "In Pro Per" writing the court documents using legal codes from memory in his jail cell. The difficult circumstances of this legal battle is described vividly by Sottile who sees the Judicial Corruption as a threat to the entire country.

OBSTACLES ENCOUNTERED
The obstacles encountered by the volunteers for Richard I Fine are documented in a series of video news reports produced by the Full Disclosure Network. The second segment in the series is to be release next week. Many of the volunteers helping Richard Fine have had personal encounters with the flawed Court process and were motivated to come forward due to the issues involved in his case.

NEXT WEEK'S EPISODE........."Missing Documents & Federal Court Rules"

Criminal Immunity For California Judges & Government Officials ?

2009-09-09T21:18:00.000-07:00

Hon. Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Susan Duncan Lee, Opinion Supervisor
California Department of Justice
455 Goldengate Ave. #1100
San Francisco CA 94102-7004

Hon. Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.:

Attached is a copy of the California Appellate Court decision People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; and we are asking for the Attorney General's determination (opinion) as to whether or not the embezzlement of public funds as described in this case under Pen. Code, § 424 and any other sections of the penal code are enforceable in the circumstances described in SBX2 11 in Sections 5,6,7 regarding government officials and California Judges.

Specifically we need to know whether the adoption of the statute (Senate Bill SBX2 11), without being placed in the government code is sufficient to confer immunity on government officials and California Judges particularly for payments made after July 1, 2008 where immunity may not necessarily apply.

Provision Missing From Government Code:

"This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or
employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be
subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits
provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental
entity prior to the effective date of the bill on the ground that
those benefits were not authorized under law. "

Full Disclosure Network contacted the Office of Senator Daryl Steinberg, sponsor of Senate Bill SBX2 11 to determine if the missing sections that address immunity for judges and government officials is located elsewhere in the Code and were informed that those sections were not codified and therefore not necessary to have been included in the California Codes.

Your prompt response is appreciated,

Leslie Dutton
Producer
Full Disclosure Network
337 Washington Blvd. #1
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
310-822-4449
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/

cc:
Teri Whitcraft ABC 20/20
Partick McDonald, L A Weekly
Ron Kaye, ourla.org
Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee
Troy Anderson, Daily News
Roger Grace, Met News
Dave Houston, Daily Journal
Matt Lait, L A Times
Victoria Kim, L A TImes
Amy Chance, Sacramento Bee
Elizabeth McMahon, AHRC News
Andre Coleman, Pasadena Weekly
Richard Binder, Incisive Media
Kenneth Ofgang, Met News

9th Circuit Orders Stay In Disbarment Case of Richard I Fine

2009-09-07T15:42:00.001-07:00

Los Angeles, CA On Wednesday, September 2, 2009 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Commissioner Peter L. Shaw issued a Stay Order in the Disbarment case of Richard I Fine (No. 09-80130) pending his appeal of the U. S. District Court denial of his petition for a Writ a Habeas Corpus. The Order cited a "significant overlap between the discipline case and the issues raised by respondent's pending habeas petition Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (No. 09-56073)".

JUDGE FAILS TO RECUSE: NOW AN ISSUE
This New twist provides promising in the ten year ongoing saga of beleaguered Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I Fine who has been jailed for contempt of court indefinitely. Fine was jailed by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe on March 4, 2009 for refusing to comply with a court order which Fine claims was an illegal order imposed by a Judge who was receiving illegal payments from in interested party in the case before him. At his March 4, 2009 Superior Court sentencing hearing, (No. 109420) Mr. Fine attempted to disqualify Judge David Yaffe from sitting on the case, noting he had been receiving payments from L. A. County, an interested party in the case (Marina Strand Colony Homeowners Assn. vs. County of L.A.).

TRANSCRIPT OF COURT TESTIMONY
A transcript of Mr. Fine's court testimony, under oath is available at this URL: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/FineContemptTranscript3-4-09.pdf. Mr. Fine also cited the October 10, 2008 Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling in Sturgeon vs County of L.A. (No. D050802) that held the payments by the County to the Judge were illegal. A copy of the ruling is available here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/sturgeon-v-losangeles-ruling.pdf

REACTION FROM RICHARD I FINE:

"This is highly significant because the issues in the disbarment and the issues in the Writ are identical. The California Supreme Court disbarred me because I brought federal civil rights cases against the judges because they were taking illegal, criminal and unconstitutional payments from the county. "
"The underlying issue is whether the Judges were denying people due process because they were taking money from the county. And, we know that the money they were taking from the county was unconstitutional under the Sturgeon case and it was criminal under Senate Bill SBX2 11 and we know those actions were a denial of due process of under the various U S Supreme court cases from 1927 through 2009."

"So in the end when the 9th Circuit will decide that it was a denial of due process for Judge Yaffe to have received illegal, criminal and unconstitutional payments from the county, a party to the case. This decision will control the disbarment proceeding. "

"There is further significance because four of the six California Supreme Court Justices who refused to review the Disbarment case and thereby caused the disbarment also had received illegal, criminal and unconstitutional payments from the counties and the other two Supreme Court Justice are members of Judicial Council who wrote the Senate Bill SBX2 11. (Retroactive Judicial Immunity from Criminal and Liability Prosecution) "These justices should have recused themselves from the disbarment case and by not doing so denied me due process under the US Supreme Court’s cases."

RELATED EVENTS:

August 12, 2009: Ninth Circuit Court Justice Andrew J. Kleinfeld restores Richard I Fine's rights to appeal the U S District Court order denying Certificate of Appealablity "with prejudice" on the issue of whether or not the Trial Court Judge David Yaffe should have recused himself.

August 31st, 2009: Richard I Fine filed an opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal raised the issue of having been denied due process by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe who had refused to recuse himself from the case after having received illegal payments from a party involved in the case and that he himself was a party involved in the contempt case.

Flash Back: Full Disclosure Network® Mini-Documentary Video (8 min)

2009-08-16T09:25:00.000-07:00

Producers T. J. Johnston and Leslie Dutton

Los Angeles, CA. The Full Disclosure Network® is re-releasing an historical “Mini Documentary” video providing background and commentary on this “alternative news” network that has been billed as “the news behind the news” and is distributed to 45 community cable channels throughout California and expanding to other states including: Washington D.C., Manhattan NY, York PA, San Antonio TX, Framingham MA, St. Paul MN, Waterloo WI and video streaming world-wide from the Internet.

This eight minute “Mini Documentary” features video clips of prominent officials and controversial guests who have appeared on the Full Disclosure® shows over the past seventeen years on this independent, non-profit, news program. Appearing in the video are:

MINI DOCUMENTARY

L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley

Ramona Ripston, Executive Director ACLU,
LAPD Chief William Bratton
Larry Flynt, Publisher Hustler Magazine
Former U. S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, III
L. A. County Sheriff Lee Baca
Stephen Yagman, Civil Rights Attorney
L. A. Councilman Bernard Parks
Nativo Lopez, President MAPA
LAPD Assistant Chief David Gascon (ret)
David Cartwright, Sr. Partner, O’Melveny & Myers
Don Mullinax, LAUSD Inspector General
Roger Carrick, Special Legal Counsel LAUSD Inspector General,
James B. Reidy, Jr. Professor Emeritus L.A. Pierce College
Kathy Dreyfuss, ACLU Staff Attorney

In 1992 the independent Full Disclosure Network® program began it’s unorthodox climb to prominence, starting on one public access cable channel in Santa Monica, expanding throughout California to world-wide presence on the Internet. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences presented host Leslie Dutton with a public affairs Emmy Award for the 2001 Series entitled “L. A.’s War Against Terrorism”. In 2008 Full Disclosure producers Leslie Dutton and T J Johnston received an Emmy nomination for the series covering the Federal prosecution of Orange County Sheriff Michael Carona.

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

2009-08-12T13:45:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

DENIED RECUSAL OF DISTRICT JUDGES:

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

ILLEGAL COURT PROCEDURES QUESTIONED

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

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR APPEAL SET:

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

PERFECTED APPEAL WITH FILING FEES:

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

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

Breaking News On Richard I Fine........... Ninth Circuit Court To Decide Monday On Appeal Rights In Contempt Case

2009-08-07T17:14:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network is releasing an eight minute telephone interview with prominent Anti-Trust attorney Richard I Fine featuring his reaction to the news that a two-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will consider his request for a Certificate of Appealability on Monday, August 10, 2009 in San Francisco. Listen to the Audio of the interview here.

CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT

Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Milan Smith will decide on Monday whether to approve or deny Fine's request to issue a Certificate of Appealability . Without such an action Fine would be unable to appeal the U.S. Central District Court action that denied his Writ of Habeas Corpus request for immediate release from jail. He has been sentenced indefinitely for civil contempt of Court, for an undetermined period of time, without a trial, bail or date set for hearing or release.

JUDICIAL CONFLICT CHALLENGED
Fine was taken into custody on March 4, 2009 at a sentencing hearing following a long contempt proceeding where Fine had attempted to have the Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe disqualified from presiding due to illegal payments he had received from the County of Los Angeles, a party in the case Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of Los Angeles.

NINTH CIRCUIT PROCEDURE

According to David Madden, Assistant Executive for Court Information at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Certificate requires approval from only one Judge and considerations are not conducted in public. If the panel should issue the Certificate of Appealability, Fine's Emergency Motion would then move on to a "briefing" stage or, if denied, Fine could then request a "Reconsideration". No matter what happens, time and options are running out for Mr. Fine who has been held in the L.A. County Central Men's Jail, in solitary coercive confinement, for over five months. Strangely, no opposition to his Writ of Habeas Corpus, has been filed.

TRANSCRIPT 08-06-09 Full Disclosure telephone interview with Richard I. Fine:

FINE: I think it's about time for the Court to consider the request for the Certificate of Appealability. That Emergency request was filed, if I remember correctly, somewhere in the vicinity of about July 3rd (2009) And, so- they're well over a month behind schedule. Normally something like that should have been considered way back early in July. The Certificate of Appealability is the very first thing that they consider with respect to an appeal, and the only reason that the 9th Circuit has to consider it is because of the fact that the District Court refused to issue a Certificate of Appealability even though we have numerous constitutional issues in the case, and even though no one opposed my Writ of Habeas Corpus at the District Court level.
DUTTON: Is it unusual for the District Court to refuse or deny a Certificate of Appealability? That sounds so ominous that they would be denying you your right to appeal.
FINE: Oh, it -- it's highly unusual. I mean it's basically not only unusual, it's outrageous. And particularly in this case where the Sheriff didn't even answer the Writ of Habeas Corpus and thereby broke the law, and in addition to that, the -- the Superior Court, didn't oppose any of the grounds in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and also didn't certify why I'm in jail. So the action in the District Court is just totally and completely outrageous.
DUTTON: Will you explain to us, when the Judge John F. Walters denied the Certificate of Appealability he also made the notation "With Prejudice," what does that mean?
FINE: Well, that basically means that we can't refile the Writ of Habeas Corpus in his court. And we can't really ask him to reconsider. So it meant that the case automatically goes right up to the, 9th Circuit. The way that the procedure works in the District Court is that the minute that we file a Notice of Appeal, the case is up into the 9th Circuit and the District Court has to either grant or deny a Certificate of Appealability. If the District Court grants the Certificate of Appealability, there is no question that the appeal goes forward in the 9th Circuit. If the District Court denies the Certificate of Appealability and denying With Prejudice, that means that automatically the 9th Circuit considers the Certificate of Appealability. And what Judge Walter did was he denied the Certificate of Appealability and he checked the box saying that there was no constitutional right that was (inaudible), which is totally and completely, beyond belief given the fact that there are about a number, there's the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights that were violated in this case. So, I mean it's -- but we know from looking at what Judge Walter did, we know that he never even read the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. So the denial of the Certificate of Appealability is consistent with, everything he did in this case.
DUTTON: Well, I guess that, the next step then is to wait for Monday to see what happens with the two judge panel in San Francisco and, and then go from there.
FINE: That's correct. And hopefully, I would expect that they would grant the Certificate of Appealability and then, and then God willing they would immediately take up the Motion, to go to be released, and maybe even be correct enough to go forward and just overturn the case right then and there because given this particular case, this is such an unusual case that it's very seldom that you find a Writ of Habeas Corpus with no opposition.
DUTTON: And I would like for our viewers' sake for you to explain why this is an emergency motion on your part.
FINE: Well, it's an emergency motion on my part for a number of reasons. -- The first reason being that with no opposition to the Writ, there is no reason for me to have been (recording). With no opposition to the Writ, to have been in jail in the first place. The second thing that we have is the physical emergency that is taking place and that's since I've been in jail, I've contracted a staph infection, I've contracted back pains, and I have swelling of my legs, my feet and my ankles. So we've got the entire physical things that have happened that is due to having been in jail. And the third thing that we have happening is we have the financial problems that are taking place which is the, uh, the loss of the house, which can be coming up because of the fact that having been in jail, I've been denied my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to earn a living. And, actually through that, we have the situation of possibility losing the house. So unless I get out of jail and can get out there and start earning some money, you know, I'm suffering physical hardship and suffering financial hardship.
FINE: I'm now going into the sixth month of being unlawfully incarcerated.
DUTTON: How is your family taking all of this?
FINE: Well, needless to say my family are not happy campers about this. But, you know, there's one thing that I can say about my family, and that is that nothing is going to break our family. When this judge (inaudible) is going to try and coerce me into telling him about my assets so that he can go on with his unlawful activity and he figured he was going to break me and my family.
That is not going to happen. You know, nothing will break our family unit. We will, end up prevailing and justice will prevail, and 38 million Californians are going to get their judicial system back before we will give in to this particular judge, or to any of the judges who received immunity for their criminal actions. We're going to get our judicial system back, and these judges are going to be gone whether they resign or whether we vote them out of office. But they will be gone and we will get our judicial system back.

# # # # #

9-1-1 Call: From 70 Year Old Attorney Richard I Fine...Jailed After Attempt To Disqualify Judge

2009-07-31T15:36:00.000-07:00

Listen Here: Richard I Fine's 9-1-1 call to Leslie Dutton of

Full Disclosure Network while reading the post with transcript below

Los Angeles, CA Prominent Anti-Trust attorney Richard I Fine placed his third 911 call to the Full Disclosure Network on Friday, July 31, 2009 describing a "State of Emergency" regarding Judicial abuse and corruption. The 911 calls were made in desperation as each call detailed the conditions in L.A. County Central Men's Jail in solitary confinement and the total isolation that was hampering his legal efforts to get out of jail.

On March 4, 2009 Mr. Fine was sentenced for Contempt of Court by Judge David Yaffe for an indefinite period of time, without bail, without a hearing date and without a release date following his attempt to disqualify the Judge from hearing a case involving the County of Los Angeles who had been making illegal payments to Judge Yaffe for more than a decade.

In this 13 minute audio of his latest 911 call Fine reveals shocking details, substantiated by the actual court documents (links provided here). The full transcript of the call is posted here:

9-1-1 CALL TRANSCRIPT (PDF download Here)

DUTTON: What is the status your Emergency Motion (Writ of Habeas Corpus) to be released from jail?

FINE: The status of my motion is that it is still pending. I filed the motion on July 9th -- as an emergency motion to be immediately let out of jail and to have the writ granted. As of the present time, there has been no opposition to the motion. In the U.S. District Court, there was not any opposition to my Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Sheriff did not even respond to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe did not oppose anything in the Writ for Habeas Corpus. And in addition to that, neither of them certified why I was in jail. There is something that is very, very seriously wrong in this case.

DUTTON: The Sheriff filed, in his Motion to Dismiss. What was the outcome of that?

FINE: His Motion to Dismiss was denied on June 30th by Judge Walter, and Judge Walter denied it as being moot.

DUTTON: So the Sheriff didn't certify why you were being held, having made a motion to dismiss, and Federal District Court Judge Walters said it was moot?

FINE: He said -- Yes, he -- he denied it as being moot after he ended up denying my writ. So basically we had the situation that the Sheriff did not answer -- the Sheriff did not answer the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. And did not certify why I was here.

DUTTON: Now, for our viewers' sake, a Writ of Habeas Corpus is basically -- it's presumed that it will be granted unless the respondent can demonstrate otherwise, that you should remain in custody.

FINE: Well, that's correct. The law says -- and the law is (inaudible s/l called?) 28 United States Code Section 2243 says that when the writ is filed, the judge either has to do one of two things: He either has to grant it immediately or he has to enter what is called an Order to Show Cause ordering the respondents -- which in this case was the Sheriff -- to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless for some reason the writ itself is just totally fails. In my case, the writ didn't fail and the judge ordered the Sheriff to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Instead, what the Sheriff did is, the Sheriff moved to have himself be dismissed as the respondent, or in the alternative, have the District Attorney -- have the Superior Court answer. And what happened is that Judge Walter ended up denying that motion, and the Sheriff never answered or certified why I was being held. The Superior Court came in and they never certified why I was being held, and they never ended up showing cause why I should -- why the writ should not be granted.

DUTTON: And were they -- was the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe a party to this Writ of Habeas Corpus?

FINE: No. Actually, they were not. The only party to the Writ of Habeas Corpus was the Sheriff. The -- so they were not a party, but they could be called what is called Real Parties in Interest, but they were never named as that by the Sheriff, and when they came into the case, they never applied to be named to intervene in the case or to be named as a party. So they actually were strangers to the case.

DUTTON: Now, from a legal standpoint, does that make their arguments of any consequence, if they don't have standing?

FINE: Well, it makes their argument of no consequence, but had they intervened, they could have achieved some type of a standing. But even if they had achieved the standing, then they would have had to have respond with reasons why the writ should not be granted, and they never did that. And also, they would have had to have ended up certifying as to why I should -- why I was being held, which they also didn't do, and also they would have had to have produced the entire record of the contempt case, which they also did not do.

DUTTON: Now, there have been reports of judicial abuse of the contempt of court cases, instances where some people have been held in jail for decades. Do you see this breakdown of the court not following the United States Code as an abuse?

FINE: Oh, there's absolutely no question. In my particular case, there's no question that it's an abuse because the Code has specific rules as to what is supposed to happen, and in my case, they broke every one of the rules. You could go -- go right down the Code -- I won't enumerate them all here -- but you can go right down the Code as to each rule that was supposed to take place and they broke them rule by rule by rule.

DUTTON: What is the recourse now? What is your recourse?

FINE: My recourse is to be in the Ninth Circuit, and that's where I have gone, and in a normal situation, when you make a motion -- in the normal situation, when you make a motion in the Ninth Circuit and there's no opposition, your motion is granted immediately. And so that's the next problem that we have here is that I have the motion in the Ninth Circuit; there's been no opposition, and we're sitting -- I've been sitting around waiting for almost a month now.

DUTTON: Is it con- --

FINE: This is a very, very strange part.

DUTTON: Is it conceivable that there is, like, a code of silence here among the judges to just keep you imprisoned without allowing the case to go forward as prescribed by law?

FINE: Well, I think it's more than conceivable. Actually, in my papers, I called it a code of protection. Because what we have in this particular case is that with respect to the Superior Court, you have criminal activity that has occurred, and that's not my viewpoint. That's actually the viewpoint of the legislature of the governor because they passed Senate Bill SBX 2 11, which gave the Superior Court immunity from criminal prosecution. So the governor and the legislature has said that the payments that Judge Yaffe got and that what every other judge got from the County are criminal. So you have criminal activity that has taken place. And now you have the District Court going in and protecting these judges from being prosecuted for this criminal activity, because my Writ of Habeas Corpus goes in and says that these judges took -- engaged in criminal activity by having taken these illegal payments, and therefore they can't sit on either the underlying case or the contempt case. And so what the District Court did is, the District Court then broke federal law by denying my writ. And now we're up in the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit is sitting on my motions and delaying, which basically means that they're going along with what the District Court has done, which is effectively not prosecuted the Superior Court judges for having taken the illegal payments. That's what it really comes down to.

DUTTON: Okay. Well, we're going to release this update on the internet very shortly, and we will have it transcribed so people can download it from our website, and we are trying to reach the legal counsel for the Sheriff of L.A County-- that's Mr. Aaron Fontana -- and then we're going to reach Kevin McCormick from Ventura, California, who represented the Court and Judge Yaffe, and ask them why they refused to certify the reasons that you were being held in jail. And we're going to try to get a statement, if we can, from the District Court,* because of Judge Walter's denying the writ and denying the Sheriff's Motion to Dismiss as Moot. So is there any last comment you'd like to make before we move on with this report?

FINE: Yeah, I think my last comment is that recently, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Caperton versus Massey Coal Company, came down and said that when a judge gets a large payment into his campaign committee, and the person who gave the payment is coming up in front of him with a case, that the judge has to recuse himself. So in our case -- or in my case -- what you have is, you have a judge having gotten an illegal payment and refused to recuse himself, so my case is even worse than what the Supreme Court has just decided as being the duties of the judge. So we know that what is happening here is really horrific, and it is affecting over 1600 Superior Court judges across California, a number of Appellate Court judges, and a minimum of four of the seven California Supreme Court justices, and another two Supreme Court Justices that wrote the legislation that gave them the retroactive immunity. So this is a major, major problem in the California Judicial System, which has basically overturned and wrecked the entire California Judicial System and which has denied 38 million people access to the courts and has denied them a fair judicial system.

DUTTON: Okay. Well, thank you very much. Just one last question: Are you prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get your release from jail?

FINE: Absolutely. I've already gone to the Supreme Court with respect to the disbarment, which is dealing with exactly the same issue that we're dealing with here. So I'm prepared to go all the way up and do what is ever -- what is ever necessary to cure these problems in our dysfunction judicial system.

DUTTON: Now, we know that you are in solitary confinement and that we are -- at least can talk to you from this phone in your jail cell. What access do you have to the legal documents and to the records? How are you...

FINE: What access? The -- the so-called law library at the jail does not have really any access to Federal Reports or anything else. They have some access to, you know, to some cases and things, but all of those things are on the disks, are on disks, and there isn't really any way to go in and trace them in the normal way that one does legal research. So basically everything that I have -- that I do really has to come off of memory or off of documents that come in to me from the people that work with me.

DUTTON: Okay. Well, thank you very much for this explanation and update. We're going to get this out as soon as possible. Thank you.

*Full Disclosure's telephone calls to attorneys for the Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and Sheriff Leroy Baca were not returned at the time of this posting. The District Court was unavailable by telephone.

Visiting Iraq News Media Discover Full Disclosure Network® Independent News: U.S. State Department Tour

2009-07-30T16:31:00.000-07:00

Iraq News Media Discover "The News Behind The News"

In The United States

International Visitors Council of L.A. & U S. State Department
Hosted a Meeting with the Full Disclosure Network®

Participants

Mr. Alaa Hadi Abbood
Television correspondent and writer, Al-iraquiyah TV

Mr. Khosnav Jamil Numan AL-DUSAKI

Manager Dohuk TV

Mr. Imad Mahmood Ahmed

News Editor (Media Section) Kirkuk Provincial Council

Leslie Dutton

Producer, Full Disclosure Network

Mr. Nadhim Yaseen Ali

Media Director University of Dohuk

Mr. Hussein Mizhir Agal MOJIBLEE

Reporter, Radio Sawa

Mr. Jumaah Abdulhusein Hattab

Assistant Manager, Al Jut TV

Mr. Amaar Hamid Hussain

Program and Film Director, Dijla Satellite Channel

Mr. Atheer Qasim Salih

Assistant Producer, Dijla TV

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

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.

INDEPENDENT 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 REPORTS TO COME:
Full Disclosure® is preparing a Video Report on this July 29th meeting to be released soon along with video clips from a previous meeting with journalists and broadcasters from Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, and United Araba Emerits in May of 2009.

RUSSIAN JOURNALISTS VIDEO REPORT HERE:
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 HERE.

JUDGES FIGHT TO KEEP ILLEGAL BENEFITS: SUPERIOR COURT VS SUPERIOR COURT

2009-07-19T12:32:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA. On July 13, 2009 a Superior Court hearing was held on the Judicial Watch motion for Injunctive Relief in the Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles case BC351286, a taxpayers lawsuit where in October 2008, the Fourth Appellate Court District decision found of Los Angeles County payments to the Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were illegal. The decision was upheld by the California Supreme Court when a petition for rehearing was denied to the Los Angeles Superior Court who had hired Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, one of the most powerful and influential legal firms in the country.

Specially appointed Appellate Court Judge James A. Richman from San Francisco presided on this July 13th hearing and after oral arguments, took the matter into submission. His decision on the Judicial Watch motion for an injunction is expected in 30 to 60 days.

The Full Disclosure Network® presents an eleven minute Video News Report on that hearing with interviews of the Judicial Watch attorneys Sterling Norris and Paul Orfanedes who describe what happened in the court room and the background of the case.

The Superior Court's lawyers claimed that the emergency provision inserted into the February 11, 2009 Budget Bill, known as SBX 2 11 had retroactively made the County’s payments to the Judges legal. A little known fact was that it also provided Judicial criminal immunity from prosecution and liability and to the County officials involved in the transfer of what has been estimated to be almost $300 million dollars over the past twenty years.

Full Disclosure Network® contacted the following Court officials to interview them on this matter but has been told that the Judges and their legal counsel do not want to be interviewed on this case.

Judge Mary Wiss, President California Judges Association
Michael Belote, Cal Advocates Lobbyist for CJA on SBX 2 11
Judge Charles McCoy, Presiding Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
J. Frederick Bennett, L.A. Superior Court Legal Counsel
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (for Superior Court)

Here is a link to an exclusive video covering the issue of Sturgeon vs County of L.A. and the Judicial Watch taxpayers lawsuit. These videos are also featured on the Full Disclosure Network® website soon and is to be distributed to over 45 cable systems in California, and to cities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Manhattan, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.

Should Federal Judges Woehrle & Walters Have Recused Themselves? ..........On The Richard I Fine Case?

2009-07-11T09:17:00.000-07:00

DID ILLEGAL COUNTY PAYMENTS INFLUENCE JUDGES?

Los Angeles, CA U. S. Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and District Judge John F. Walter considered Richard I Fine's petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Immediate Release (09-cv-1914) and his Complaint against the State Bar of California (08-cv-2906) but according to documents filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Central District Court, Fine claims the Judges failed to disclose a serious conflict and should have disqualified themselves from the case, instead they denied his petition and his due process in their own self interest.

JUDGES RULE IN SELF INTEREST?

Fine alleges both Judges would be adversely impacted if they ruled in favor of his petition according to the motion to Recuse Judge Woehrle and the motion to recuse Judge Walter in which he describes a horror story scenario whereby legal malpractice lawsuits would result. against the Federal Judges who were former criminal defense attorneys and their law firms, comparing the circumstances as stated in his writ of Habeas Corpus petition:

"it was a violation of due process for L. A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, who had received illegal payments from L.A. County, to preside over a case where L A County was a party, make an order in its favor and in favor of its co-applicant for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and then preside over a contempt proceeding to judge his own actions and enforce the order."

MOTIONS TO RECUSE ALLEGE:
"based upon former past practice and actions (as criminal defense attorneys) if Judge Woehrle (and Judge Walter ) "had decided to grant the writ, they would open themselves up to malpractice claims from clients for who they did not raise the issue of denial of due process and transfer the case(s)"...(of clients who were convicted by L.A. Superior Court Judges who received illegal payments from the County.)............
"knowing all of this information Magistrate Judge Woehrle (and Judge Walter) were under a duty to disclose such (and recuse themselves) but did neither and elected to conceal the information."

Watch 9-1-1 call video (9 min) from Richard Fine .

Did Illegal County Payments From 1988 to 2009 Influence The Criminal Justice System ?

This Report sent to Full Disclosure from the Free Richard Fine Website

California Legislative Analysts's 2009 Report (excerpts)

Read Full Report Here

State Corrections Population in a Historical Context— Rising Caseloads and Spending

Significant Prison Growth Driven by Several Factors. As previously noted, the prison population has increased significantly over the past 20 years. The factors contributing to this increase are the (1) number of new admissions sent to prison by criminal courts, (2) amount of time served by non–lifer inmates, (3) number of inmates in prison with life sentences, (4) number of parolees returned to prison by criminal courts for new felony offenses, and (5) number of parolees returned to prison by the state’s administrative revocation process. As Figure 5 shows, most of these factors have increased significantly between 1987 and 2007.

Not Demographics or Crimes. Our analysis indicates, however, that changes in population and crime rates do not explain much if any of the growth in the number of admissions from the courts. Between 1987 and 2007, California’s population of ages 15 through 44—the age cohort with the highest risk for incarceration—grew by an average of less than 1 percent annually, which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison admissions. Moreover, the number of crimes committed actually decreased over the past two decades. Specifically, the total number of reported violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and grand theft) decreased by an average of about 1 percent annually over the past two decades.
Law Enforcement and Prosecution Help Explain the Trend. So, what does explain the increase in court admissions? Arrest and prosecution data tell at least part of the story. As shown in the figure below, despite declining crime rates, the number of adult felony arrests has remained relatively stable over the past two decades. However, the number of felony charges filed, convictions achieved, and prison sentences ordered by the courts have significantly increased during the same time period. These outcomes suggest that law enforcement has increased the percent of felony crimes resulting in arrests. In addition, prosecutors have increased the proportion of (1) arrests resulting in prosecution, (2) charges resulting in a conviction, and (3) convictions resulting in a prison sentence. As a consequence, a felony arrest is almost twice as likely to result in a prison sentence than it was two decades ago.

FULL DISCLOSURE WANTS YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT:
PLEASE LEAVE YOUR FEEDBACK AND OPINION
IN THE COMMENT SECTION BELOW

Scott Minerd On: California Bankruptcy, Insolvency & Where To From Here? ........... Video (11 min)

2009-07-11T09:09:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA. According to public finance expert B. Scott Minerd, California is not yet insolvent but it could be soon. In an eleven minute Full Disclosure Network® video news blog he addresses the issues of how California got to the brink of financial disaster and offers suggestions as to how the once golden state could return to a prosperous and stable economy.

Scott Minerd is Chief Investment Officer of Guggenheim Partners, a diversified financial services firm with more than $100 billion in assets under supervision. Previously he was a managing director for Morgan Stanley and later Credit Suisse, where he oversaw fixed income credit trading in the United States, Europe and Asia.

In the video Scott Minerd describes the most serious threat to California solvency, at both the state and municipal level, is the massive unfunded pensions and post retirement health care benefits promised to public employees in union contracts.

Pointing out that California public officials have missed opportunities to reserve past surpluses, Scott Minerd describes public debt instruments known as "Certificates of Participation" (non-voter approved COP Bonds) and Revenue Anticipation Notes (RAN) as tactics that can result in squandering of public assets to cover massive deficits while the economy is stagnate. He urges public entitites to protect surpluses when they ocurr, for use in an economic turn down.

The entire one-hour interview with Scott Minerd is to be featured on the Full Disclosure Network® website as well as on community television channels throughout California and in cities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,Texas and Washington D.C.

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 what appears to be the shocking tactics of an insular Judicial buddy system that could only be compared to the “code of silence” deployed by street cops when one of their own is confronted with accusations of abuse.

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

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

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

Attached are the documents mentioned in the video:

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. "