Wednesday, June 03, 2009

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

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

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

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



U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit
File No. 09-71692
and the parties listed as follows:


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

EMERGENCY
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY
A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY
(23 U.S. C. 2241)
And Request For Immediate Release
after 90 days of unlawful incarceration

Sentence Date: March 4, 2009
No bail, no hearing date, indeterminate duration
After a plea of Not Guilty
Finding by judge without a jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENT WHY U.S. COURT REMEDY WARRANTED:
State Court appeal not allowed under CCA Sec. 1209, Writ of Habeas Corpus to California Courts is exactly the sole remedy which was fully exhausted. Moreover, since incarceration on March 4, 2009 Petitioner has been denied all access to writing materials and to all written materials and legal documents. He was allowed into the library once in two weeks. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is based on Magistrate Woehrle's refusal to follow the requirements of 28 USC Sec. 2243.
(The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals posted on their Website receipt of the above Writ , a copy was provided to Full Disclosure by Mr. Fred Sottile of the FREE RICHARD FINE Committee who prepared and filed the document at Mr. Fine's direction)
Exclusive Full Disclosure Network video interview with Richard I Fine here.

4 comments:

  1. The money that judges make by accepting the extra salary from L.A. County is peanuts compared to what they make "representing" special interests by their rulings while still sitting on the bench and later as private mediators and arbitrators.

    Judges like Yaffe act more like mobsters than judicial officers. He actually imprisoned a man for speaking the truth! We need a Grand Jury to investigate the complex interconnections between Yaffe and West Side special interests.

    Richard I. Fine, Esq. is an American hero for fighting against organized judicial corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In this day and age in this country, this is just unbelieveable. President Obama has been made aware of this, the A.G's office received a plea. The Governor has been made aware and ALL courts have had an opportunity to solve this problem with no reply. These people must pay for their ongoing ignorance of the Constitution with their careers and jail time where appropriate. Wake up people, get off your butts, these are your rights we're talking about here!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Disgusting.

    Heads will soon roll because of this case.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is this not, homegrown terrorism? It fit's the definition. In fact, this goes beyond homegrown terror, it's also tyranny. Didn't these judges swear an oath? It seems plausible to me, that the moment they violated that oath, they ceased being a judge. It also seems to me, that lying under oath, is also a crime, as is violating the law under color of authority, as is 'impersonating a judge". When our judicial acts only to serve itself, and all peaceful remedies have been exhausted, we have but one choice. When those that are responsible in preventing this obscene perversion of justice refuse to act, we have one choice. It's painfully obvious, that our government isn't going to remedy this, we have one choice. Our right's are being stripped away, by this evil entity masquerading as "court of law". I'm afraid to find out what it takes to move people into action.

    ReplyDelete