Friday, July 31, 2009

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

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.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

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

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®


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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

Sunday, July 19, 2009


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.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

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


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.

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."

"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)
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.


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

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.

Monday, July 06, 2009

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


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.

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.

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.

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.