Wednesday, August 12, 2009

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


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.


Posted by Full Disclosure Network at 1:45 PM
Labels: , , , ,

5 comments:

  2. Yes, Mr. Fine is still in jail.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, I wonder how much time Yaffe will get. The judge that heard the Sturgeon case fell for SBX2-11, saying that the law passed in february made the payment's legal. He didn't even apply basic common sense, in that the law was passed AFTER the law had been broken, and SBX2-11 was to cover that illegal activity. Now he's a conspirator in the racket. And he don't have "immunity".
    If he's right, California is the first state to make bribing a judge "legal" for all parties involved. Wait till the bidding wars start. I wonder if we'll be able to buy a judge on e-bay?
    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay, now I wonder.

    If it is now legal for judges to accept "bonuses" from the counties. where else are they accepting these [bribes]?

    What other counties? We don't know because they never file Form 700 disclosures about this money.

    Are they doing it in, say, Santa Clara County (San Jose), or San Francisco County? If not, why not? Wouldn't it benefit every county to do this? It's legal now that the legislature says it is, and as far as we know it saves the counties money, so why wouldn't other counties do this as well?

    Wouldn't you need to know if your lawsuit against your county for civil rights violations was in front of a judge that was receiving payments from the county, so you could challenge him or get him to recuse himself?

    How many other counties in California are affected, so that the counties are never ever losing cases there?

    How can the Fair Political Practices Committee (FPPC) which requires form 700 disclosure statements from any public official that is receiving public money do it's job if the state legislature says it's okay?

    Is it just the Superior Court judges that are receiving money or is it the Appellate justices in every district as well? Nobody apparently knows presently. Why isn't someone asking the hard questions? How can we assume that the counties are not all taking advantage of this in the Appellate courts as well, given it's effectiveness in saving counties money? Some ambitious county employee must be getting a promotion for thinking of this.

    How can an ordinary person know if their judge is taking a bribe from the county if FPPC cannot do their job?

    How can we find out through the FPPC who is taking this money, either now or before it was deemed legal? I want to know! There are a lot of unanswered questions here.
    ReplyDelete
  5. I think he should appeal on this US Code.

    DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
    Summary:

    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)