Sunday, August 16, 2009

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

Producers T. J. Johnston and Leslie Dutton

Los Angeles, CA. The Full Disclosure Network® is re-releasing an historical “Mini Documentaryvideo 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:

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.

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.


Friday, August 07, 2009

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


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.

# # # # #