Judge David Yaffe Served With Demand for Immediate Release Of Richard Fine

FULL TEXT AND POINTS & AUTHORITIES

Demand For Immediate Release From LA County Jail, And Other Relief

Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”) hereby demands immediate release from the Los Angeles County Jail and other relief as set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Grounds for demand are:

1. From the outset, Judge Yaffe knew that “coercive incarceration” would not “coerce” Fine into answering questions about his assets because:

A. The issue in the case was whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself, and had no relevance or relationship to Fine’s assets, and

B. Fine informed Judge Yaffe in open court that Judge Yaffe had violated the law by taking payments from LA County, that he could not preside over the case and that Fine would answer the questions only if he lost all appeals on the issue.

2. Under the case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), once it was established that there was no substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, the commitment would become punitive in nature and thus subject to the statutory limitation. Cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976).

3. Judge Yaffe knew from the outset of March 4, 2009 that his confinement of Fine violated the Farr case, was penal and unlawful.

4. Judge Yaffe knew that the LA County payments to him violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, were criminal (including misappropriation of funds, destruction of justice and bribes), and required him to recuse himself in the Marina Strand case at the outset under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

5. Judge Yaffe also knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics also required him to recuse himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case even if the LA County payments were not criminal.

6. Judge Yaffe further knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution required him to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings because he was judging his own actions of receiving payments from LA County and making orders in the County’s favor. The demand is based upon the aforementioned grounds and other reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto.

Dated this 27th day of January, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

BY: RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW .............

DO YOU THINK JUDGE YAFFE SHOULD RELEASE DR. FINE ?

L.A. Sheriff Baca Sued By Full Disclosure Network® Over Media Manipulation

Leslie Dutton vs. L.A County Sheriff Leroy Baca

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® is seeking a Federal Court Order to declare as unlawful the actions of L.A. County Sheriff Leroy Baca and the County Sheriff’s Department. They are denying freedom of the press and free speech rights by refusing access to an inmate interview with judicial critic Richard I Fine who is being held in L. A. County Central Men’s jail for contempt of court since March 4, 2009.

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS SOUGHT:

A complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by Sterling Norris, of the Judicial Watch organization on Wednesday, January 27, 2010. The case, Dutton vs. Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca (CV10 0595) includes a demand for jury trial. Here is a copy of the Complaint or it is available at this URL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26004386

INTERVIEW WITH FULL DISCLOSURE®. NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN

According to the complaint, Emmy Award winning producer/host Leslie Dutton of the Full Disclosure Network submitted numerous requests to the L.A. County Sheriff’s Headquarters to arrange an on-camera interview with inmate Richard I. Fine, as part the on-going cable television series entitled “Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption”.

SHERIFF BACA FAVORS COMPLIANT MEDIA?

The complaint reveals that the Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Baca did allow L.A. Times reporter Victoria Kim to interview Mr. Fine at the jail on May 22, 2009, which resulted in an article published in the Los Angeles Times on June 7, 2009. Additionally, ABC’s Nightline producer Terri Whitcraft was allowed to bring cameras for videotaping an inmate interview with another inmate (other than Mr. Fine) located in the L.A. Central Men’s jail in September 2009.

SHERIFF BACA BLOCKING INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC:

It is claimed that the refusal of Defendants L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and Baca to allow Dutton to interview Mr. Fine at the L.A. Central Men’s jail “is harming the ability of Dutton (Full Disclosure) to obtain and disseminate information to the public about Mr. Fine’s various legal claims, his continuing, indefinite confinement; his physical condition, and the conditions of his confinement.”

RELATED VIDEOS & LINKS:

Preview (6 Min) Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption

Sheriff Denies Full Disclosure (4:39 Min)

Backgrounder: What is the Full Disclosure Network?

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS

REGARDING GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION OF MEDIA COVERAGE

Ed Asner Requests Update On Richard I. Fine's Condition In L A Central Men's Jail

EDWARD ASNER'S HUMANITARIAN APPEAL FOR INMATE FINE

Los Angeles, CA After reading the latest reports from Full Disclosure Network® actor Ed Asner has requested updates on the condition of Richard I Fine Prisoner ID #1824367 in the L. A. County Central Men's Jail. For the past two weeks Mr. Fine has complained of the broken dental plate that has prevented him from being able to chew his food. The condition was reported to the jail's medical infirmary and two complaints and an appeal were filed by Mr. Fine to no avail.

HELD IN SOLITARY "COERCIVE CONFINEMENT"

Richard I. Fine has been held in L.A. County jail since March 4, 2009 in solitary "Coercive Confinement" for contempt of court following his challenge of Judge David Yaffe for having accepted illegal payments from L A. County who was involved in the case Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of L.A. In spite of U S Supreme Court precedent In Re Farr holding that persons cannot be held in "coercive confinement" for more that five days in contempt of court cases, Mr. Fine remains in jail for almost eleven months.

ACLU MONITORING COUNTY JAILS

Apparently County jail operations are now more concerned with who will pay for the dental repairs than they are with fixing the problem. When Ed Asner learned of the situtation, he called on the ACLU to look into this matter and asked Full Disclosure to keep him updated from our side of the story. As a result of court cases, and an agreement with L. A. County, the ACLU has been monitoring the L. A. County Jails to prevent inmate abuse and assure proper medical attention to the inmates. Ed Asner was assured by Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU, that they would look into the matter.


FULL DISCLOSURE'S UPDATE FOR ED ASNER (1-23-10):
Dear Ed:

I got a call at 10 p.m last night, at home, from a Lieutenant at the L A County Central Men's Jail, as he promised to update us on Mr. Fine. He told me the following:

1) Mr. Fine is able to eat even with a broken dental plate, contradicting Mr. Fine.
2) The jail Medical clinic cannot fix the dental plate
3) Mr. Fine will have to pay to have it fixed.
4) No plans have been yet scheduled to deal with this problem.

And, there appears to be no sense of urgency on the part of the Sheriff's Department to do anything to accommodate the dental problem, as it has now been over two weeks since the dental plate broke and was first reported.

There is a belief that Mr. Fine and or his supporters could raise the money to fix the dental plate. As I mentioned, I have talked with Executive Assistant to the Sheriff, Commander Jim Lopez, a Lieutenant and Watch Commander's Deputy in Men's Central Jail about this and the telephone problem over the last two days.

Last night (Fri 1-22-10) I got two voice mail messages from Commander Lopez at 7:48 p.m. and 8:16 p.m. he said that he talked to the Sergeants involved in oversight and they have solved one problem, but gave no specifics, and that they still have not resolved the dental problem and that he will be back to me on Monday.

I will continue to notify you if I hear from Mr. Fine and or the Sheriff's Department and hope to hear from you or Ramona of any developments from your end.

Thank you and the ACLU for your interest and concern. It is greatly appreciated by all who are watching this sorry saga play out. I hope that the clerical problems with the Ninth Circuit will be addessed as well, as Mr. Fine filed a petition weeks ago for an En Banc hearing before the full Court to appeal the Court's decision to deny his petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. I will be at my office this afternoon at 310-822-4449 and checking my messages frequently.

Best regards,

Leslie Dutton

Producer

Full Disclosure Network®.

Inmate Complaint Against Sheriff For Unlawful Imprisonment of Richard Fine

IS SHERIFF LEROY BACA GUILTY OF
UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT?

INMATE COMPLAINT:

Filed: January 6, 2009 4:45 p.m. (Hand written)

By Richard I Fine

Inmate ID # 1824367

L. A. County Central Men's Jail

DEMAND FOR RELEASE DUE TO UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT

I have the following complaint: Sheriff is holding me illegally the remand order does not show a bail amount. It shows “no bail”. It does not show an “appearance date” which is required. It shows a charge of CCP Section 1219 (a) which is contempt of court. Under CCP Section 1218, the penalty for contempt of court is five days. Today is my 309 day. The judgment and order of contempt attached to the remand order, at page 14, lines 3-6, orders Fine “sentenced to confinement in the county jail until he provides all information that he has been ordered to provide..”. Such sentence is “punitive” and not “coercive” as the information sought is about Fine’s assets. It does not relate to the issue of the case which was “whether JudgeYaffe should have recused himself?”. As such Fine could not be remanded, or if remanded, only for five days. See In Re Farr 36 CAL. App. 3rd 577, 584 (1974) – no substantial likelihood contempt order would serve its coercive purpose cited In Re William T Farr 64 CAL App. 3rd 605, 611, (1976).

Richard I. Fine

The above complaint was hand written by Richard I Fine in solitary "coercive confinement" where he has been held for the past eleven months for contempt of court. Fine gave the complaint to the on-duty Sheriff's Sergeant at L. A. County Central Men's Jail on January 6, 2009. He had been taken into custody by the Sheriff at the order of Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, on March 4, 2009 after he attempted to disqualify the Judge for having taken illegal payments from from L A County a party to the case,(Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles.) Yaffe refused.

SHERIFF IGNORES COURT ORDER, COURTS IGNORE DUE PROCESS
In this eleven month saga, Richard Fine's petitions for immediate release and Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Sheriff was ordered to show cause why Richard Fine was being held and the Sheriff asked to be dismissed from the case as Respondent, referring the Court to the Superior Court or Judge Yaffe. The Writ of Habeas Corpus was denied by the U. S. District Court, an unsigned Order by clerk of the Ninth Circuit and most recently a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the Respondent Sheriff Leroy Baca request to be removed as Respondent was dismissed as "moot" by Judge John F. Walter. It would appear that the Federal Court Judges, like the State Courts of California, have set a course of action to hold Richard I. Fine in jail, indefinitely. Since Fine has not been convicted of a crime and is refusing to obey what he maintains is an illegal court order, on moral grounds, only the Sheriff or the U S Supreme Court may provide a resolution.

CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS, JAIL MONITORS & COUNTY MONITORS FAIL TO ACT
Ironically, the County of Los Angeles is paying millions of dollars to civil rights organizations and professional police monitoring organizations to act as watchdogs to prevent abuse and liability to the County taxpayers. However, L A County Sheriff is caught in the cross hairs of a dilemma, does he release Richard I Fine and risk the ire of the Judicial system, or does he continue to hold Richard I Fine in solitary "coervice confinement" at great financial cost and risk to his budget and the county. Watch in this 5 minute video entitled "Who's Monitoring the Police Monitors?" the role of the ACLU, Merrick Bobb of the PARC (Police Assessment & Resource Center) and the LASD Office of Independent Review that operates within the Office of Internal Affairs. All are charged with monitoring policies of the Sheriff's Department to reduce the risk of liability of the County due to inmate abuse. The ACLU rejected a request for legal assistance for help from Mr. Fine and has been silent along with Merrick Bobb of the PARC (Police Assessment Resources Center) and the L A Sheriff's Office of Independent Review is "looking into the matter" according the Chief Attorney Michael Gennaco. All three agencies are funded by County taxpayers on to investigate inmate complaints.

SHERIFF HOLDS THE KEY TO RICHARD FINE'S FREEDOM?

The relationship between the L.A. County Sheriff's Department and county funded jail/monitoring organizations was explored by Full Disclosure Network in this five minute video produced for cable television. Federal lawsuits have mandated oversight, as the ACLU's 1975 U S Supreme Court decision in Rutherford vs Block (Sheriff LA County) and most recently as August 2009 where the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU National Prison Project reopened the case to review based upon complaints from inmates.

PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS:

Why do you think the Sheriff is keeping Richard Fine locked up in solitary confinement when he has not been convicted of a crime?

California State Bar Persecution of Attorney Richard I. Fine (Video 9 min)

Los Angeles, CA As a part of an on-going cable TV series entitled “Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption", the Full Disclosure Network® is releasing an exclusive (9 min) video preview of Part 6 and 7 featuring Daniel Henry Gottlieb, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics with Purdue University for 40 years. As a disgruntled homeowner Gottlieb set out to investigate what caused the attorney for his Homeowners Association, Richard I. Fine, to be removed from their case against Los Angeles County and a neighboring development, the Del Rey Shores complex.

STATE BAR ACTS TO DERAIL LITIGATION AGAINST COUNTY?
In this interview conducted by Full Disclosure®’s Leslie Dutton, Gottlieb describes the circumstances that took place when State Bar Association disbarment proceedings against their attorney began just two weeks after the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association hired him to take over their case. Was it a coincidence that both the President and President Elect of the State Bar Association were attorneys for the developer and the county who had a lot at stake? Gottlieb explains the details.

AUDIO TAPES REVEAL SHENANIGANS AT STATE BAR COURT
Professor Gottlieb tells Full Disclosure what he learned after extensive review of the State Bar audio tapes of the hearings. He describes unorthodox procedures and rules of evidence and as a lay person was astounded by the manipulations of the charges and the verdicts that appeared necessary to accommodate what appeared to be a predetermined outcome…..the disbarment of Richard I. Fine.

STATE BAR ACCUSED OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT:
Following the release of this two-part interview with Professor Gottlieb, Full Disclosure has learned that a complaint was filed in U. S. District Court this week naming the State Bar of California, the Board of Governors of the State Bar, Scott Drexel, Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar and The Supreme Court of California alleging perpetrating FRAUD upon the Court. The complaint filed by Richard I. Fine is asking the U. S. Court to void and annul the California Supreme Court Disbarment Order and is Demanding a Jury Trial.

CONTEMPT CHARGES LEAD TO “COERCIVE CONFINEMENT”:
Richard I. Fine remains in L. A. County Central Men’s jail since March 4, 2009, held in contempt of court by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe who he attempted to disqualify for having received illegal payments from a party to the case (L .A. County) and failed to disclose to litigants in the case and on his Economic Disclosure Form 700.

DVDS AVAILABLE FOR ENTIRE SERIES LISTED HERE