Sunday, June 27, 2010

Jailed Attorney Fine Alleges Cover-up Of Court Corruption (Documents Here)

Richard I. Fine
NEVER CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF A CRIME

Release Los Angeles, CA Into his second year of what he calls his "illegal incarceration due to a massive cover-up of judicial corruption" prominent Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I Fine sets forth his case in an effort to win his freedom in his most recent court filings. The filings detail Fine’s standoff with the State Superior Court trial Judge David P. Yaffe who held him in contempt of court following his attempt to disqualify the Judge who had admitted on December 22, 2008 in an unusual Court hearing that he had been receiving illegal payments from Los Angeles County, a party to the case.

SILENCE FROM THE LEGAL & POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT
One would think that Richard I Fine’s case and lengthy incarceration would cause concern among legal scholars, civil libertarians and the media but it has been largely ignored by the legal and political establishment who have remained silent and unavailable for comment. To an outsider this case appears to be one of judicial retaliation. In the absence of scholarly discussion and examination of the issues Full Disclosure Network prepared this short video update summarizing the situation after fourteen months.

SOLITARY “COERCIVE CONFINEMENT” ON GOING
Richard Fine has been held in solitary "coercive confinement" in the L. A. Men's Central Jail since March 4, 2009 after accusing the Judge of conflict in the case. State Judge David P. Yaffe has contended in court filings that Fine should have raised the conflict issue earlier and that he only did so as an afterthought. Fine contends that Judicial Canons of Ethics and U. S. Supreme Court precedent mandated that the Judge should have disclosed this conflict in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles (LASC Case No. BS109420


RICHARD FINE DEFIES COURT ORDER

Fine who practiced law for 46 years and holds a Ph.D in international law, filed the documents (linked below) several weeks ago. As yet, not one of the courts in which they were filed has taken any action. The documents contend that the Yaffe’s contempt order was “void” from the beginning., This argument is bolstered by an astounding "on the record" admission from the judge, that he had been receiving illegal payments from L. A. County and had not disclosed the information to parties in the case lends credence to Fines' assertions,

Read the actual Court Documents Here

  • California Superior Court (L.A.) in Judge David Yaffe's Courtroom Case No. BS 109420 Notice of Hearing to Order Release Filed on May 21, 2010 After filing Judge Yaffe refused to set a hearing.
  • U. S District Court, Judge Magistrate Carla Woehrle Case No cv-09-1914
    JFW (CW) Request for Release Hearing filed June 9, 2010

    Court failed to act.


Judge David Yaffe Testifies As Witness
While Sitting on Bench...... Rules in His own Favor


JUDGE "TROUBLED" BY COURT RULE TO TESTIFY AS WITNESS
In this December 22, 2008 court transcript Judge Yaffe says he is troubled by the court rule that says "in the absence of objection" he must testify, even though he is sitting in judgment on the case. He then admits receiving payments from L. A. County and not disclosing them. When the attorney representing the "interested party" raised an objection to the line of questioning posed by Richard I Fine, who was representing himself, Judge Yaffe, then ruled in his own favor while testifying as a witness.



JUDGES GET RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Compounding the complexity of this case in 2009 the California Legislature gave retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to all California Judges and government officials under Senate Bill SBX2 11 (Section 5) for the illegal payments that had been made to judges since 1987. In 2008 the California Supreme Court held in Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles the county payments to State Judges were illegal.



1 comment:

  1. Below is the main issue I shared with Governor Schwarzenegger in an email late Thursday;


    *Santa Barbara Superior Court Judges Arthur Garcia and Judge George Eskin were appointed to the bench on 08/27/03 So according to our California Constitution the appointees would have to seek re-election on the next general election after January 1 2004. That would make the next general election March 2 2004. The primary's switch to there current June date in 2006.Yet Garcia does not run for reelection until June of 06. People how can that be? That would mean his appointment covered the remainder of 03, all of 04, all of 05 and all of 06. An he would seek re election in 06 for his first six year term to start 01/01/07 an that is election fraud! There is no ambiguity in the length of time an appointee may sit on the bench until re-election is required.
    www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete