Sunday, August 29, 2010

Obstruction of Justice: California Judges Target of Indictment & Grand Jury Demand

California Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe
Resigned Before Term Expires

Washington D.C. Since March of 2009, the Full Disclosure Network® has been reporting on the issue of Corruption in the California Courts and Judiciary. Throughout 2009 to date, we have produced an on-going cable television series and Internet news reports of the breaking developments. Here is the latest:

Dr. Richard I. Fine, a prominent 70-year-old former U.S. Prosecutor who served with the Department of Justice in the Anti-Trust Division in Washington D. C., has filed a demand for Grand Jury indictments, naming twenty-two California Judges whom he claims have been obstructing justice in the U. S. and California Courts. The demand was submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, California's A.G. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown, Jr. , Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley and U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte, Jr. View Document Here

Richard Fine's Call For Citizen Action: Please Download & Print Flyer Here

Richard Fine has been held in solitary "Coercive Confinement" for over eighteen months in L.A. Men’s Central Jail after State Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe held him in civil contempt of court on March 4, 2009. His crime? He attempted to disqualify the Judge who had admitted taking illegal payments from a party involved in the case before him. That party was the County of L.A., where the County Counsel's website reports that, since 2005, Judges always ruled in favor of the County except for three cases. Fine also reveals in his indictment demand that, since1987, State Superior Court Judges in L.A. have received $300 million in illegal payments from the county. (Read Yaffe's Court Transcript Here)


The Demand submitted by Fine cites specific cases where illegal payments to Judges led to obstruction of justice, including one such case where State Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe admitted in court testimony to taking the illegal payments. Fine also cites where Judge Yaffe admitted in his Minute Order on July 13, 2010 that he lied to the higher courts when ruling against him following Fine’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court citing "Fraud Upon the Court"

It is believed the unexpected resignation of State Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe a few weeks ago was prompted by both the Richard I Fine case and the Sturgeon vs. County of L.A. case won by the Judicial Watch organization. The November 2008 Sturgeon ruling held the County payments to State Judges was illegal. The California Judicial Council quietly slipped through state legislation (Senate Bill SBx2-11) in February 2009 at the height of the budget crisis attempting to legalize the payments. The questionable law calls for retroactive immunity from criminal and civil prosecution for all California Judges and government officials involved in the scheme.


Richard Fine Jail House Interview Preview (4 Min)

Summary: Richard Fine & Sturgeon Case (6 min)

Update: On Fine Case & Judge Yaffe Admission (5 Min)

Why Can't the ACLU Help Richard Fine? (7 min)

Please Download Richard Fine’s Call To Action: PRINT Flyer Here

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Should L A's Billion Dollar Schools Be Investigated, Prosecuted?

Belmont Learning Center
aka Vista Hermosa aka Edward R. Roybal High School

Los Angeles, CA Recent news reports shed light on the world’s most expensive high schools located in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Cost estimates range from a billion to two billion dollars for just two high schools. The Belmont Learning Center, cost reaching a billion in construction and financing and the Robert F. Kennedy High School over half a billion without financing. The reports set off alarm bells reaching across the nation as School Districts in California were notified this week the State has deferred some $6 billion in subsidies to schools and counties, to assure payments to bondholders will be met. The subsides of $2.9 billion deferred starting September in addition to $3.5 billion deferred in July.


The 2008 opening of Belmont High School is presented in a Full Disclosure Network seven minute video preview of an on-going cable TV series. Critics describe the billion dollar project built atop an oil field where new and never occupied buildings were demolished (watch 5 min video) and then rebuilt but remains only partially finished. The school is now, named Edward R. Roybal High School, to avoid association with the Belmont construction.


District Attorney Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for California Attorney General spent over a million dollars investigating what was described as “fraud, waste and abuse” of taxpayer dollars at Belmont and in 2003 declined prosecution and issued a report entitled “ Lessons Learned” that investigators involved in the process said was a “whitewash”. Watch this Full Disclosure video (7 min) featuring clips of D A investigators describing the fiasco that is part of an series of eleven interviews with those involved.


Critics have suggested that Steve Cooley declines to prosecute big dollar crimes and investigates only the easiest corruption cases such as the tiny City of Bell where the L A Times did all the investigation and exposed the players that Cooley is only now “investigating.” And observers are wondering if elected as California Attorney General if Cooley will take a more aggressive stance in prosecuting corruption, waste, fraud and abuse than he has in the past?“fraud, waste and abuse” of taxpayer dollars at Belmont and in 2003 declined prosecution and issued a report entitled “ Lessons Learned” that investigators involved in the process said was a “whitewash”. Watch this Full Disclosure video (7 min) featuring clips of D A investigators describing the fiasco that is part of an series of eleven interviews with those involved.

Critics have suggested that Steve Cooley declines to prosecute big dollar crimes and investigates only the easiest corruption cases such as the tiny City of Bell where the L A Times did all the investigation and exposed the players that Cooley is only now “investigating.” And observers are wondering if elected as California Attorney General if Cooley will take a more aggressive stance in prosecuting corruption, waste, fraud and abuse than he has in the past?


Bloomberg News: State Delays School Subsidies (Tuesday)August 23, 2010

LAUSD Belmont: Toxic School Site?

The Black Hole of School Construction: Belmont (video 3 min)

What is The Full Disclosure Network®?

Saturday, August 21, 2010

D A Cooley Won't Investigate L A County Board: Targets Tiny City of Bell


Los Angeles, CA County District Attorney Steve Cooley is the Republican candidate for California Attorney General at a time when government corruption is raging in Los Angeles County. Over the two decades the D.A.'s office has paid scant attention to major public corruption in the County. In fact when Cooley ran for third term in 2006 was at the time when Judicial Watch filed a 2006 lawsuit against the County (Sturgeon v. County of L.A.) regarding $300 million in illegal payments made to the State Superior Court Judges who were forbidden by law to accept the money. Cooley's campaign challengers in 2006 claimed he was not prosecuting major corruption and questioned his ability as a prosecutor. Watch this 8 min video preview . And, at the same time Mexican drug cartels were moving in to take over cities in Los Angeles County, Watch this short 2006 video featuring LASD Sgt. Richard Valdemar, a 33 year veteran gang specialist describe how the cartels take over the city politics. Yet, Cooley was reelected with the financial support of the political establishment that controls L A County government.


A request for investigation was sent by Full Disclosure Network Producer Leslie Dutton and free lance reporter Janet Levy regarding the May 2010 Washington D.C. Meetings of the L. A. Board of Supervisors that were posted as official public meetings denied access to media and the public. Watch the Full Disclosure ten minute video report here showing how the media was ejected from the meetings . When Cooley failed to respond to a July 5, request for investigation Certified letters were sent. See signed postal receipts showing receipt of the requests dated July 6, 2010. To date no response, not even a phone call has been made from Cooley's office or the Office of Public Integrity.

County Executive Office and L A County Counsel have been slow to respond to the Public Records Act requests for documents and expense reports for the Board meetings that involved travel expenses for the Supervisors and dozens of county employees and department heads. To date no budgets for the elaborate two-day ten-meeting schedule has been produced. Instead a few incomplete expense reports have been forwarded the details of the intensive lobbying sessions with the U S Senators, Members of the House of Representatives and the White House have yet to be disclosed.


Steve Cooley’s highly touted public integrity unit aggressively investigating the tiny City of Bell for exorbitant salaries and pensions for the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Police Chief and Council members. His investigation has raised the public consciousness and demands for government transparency. And yet, the City of Bell's corruption looks like peanuts compared to what is happening in Los Angeles County Courts and the Board of Supervisors.


The historic 2006 case filed by Judical Watch public interest legal organization in the Sturgeon v. County of L.A. case became State Law and held County payments to State Judges (approximately $300 million) were illegal. Knowing this, Cooley failed to investigate and prosecute the L A County officials who quickly moved to get legislation through Sacramento giving themselves and the Judges "retroactive immunity from criminal and civil prosecution" in an attempt to legalize the payments at a time of fiscal crisis in California and the Courts. Those payments are continuing to this day despite the Sturgeon ruling that held legislation Senate Bill SBX2 11 did not legalize the payments. Judicial Watch is pressing for an Court Order to stop the payments and should be resolved in the California Court of Appeal this fall.


The corruption was documented in 2006 and 2009 in L A County lawsuits addressing the issue of illegal county payments to the State Judges here in L.A. The 2006 Sturgeon v.County of L.A. case and the 2009 Federal Court lawsuit Richard I. Fine v. L A County Sheriff Leroy Baca both involved L A County government. The lawsuits describe how the County is a major litigant in the State Superior Courts of L. A. and yet the Judges who are still receiving the payments illegally, failed to disclose this fact on their Economic Interest Forms 700 nor have they disclosed receipt of this money to the litigants in their courtrooms as required by law and Judicial Canons of Ethics. This practice continues to this day


Because the District Attorney's office of Public Integrity has not responded to the requests for investigation, it appears the County Board of Supervisors and Executives are going to get another pass from Cooley's administration. And the Board’s violations of California’s Brown Act, are likely to continue. California’s open meeting law mandates public and media access to official meetings, except where litigation is being discussed.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Third World.... New World Order Invades California Justice System: Editorial Comment

California Judicial Corruption Unchecked?
Editorial Comment

Los Angeles, CA - Since March 4, 2009, the Full Disclosure Network has been covering the Civil Contempt of Court case of prominent anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine, who is still being held in solitary "coercive confinement" in L A County Men's Central Jail. We have received emails and comments from viewers and visitors to our website who have offered suggestions on how Dr. Fine could get out of jail.

We are compelled to write this editorial comment in response to those who have suggested Dr, Fine should pay the $47,000 fine (court sanctions) in order to be released from jail. Ironically, only the Judge can release him and this is a case where the Judge has now overruled his own order, admitting that he himself has committed "fraud upon the court" by filing papers that referred to a non-existent court order in an effort to keep Dr. Fine in jail.

Richard I. Fine refused to obey a clearly illegal order by a State Superior Court Judge who had admitted in Court Testimony that he had been taking illegal payments from the County of Los Angeles while sitting on this case where the County was a party to the case. (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners v. County of Los Angeles)

Now, seventeen months later, too much damage has been done for this legal battle to end nicely. It is now a far bigger issue than just the sanction or the Judge refusing to disclose his conflict. It is the judicial system that has been revealed as corrupt by their own filings. Dr. Fine's court filings and the Court's denials of his motions and petitions offer solid evidence that we are no longer governed by the "Rule of Law". The court filings and lack of response demonstrate how far up the chain the Judges are willing to go for an additional $57,000 in under-the-table payments per year. Even when the 2008 Sturgeon vs. County of L.A. case held the payments to be illegal and Senate Bill SBX2-11 granted retroactive immunity to the judges and government officials from criminal and civil prosecution for their involvement in the payment scheme since 1987, there was no effort made to cease the payments as they continue to this day.

What a sad day for America. The issue before the courts in Richard Fine’s contempt case was that of "judicial bribery" that caused the conflict in the first place. The fact that the Judge admitted taking illegal payments and that his order wrongly stated Dr. Fine did not have standing to disqualify him from hearing the case could cause reasonable men to reconsider the injustice and illegal incarceration of Richard Fine. The U. S. Supreme Court denied Dr. Fine a hearing three times, ignoring the issue of judicial bribery and conflict. Three hundred million dollars have been paid to California State Judges illegally and should be cause for concern to both the U.S. Supreme Court and all Americans in the midst of a burgeoning fiscal crisis.

Yet there are those who suggest it could all go away if only Dr. Fine would give in and pay the illegal fine. However, from our vantage point, it would appear that Dr. Fine is going to remain a constant reminder that there are political prisoners in America, no matter what happens. Taxpayer advocates are in jeopardy, as is Dr. Fine, who fought hard representing the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the ideals of Paul Gann and Proposition 13, so that moms and pops back in 1978 would not be taxed out of their homes.

Law in the public interest is threatened now because Courts and Judges are breaking the laws, ignoring the Constitution. It would appear that California is in the grip of a New World, Third World, Order where the justice system is resembling what is happening in Mexico. There are no checks and balances in the Judicial System and the supervising and presiding judges and Courts who are charged with oversight have apparently been co-opted by extra benefits paid from the public coffers illegally by county officials.


Richard Fine lost in the courts but the battle for public and political reaction is just beginning. California Governor Schwarzenegger withdrew a multi-billion-dollar bond from the November ballot intended to fund critically important water projects as he received a “wake up call” from the finance community and opinion polls with a reminder that there is no more gravy train. It is just a matter of time, when the good tax-paying people of Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, etc. will be chipping in to help cover California's debt and our public employee pensions.


We thank our readers and viewers for their suggested solutions to win Dr. Fine's freedom. There will be a solution once we face the real problem….. of government accountability. California cannot balance its own books but is still paying judges millions illegally to ignore the law, while school administrators, staff and teachers are paid billions to educate the LAUSD student population, of whom 80 percent are in the country illegally and have a graduation rate of 40 percent and no promise of a job, legal or illegal.


Taking all these factors into consideration, one might consider that Richard Fine's protest, refusing to obey an illegal order, is just that … a protest. He has drawn a line and taken a stand against corruption. Not many people are willing to do what needed to be done…… to call attention to how we have lost "The Rule of Law". What Richard Fine has documented is how far up the ladder the corruption goes as the New Third World Order develops a stronghold in California.


Link to Richard Fine Jail Cell Video Statement (4 min)

# # # # # #

Monday, August 09, 2010

Life Sentence for Civil Contempt of Court for 70 yr-old Court Critic Attorney

Los Angeles, CA. – At age 70, prominent former attorney Richard I. Fine has spent seventeen months in solitary “Coercive Confinement,” incarcerated for Civil Contempt of Court following his attempt to disqualify California State Superior Court Judge David P.Yaffe. The Judge admitted taking illegal payments from a party to the case (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. Vs County of Los Angeles) and failed to disclose such and provided false information in court documents.


The Full Disclosure Network® cable television weekly programs and Internet reports on this case began in March of 2009 and were the first again covering Judge Yaffe’s July 13, 2010 corrected orders where he stated he “never intended to rule Mr. Fine did not have standing to disqualify him” from sitting on the case. When the U S Supreme Court declined to consider Richard Fine’s appeal alleging judicial corruption in the California Courts, he wrote this letter and "Call To Action" from his jail cell that was posted on the Full Disclosure Network Blog.

Pat & Jerry Epstein, Trustees Epstein Family Trust
Pressing Judge Yaffe to keep Richard Fine in "coercive confinement"


Judge Yaffe’s admissions should cause his ruling and judgment to be “null and void,” according to Richard Fine’s court filings. Yet he is still in jail. Pat and Jerry Epstein through their attorneys, have filed papers in Judge Yaffe’s Court opposing the release of Richard I Fine. The Epsteins are Trustees of the Epstein Family Trust, who are developer-partners Los Angeles County. Richard Fine was the attorney representing opponents of the development Del Rey Shores a major apartment complex on County owned property.

One attorney representing the Epsteins was Sheldon H. Sloan, who at the time was serving as president of the State Bar (2006) when disbarment proceedings against Fine began and during the time of the Marina Strand lawsuit. Fine is challenging his disbarment in higher courts.

Ninth Circuit No. 09-56073 "Petition to Immediately Vacate 12-16-09 Decision based on new information contained in Judge Yaffe's L A Superior Court Minute Order Admission
U S District Court No.CV-09-01914 Petitioner's Reply in support of Motion to Vacate states L A County and Judge Yaffe concealed illegal payments to Yaffe.


Read Full Richard Fine's Call To Action & Political Expose Here

Read the Full Disclosure Network® Newsletter: Judge Admits Fraud On The Court

What Is The Full Disclosure Network®?

Monday, August 02, 2010

Citizens Army Needed To Reform Judicial System Top To Bottom: Richard I Fine

Letter from L.A. County Jail:

A Call for Action to Restore Democracy and the Constitution

By Richard I Fine

This open letter is directed to all citizens, groups and public servants who are concerned that Americans have lost our constitutional rights, and most importantly, are willing to step forward and take the necessary action to restore those rights.

I, like you, have believed that those rights are protected by a fair, impartial judiciary resistant to corruption.

I believed that the integrity of the judicial system and the judges who worked within the system.
Then, I became involved in a series of cases in which judges were receiving illegal payments from Los Angeles County, who was a party before them. The judges did not disclose the payments and did not disqualify themselves. They then decided the cases in favor of L.A. County.

My belief was shaken but not shattered, as I believed the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, would condemn such action and restore the constitutional rights.

This did not happen.

Instead, I was imprisoned indefinitely for fighting to uphold our constitutional rights.

has been revered as the one nation in the world which represented a bastion of liberty and human rights and freedom from oppression. This is no longer true.

It is now up to us, the American citizens, to take action to restore our constitutional rights and rebuild our democracy.


On July 26, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied my Petition for Rehearing. The Court had before it L.A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe’s July 13, 2010’s admission that he (1) never intended to make a finding as to whether Mr. Fine had standing to disqualify Judge Yaffe as was stated in the March 18, 2008 Order, and (2) that the March 18, 2008 Order was only a draft and not filed. The admission occurred 17 months after Judge Yaffe used the March 18, 2008 house order as a basis to hold Fine in contempt of court in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowner’s Association v. County of Los Angeles, L.A.S.C. Case No. BS 109420. (Marina Strand case.)

The admission demonstrated that Judge Yaffe engaged in “fraud upon the court”, obstruction of justice and denial of due process. The denial of the Petition for Rehearing violated all previous U.S. Supreme Court case precedents. Judge Yaffe made the July 13, 2010 Minute Order in response to my June 28, 2010 motion to vacate the U. S. District Court's June 29, 2009 denial of my petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. In such motion I showed that no March 18, 2008 Order appeared on the docket of the Marina Strand Case, and consequently no March 18, 2008 order existed. Further Judge Yaffe was responding to my complaint against him made to the California Commission on Judicial Performance. Such complaint contained this fact, among others in seeking Judge Yaffe's removal.

The U.S. Supreme Court case is Richard I. Fine v. LeRoy D. Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, U. S. Supreme Court Case No. 09-1250. The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was: “Whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself?” Judge Yaffe took the position that he did not have to recuse himself because I did not have the right to disqualify him. That position changed more than two years later on July 13, 2010 as shown in the July 13, 2010 Minute Order.

The case involved the largest judicial corruption scandal in American history. Since the late 1980’s, California Counties have been making payments to state-elected judges located in their counties in addition to the state judges’ compensation paid by the State of California. In 2008, these county payments were held to violate Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630 (2008) Rev. Denied 12/23/08. By this time, the illegal payments by L.A. County alone to state L.A. Superior Court judges were over $300 million. Ninety percent of the state judges in California have received these illegal payments from counties in which their courts were located. In L.A. County, the payments were $46,366.00 per judge per year in 2009 and $57,000.00 per judge per year in 2010.

All of the state judges presided over cases in which the county which paid them the illegal payments was a party before the judge, without disclosing the illegal payments to the opposing party.

After the Sturgeon decision, the California Legislature passed California Senate Bill SBX 211, which was enacted on February 20, 2009. It became effective on May 21, 2009. On December 22, 2008, Judge Yaffe testified that he had taken, and was taking L.A. County payments, did not disclose such on his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest and could not remember any case in the last three years that he decided against L.A. County.

Judge Yaffe was both the judge and witness in the contempt proceeding and “judged his own actions”. This act violated due process as stated in the case of In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) – “No man can be a judge in his own case . . . No man is permitted to try a case where he has an interest in the outcome.”

The U.S. Supreme Court had the December 22, 2008 transcript of Judge Yaffe’s testimony before it when it decided to deny the Petition for Rehearing. The U.S. Supreme Court justices knew that they were violating due process as set forth by the precedent of the Murchison case, when they denied the Petition for Rehearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices also knew that they were denying due process because Judge Yaffe’s admission in the July 13, 2010 Minute Order demonstrated his “fraud upon the court” in the Marina Strand case.

This “fraud upon the court” vitiated the entire Marina Strand case and voided any order or judgment of Judge Yaffe. (See U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1897); Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920).).

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court justices knew that the direct payments of $46,366.00 per year from L.A. County to Judge Yaffe violated due process as stated in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927) cited in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. ___ (2009), slip opinion page 10:

“Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the state and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Caperton also stated at slip opinion, page 16: “Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise, when without the consent of the other parties, a man chooses the judge in his own case . . .” L.A. County has “bought the L.A. Superior Court” through the L.A. County payments to the state L.A. Superior Court judges.


Finally, if Judge Yaffe having decided cases in favor of L.A. County for three years, the L.A. County payments to Judge Yaffe may be considered “bribes”. This is particularly true since California Senate Bill SBX 211 gave retroactive immunity from state criminal prosecution for the payments. In Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), the U.S. Supreme Court stated::
“A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice.”

In this regard, Judge Yaffe also violated 18 U.S.C. section 1346 - the intangible right to honest services. In Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. - (decided June 24, 2010), the Supreme Court held that bribery and kickbacks were violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1346.

Also, on July 26, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Fine’s Application to be set free from L.A. Men’s Central jail. The U.S. Supreme Court had before it a June 18, 2010 Minute Order from Judge Yaffe in which Judge Yaffe admitted that Fine had requested a hearing to be set free on May 17, 2010, and Judge Yaffe refused to hold such hearing.

Judge Yaffe also admitted in the June 18, 2010 Minute Order that Fine had informed him that continued incarceration will not induce him [Fine] to furnish information.”


The denial of the Application violated U.S. Supreme Court precedent which holds that confinement beyond the time that bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which the person is committed is a denial of due process. (See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972); McNeil v. Director Tatuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245 (1972). A reasonable relationship was interpreted in the Jackson and McNeil cases to mean penal confinement. In California, “penal” confinement for a contempt of court conviction is five days under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1218. Fine has been incarcerated for 17 months, since March 4, 2009.
No federal court cited any case in support of the denial of Fine’s writ of habeas corpus, which opposed the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court cases. The U.S. District Court did not cite any case to support its conclusion that Judge Yaffe should not have been recused. The Ninth Circuit did not rely upon the Caperton case and did not cite to that part of the Tumey case set forth above which addressed due process to support its conclusion that Judge Yaffe should not have been recused. The Ninth Circuit did not cite any other case on the subject.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a one word ruling: “Denied.”

The result of the denial of the Petition for Rehearing and the Application to be set free is that the United States Supreme Court has removed the constitutional right of due process.

All of the federal judges and justices took an oath of office on becoming a judge or justice to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Further, under Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior. . .”

The actions of the District Court, Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and U S District Judge John F . Walter, the Ninth Circuit justices Steven Reinhardt, Steven Trott, and Kim Wardlaw the U.S. Supreme Court justices in the federal Habeas Corpus case of Fine v. Baca demonstrated that: (1) they did not engage in legal analysis for reasoning; (2) they did not uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States; and (3) they did not follow the rule of law.


Further in this highly charged political corruption case, it was unconscionable of the Ninth Circuit to select as a panel Justices Reinhardt, Wardlaw, Trott. Justice Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. The ACLU is a "quote" partner with Leroy D. Baca Sheriff of Los Angeles County in the Court Mandated management of the Men's Central Jail according to an interview on Full Disclosure Network ACLU representatives and high ranking sheriff's officials. The ACLU further admitted received funds from L A County for monitoring the Men's Central jail. Justice Trott is a former member of the Los Angeles District Attorney's. According to his current financial disclosure form he is presently receiving approximately $12,000 per year in pension benefits from L A County. Justice Wardlaw according to the interview with her husband William ("Bill") Wardlaw is a family friend of L A Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. In 2004 her husband William ("Bill") Wardlaw attempted to convince L A County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to run for Mayor of Los Angeles. Bill Wardlaw also appeared as a contributor to the election campaign of Zev Yaroslavsky. Bill Wardlaw is a partner in the investment consulting firm of Freeman, Spogli which engages in managing investments for Counties and other governmental organizations. Kim Wardlaw's financial disclosure forms unfortunately did not disclose whether she and Bill Wardlaw maintained L A County investments and whether Freeman Spogli was managing L A County investments as various parts of the financial disclosure form were blacked out.

Their actions demonstrated that they abused their power and the trust placed in them by their position to:

  1. undermine and destroy the constitutional right to due process;
  2. promote bribery and dishonesty within the judiciary;
  3. “cover-up” for those members of the judiciary who had taken illegal payments and then presided over cases in which the person who made the illegal payment was a party; and
  4. incarcerate those persons such as Fine, who had challenged such illegal conduct.

All three of these Ninth Circuit Justices should not have presided over my case, as each of them had financial or political relationship with L A County, the L A County Sheriff or an L A County supervisor. They were biased from the outset of the case. The Ninth Circuit has approximately forty-nine available judges to have decided Fine's case. It is incredulous that the Ninth Circuit selected three judges who have relationship with L A County to be the Judges to preside over my (Fine's) case.

Their actions are outside the realm of “good behavior” and appropriate sanctions are both mandated and should be immediately implemented. This is necessary to restore the federal judiciary to a place of honesty and integrity where it will hopefully again gain the respect which it has now lost.

Immediate federal legislation must be passed:

  1. prohibiting any federal, state, county or municipal judge or justice from taking any compensation from any person appearing before him or her, or likely to appear before him or her, with the exception of a governmental entity of which the judge or justice is an elected official or employee;
  2. prohibiting any elected judge or justice from presiding over a case in which a party or its lawyer contributed greater than $500.00 to the judge or justice in the judge in the justice’s last election campaign and since such election until the time of the case; and
  3. requiring every judge or justice to disclose on the record at the commencement of each case any information which is reasonably related to the question of disqualification under federal or state law or codes of ethics, even if the judge or justice believes there is no basis for disqualification.
  4. The law should be retroactive to January 1, 2007 to encompass the Marina Strand case and the federal writ of habeas corpus involving Mr. Fine.

At the State of California level, the state judges and justices have taken the same oath with the added inclusion of upholding the constitution and laws of the State of California.
Additional reforms are also necessary to stop the unlimited coercive confinement to which I am unlawfully subjected.

I recommend that we make into law those cases that have upheld constitutional rights. By doing this, the courts will not have the opportunity to disregard constitutional rights in the future as they have done in my case.

In the Marina Strand case, Judge Yaffe violated California Code of Ethics:

  1. Canon 4D(1) – by engaging in financial dealings that may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position or involve the judge in frequent transactions for continuing business relationships with . . . persons likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves;
  2. Canon 3E(2) – by not disclosing on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification; and
  3. Canon 3E(1) – for not disqualifying himself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.

Judge Yaffe also violated California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) – by not disqualifying himself when a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

In the Marina Strand case and in the habeas corpus case Judge Yaffe never disputed that he violated these Canons or Code sections by taking the L.A. County payments in the Marina Strand case. He only argued that he should have been “caught” earlier. He never acted upon his legal responsibility that he should have disqualified himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case.

must now “clean up” the judiciary. Chief Justice George, who presided over nearly 20 years of illegal county payments to judges, is now retiring. The counties can immediately stop the illegal payments and relieve their budget crises.

Irrespective of Senate Bill SBX 211’s retroactive immunity against disciplinary action, judges who took the illegal county payments can either retire, or be voted out of office at their next election.

Ultimately, there is impeachment as a remedy to rid the judiciary of such judges as Judge Yaffe who violated the law, violated the Code of Judicial Ethics, took L.A. County illegal payments and in return for such payments made orders and judgments in favor of L.A. County and its co-applicants as occurred in the Marina Strand case, committed “fraud upon the court” and obstructed justice by making false orders and unlawfully incarcerating those who challenge them, such as Fine.

Impeachment proceedings must immediately be instituted against Judge Yaffe by the California legislature. The Attorney General and the L.A. District Attorney must immediately institute criminal charges for obstruction of justice. The United States Attorney General must immediately institute charges for violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 – The intangible right to honest services. Only by taking these actions will the errant members of the California judiciary understand that the public is serious about ridding the judiciary of the unsavory judges. Judge Yaffe has already been reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance. At the same time, it is incumbent that the Governor demand that the California Supreme Court, on its own motion, reverse its denial of the writ of habeas corpus in the case of Fine v. Superior Court decided March 5, 2009. This reversal would be based upon Judge Yaffe’s admission in his July 13, 2010 Minute Order that he never intended to decide whether Fine had standing to file a verified Statement of Disqualification in the March 18, 2008 Order and that the March 18, 2008 Order was a draft and not filed, as distinguished from having been represented as a real order in the March 27, 2008 Order Striking Notice of Disqualification.

The Governor must also demand that the California Supreme Court, on its own motion, and that the L.A. Superior Court, on its own motion, void and annul all orders and judgments of Judge Yaffe in the Marina Strand case, including the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt against Fine which incarcerated Fine. This voiding and annulling would also be based upon Judge Yaffe’s July 13, 2010 admission of fraud upon the court and obstruction of justice.
The Governor must further demand that the California Supreme Court reverse its order disbarring Richard I. Fine. Such order violated the First Amendment, was made in retaliation for Fine’s position against the illegal payments from the counties to the judges and specifically disbarred Fine for having been correct in filing cases that he filed challenging the County payments to the judges as being a violation to Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution as was held in the Sturgeon case before the California Supreme Court initiated its Order of Disbarment.
To encourage the California Supreme Court and the L.A. Superior Court to act, the Governor should inform them that he will withhold all court funding until they act as requested and that he will not approve any court funding in the new 2010-2011 budget until they act as requested.
Further, the Governor should arrange the introduction of legislation to repeal California Senate Bill SBX 211 which was enacted as part of the 2009-2010 budget package. This will remove the retroactive immunity and will also remove the judiciary’s successful action to reinstate the illegal county payments to judges which is presently in litigation.

Only by removing these illegal payments will California begin to have an honest judiciary.

Finally, the Governor should also arrange for the introduction and passage of California legislation parallel to the federal legislation outlined above.

For over 20 years Californians have lived under a “third world judicial system” in which illegal county payments to state judges have eviscerated any semblance of due process and constitutional rights.

Judge Yaffe’s conduct of making false statements about court orders and unlawfully imprisoning Fine to satisfy his greed for L.A. County payments demonstrated the low level to which the California judicial system has sunk.

The federal judiciary and the U.S. Supreme Court’s acceptance and approval of such California judiciary conduct indicate that the United States is no longer a nation governed by the “rules of law.”

Now is the time for the citizenry to exercise its voice and its power, to express to its public servants that change must occur, and to demand and institute the necessary