Tuesday, September 28, 2010

California-Global Environmental Politics: Prop. 23 Who Wins...Who Loses? Video Debate (7 min)



Los Angeles, CA - The Full Disclosure Network ® presents a seven minute video debate over California's Proposition 23, the initiative to suspend implementation of the "Global Warming Solutions Act" (AB 32) enacted in 2006. The video debate features the following:

  • Jesse Marquez, Appointed to the California Global Warming Solutions Act EJ Advisory Committee and who is the founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for a Safe Environment is a UCLA trained Community Organizer.
  • Alex Alexiev, a former Rand Corporation Senior Public Policy and National Security Analyst with 32 years experience, is currently with the Hudson Institute.
  • Leslie Dutton, Moderator and Emmy Award winning Producer of the Full Disclosure Network cable TV and Internet productions.
Alexiev points out that California’s Proposition 23 on the 2010 November ballot was designed by to temporarily stop implementation of "the Global Solutions Act" (AB32) which was signed into law in 2006. The law has come under scrutiny by public policy experts, who warn that the California economic crisis will be worsened by massive job losses created if the legislation is allowed to be implemented during a time of budget cuts, layoffs and fiscal crisis.

Marquez counters the negative claims that AB32 will be harmful and urges Proposition 23 to be defeated so that the new law can be implemented immediately to stop global warming and other public health related problems.

Please cast your vote on the questions at the end of the video. CLICK HERE

  • Considering the crippled economy of California, do you think it is the appropriate time to attempt to solve a global problem?

 -- YES or NO
  • Do you think that California should dedicate itself to resolving the immediate danger of climate change?

 -- YES or NO
  • Do you think global warming is a serious man-made problem that needs immediate and extensive action?

 -- YES or NO

RELATED LINK:
What is the Full Disclosure Network?

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Richard Fine On His Coercive Confinement in L A County Jail for Challenging Judicial Corruption EXCLUSIVE VIDEO (10 min)

Los Angeles, CA Two days following his unexpected release from L A Central Men's Jail On Friday September 17, 2010 Richard I. Fine described the conditions in "coercive confinement' and his eighteen month ordeal waging a legal battle for freedom from his solitary jail cell without an attorney. Full Disclosure Network® presents a ten minute video preview from a three hour exclusive interview featured on the Internet Websitehttp://www.fulldisclosure.net.

Richard Fine who holds a Ph.D in International Law and was a former U.S . Prosecutor in Washington D. C. tells of his darkest moment during his incarceration, and the reasons why he was never tempted to give in to the illegal order of State Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe.

The full interview is to be released to Public Access Cable channels throughout California and on Community Cable channels in major cities throughout the United States a and the Internet. The Full Disclosure Network is billed as "the news behind the news", an independent public affairs cable TV show produced by Emmy Award winning host Leslie Dutton and Producer T J Johnston since 1992.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Richard I. Fine Is Free: Result of Judicial Conscience or Confusion?

JDr. Richard I Fine, Court Critic
Former U. S. Prosecutor, Dept. of Justice Washington D.C.


Los Angeles, CA -- On Friday, September 17, 2010 at 10 p.m. Richard I Fine was released from his solitary "coercive confinement" cell in L A County Mens Central jail where he spent the last 18 months. He was unexpectedly released by Order of California Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe who had just posted a Minute Order on September 16, 2010, one day before, where he restated that Fine should continue incarceration, setting a hearing date for six months in the future. Although Richard Fine was never charged with a crime or convicted he was incarcerated after attempting to disqualify Judge Yaffe from sitting on his civil contempt of court case due to a conflict of interest.


Yom Kippur Turn-Around?:

Why would Judge Yaffe reverse himself the very next day on September 17th on Kol Nidre, the first day of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement in the Jewish religion. Judge Yaffe apparently had a change of heart, issuing an Order that Sheriff Baca release Dr. Richard Fine from jail. It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the 1974 case of L.A. Times reporter William T. Farr (In Re Farr) held that a person should not be held for more five days in “Coercive Confinement” for civil contempt of court. Was this the reason Judge Yaffe had a change of heart?

Yaffe Explains His Confusion:

Judge Yaffe took pains to explain his frustration in his September 17, 2010 Minute Order releasing Dr. Fine from jail:


“For reasons known only to himself, Fine is attempting to obtain his release from this court and from the appellate court at the same time. He filed a motion for such relief in this court, and then, before it could be heard, he requested the same relief from the Court of Appeal. It is unclear what he expects this court to do in light of his petition to a higher court.”


Full Disclosure contacted Dr. Fine By Telephone For Response:

“Judge Yaffe was confused because he could not determine the difference between a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the Appellate Court to obtain my release and a Motion filed in his court to Void and Annul All Orders and Judgments in the (case of) Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. Vs. L A County .”


Editors Note: View the document here that was before Judge Yaffe (Notice of Motion to Null & Void All Orders in the Marina Strand Colony II vs County of Los Angeles) No. BS109420 Richard Fine's Motion is based upon the court documents filed with the higher courts by Yaffe and his lawyer Kevin McCormick which he has now admitted were based on false information and a non-existent court order. These documents were filed in opposition to releasing Richard I. Fine from jail.


Judge Yaffe Admitted Taking Payments From LA County

Judge Yaffe had admitted in court testimony that he was receiving illegal payments from L. A County who was a party to the case. In 2008 the Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles case held that the County payments to State Judges was illegal and unconstitutional. It has been estimated that State Superior Court Judges have received over $300 million in illegal payments from the County since 1987 and have failed to disclose this fact to litigants in the courtroom.


On October 13, 2010 the Fourth District Califorinia Court of Appeal will hold Oral Arguements in the Sturgeon vs County of LA case where the Judicial Watch organization is seeking Injunctive Relief to stop the illegal County payments to State Judges that are now $57,000 per judge per year on top of their State Salary of $180,000. These developments have caused considerable tension within the Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe especially regarding the handling of the Richard I Fine case. The announcement a few weeks ago that Yaffe was going to retire in November before his term of office was to expire led to speculation that Yaffe was "resigning" rather than retiring from office.



Why Did Judge Yaffe Reconsider Fine's “Coercive Confinement”

When writing his release Order, Judge Yaffe questioned “whether Fine’s continued confinement serves any useful purpose.” He went on to justify his original Contempt Order and indefinite sentence of Dr. Fine with the following statement:

“By keeping him incarcerated for 18 months, the court has deterred others from defying its orders to the extent that it is possible to do so given the facts of this case.” Judge David P. Yaffe

Read Entire Order Here



Opinion Survey: Leave your answers in the comment section at bottom of page:

Should the Court punish lawyers who raise the issue of Judicial conflict?

Yes or No?


Is this why only 3 succesful lawsuits against LA County in 10 years?

Yes or No ?


Does Yaffe's Statement Indicate Retaliation Against Fine?

Yes or No ?


Should Lawsuits against L A County be Prohibited Entirely ?

Yes or No?


State Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe

Resigned From Office Effective November 1, 2010



Judicial Obstruction of Justice Prosecution Demanded

Richard Fine submitted a September 3, 2010 letter to California Attorney General Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown, Jr., Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, U. S. Attorney Andre Birotte, Jr., and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder requesting Grand Jury Investigations and Indictments of Yaffe and 21 other State and Federal Court Judges.



The Concluding Statement Of Richard Fine's Investigation Demand 9-23-10:

“Since the judiciary has clearly shown itself both incapable and unwilling to root out the corruption within its ranks, the responsibility falls upon each of you as the respective leaders of our law enforcement agencies to prosecute the wrongdoers. Rid our Federal, State and Municipal Governments of corrupt politicians and remove all corrupt judges from office.”

“At the present time, our judiciary is akin to one which has been ‘purchased’ by the cartels in Mexico or subject to the corruption in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan.”

“The State trial court judges in LA County have been ‘purchased’ over the last 23 years for $300 million. Judge Yaffe has been ‘purchased’ for $500,000. Ninety percent of the California trial judges in 55 of the 58 counties have been ‘purchased.’ The federal judiciary, up through the U.S. Supreme Court, has been complicit and has allowed this to happen, irrespective of all Supreme Court precedent forbidding such.”

“I have provided you the facts to start your grand juries. As a former Justice Department lawyer who indicted GM and Ford for price fixing and investigated international pulp, paper and newsprint cartels through the use of grand juries, I have complete confidence that, with a concerted effort, each of you will be successful.”

“Once that success is achieved, the United States will again have the finest judicial system in the world.” View Entire Document Here


# # # # #

Monday, September 13, 2010

SAVING THE PUBLIC ACCESS TV CHANNELS IN AMERICA


Los Angeles, CA The loss of all the public access cable channels in Los Angeles shocked the entire community including many of the Hollywood personalities and industry professionals got their start on the public access television. Many of them have come together with local cable producers to restore what was lost following an ugly legislative battle in Sacramento in 2006, where the telecom and cable companies in collusion with government officials killed the public access channels Los Angeles.

The Full Disclosure Network® presents a six minute preview of a four-part special series featuring prominent luminaries and civic leaders who describe reasons why they have joined the battle ahead to bring back public access channels in L.A. they are: Seven time Emmy Award winner Ed Asner, Vin Di Bona the Executive Producer of America's Funniest Home Videos, Stanley Sheinbaum Former U C Regent & ACLU First Amendment Advocate, Ron Kaye, a long-time Editor L A Daily News and B. Scott Minerd Chief Investment Officer Guggenheim Partners and David R. Hernandez, Civic Activist. The series is hosted by Emmy Award winner Leslie Dutton.

The documentary series also features the never reported testimony of L A City officials and public access producers in as they appeared in the official debate prior to the City's decision to shut down the channels.Others appearing in the are community cable producers and operators across the nation who tell Full Disclosure Network the benefits of public access programming to the community, they are: Ron Cooper of Sacramento Access,
, Elaine Alston, James Caviness and Robert Sherreta of DCTV and Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, Arthur Poma and Steve Creeger all former cable company operatives.

There are twelve segments in the Documentary that explain the purpose of Public Access television, the history, the battle ground and hope for the future battle to save this valueable public asset.

TWELVE SEGMENTS COMING SOON:
Segment #1 (8 min) "LA Public Access TV Fight Gains Interest Across America"
Segment #2 (8 min) "Unique Content and Issues Ignored By Commercial Media"
Segment #3 (8 min) "Cities Drop Public Channels But Keep Franchise Fees Intended For PEG Channels"
Segment #4 (8 min) "Public Access TV Was Training Ground For Industry"
Segment #5 (8 min) "Public Access Programming Inspired Youth & Community"
Segment# 6 (8 min) "PEG Public, Educational & Government Channels Threatened"
Segment #7 (8 min) "Public Access TV Funds Diverted By City Government"
Segment #8 (8 min) "City Officials Blame State for Los of Local Public Access TV"
Segment #9 (8 min) "Federal Legislation For Cable Fees Use In Operations Funding Stalled in Congress"
Segment #10 (8 min) "Internet Is No Replacement for the Public Access Audience"
Segment #11 (8 min) "Why Politicians Aren't Interested In Restoring Public Access TV"
Segment #12 (8 min) " Restore LA Public Access TV: Public Television Industry Corporation (P-TIC) To"