Sunday, March 27, 2011

Small Claims Kangaroo Court: TV Video Series Online

Los Angeles, CA Witnesses who were to testify at a Small Claims Court appeal trial de novo in the Santa Monica Superior Court of California were shocked and astounded by the Kangaroo Court procedures employed by Judge Lawrence Cho in the attorney fee-dispute claim filed by attorney Donald L. Zachary against the American Association of Women, Inc. (AAW)

Featured here in a two-part special series are four witnesses who described what happened in Judge Cho’s courtroom on January 10, 2011 with commentary and legal explanation from a Court Expert. Those appearing in the video are: Janette Isaacs, John Baron, Gonzalo Larenas, T. J. Johnston, and Court Expert Richard I. Fine, Ph.D. The full one-hour program is featured on public access and community cable channels across the country, online here from links below and is available for purchase on DVD.

Click on title links below to view 8 minute segments

Segment # 1 - Small Claims Judge Ignores Rules, Laws, Evidence

Witnesses describe an absent minded Judge who skipped the Oath to tell the truth and witness testimony in a Kangaroo Small Claims Court proceeding. Witnesses who were never allowed to testify tell of Superior Court Judge Lawrence Cho rendering a decision without any sworn testimony, witnesses or evidence in a billing dispute before him. Court expertRichard I. Fine, a former U S Prosecutor describes the Rules of the Court and the rights of litigants to present their evidence under oath.

Segment # 2 - Judge+Attorney=Collusion Without Evidence
Witnesses describe suspicious behavior by Small Claims Court Judge Cho who did not require Attorney Donald Zachary to comply with subpoena for his billing records and time sheets to substantiate his charges. Witnesses say it looked like collusion between the Judge and Attorney. Court expert describes the essential requirement that claims have to be authenticated. According to the Court expert Richard Fine, the judge breeched the legal obligation cited in the Evidence Code, because the party didn't produce the documents as evidence.

Segment # 3 - Judge Favors Attorneys Who Send Secret Message To Bench
Witness Janette Isaacs questions what was in a secret message was sent to the Judge by attorney Zachary before the appeal trial started. Court expert says this would be an illegal "exparte" communication. This he says would disqualify the judge from sitting on the case

Segment # 4 - County Pays Judges Millions To Favor County On Cases
Citizen Derrick Jones complains about Superior Court Judge Lawrence Cho whose bizarre behavior is complicated because the County pays the Judge who then decides in the County's favor. This frustrated citizen has lost faith in the government and says TV Judge Judy could do a better job. Court Expert Richard Fine a former U. S. Prosecutor suggests how citizens can deal with abuse from the court. Visit this web page to find out How To Disqualify Your Judge.

Segment # 5 - Citizens Ignorant of Law Are Targets of Court & Judicial Abuse
Citizens must become aware of their rights to guard against Judicial Abuse. The government must be challenged at every step. Complaints must be filed in writing soon after the abuse takes place. Court expert Richard I. Fine former U.S. Prosecutor relates the importance. Watch what the Superior Court did to us.

Segment # 6 - Deviate, Unfair Small Claims Court Procedures
Law requires a "Statement of Liabilities" to be submitted to the Court where a debt is being disputed. Attorney Donald Zachary never submitted such a statement required by legal Statute upon which the Judge is required to base his decision. Corruption in the Court is commonplace as the County consistently prevails and is paying millions to the State employed Judges.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

How To Disqualify Your State Superior Court Judge & Get A New Trial

Los Angeles, CA Former U S Prosecutor Dr. Richard I Fineexplains how citizens can disqualify a State judge who is "on the take". All 430 California Superior Court Judges in L A County can be disqualified by citizens who have been involved in litigation against the County of Los Angeles in the last two decades. If you lost your case and did not know your judge was getting money from the County, Richard Fine says you can "Null & Void" the Judge's Order and get a new trial.

If you paid money to the County, you now have a chance to recover that money, according to Dr. Fine's experience, he has already disqualified five judges who have been "On the Take" in his cases involving the County of L.A. That is why he was locked up in L A County jail for 18 months without being charged or convicted of a crime. Now he can show you the way to get JUSTICE. Featured here are Dr. Fine's Motions to "Null & Void" that were used by him to disqualify the five Judges so far in his case.

Richard Fine suggests that you can file "In Pro-Per" or better yet ask your attorney to use Dr. Fine's Motions To Null & Void the Decision made by your Judge. The templates he used are shown below.

Step 1Contact L A County Auditor-Controller: Greg Iverson to request amount County paid to your judge since 1987 (link to Richard Fine's example below). Use the Template with name & E-mail address where to send: (download & print here) (and here)
Step 2Download Richard Fine's TEMPLATE Motions to Disqualify & Null & Void Judge's Orders:
Motion to Disqualify, Null & Void Judge David Yaffe (Aug. 6, 2010) (Aug. 27, 2010)
Motion to Disqualify, Null & Void Judge Robert O'Brien (Dec. 2010) (Jan. 27, 2011)
Reply Motion to Disqualify, Null & Void Elihu Berle ( Mar 2, 2011)
Motion to Disqualify, Null & Void Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl (RemoveJudgeKuhl)
Step 3Send a copy of your Motion with Case number to Full Disclosure Network, 333 Washington Blvd. Suite #24, Marina del Rey, CA 90402 or E-mail it to so Full Disclosure Network can follow and report on YOUR case.

NOTE: Please send Full Disclosure a copy of the L A Auditor-Controller's response to you with the amount of money your Judge received. We will post a chart with the totals to inform the public on how much the Judges are receiving in this illegal Double Benefits.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Richard I Fine: Seeking a "Clean Judge" In L. A. County To Hear His Motion

David P. Yaffe, Ann I Jones, Robert O'Brien, Elihu Berle, Carolyn B. Kuhl

Subscribe To Our RSS at the top of right column here

New Video Coming March 17, 2011

"How To Reform Our Judicial System
& Return Integrity To Our Courts"

Read About It Here

Los Angeles, CA The Superior Court "shake up" over the conflict caused by L A County's Double Benefits paid to elected State Superior Court Judges continues. Five of the 430 State Superior Court Judges who are elected to hold office in L A County either recused or were "Disqualified" from hearing a Motion filed by former U. S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D. Fine served 18 months in solitary "Coercive Confinement" in L A County Jail for civil contempt of Court in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs. County of Los Angeles after attempting to
Disqualify Judge David P. Yaffe who had admitted in Court testimony that he was taking money from the county while he was not employed or under contract with the county.

Richard Fine told the Full Disclosure Network the definition of a "Disqualified Judge" is any judge who has accepted money from other than their employer in this case the County of Los Angeles who is also a party to the case." Here is the motion filed by Richard Fine that includes the citations whereby a Disqualified judge has no right to sit on a case and issue Orders.

Because Judge David P. Yaffe refused to step down after he was Disqualified and instead issued Orders from the bench after admitting in Court testimony that he was receiving payments from the County Richard Fine's motion is asking the Court to declare all of Judge Yaffe's Orders in the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs. County of L.A. to be Null and Void. This would include Yaffe's Order to remand Richard Fine into custody of the L. A. County Sheriff.

Richard I Fine's scheduled hearing before Judge Elihu Berle for Thursday, March 10, 2011 was mysteriously aborted. His Motion to Null and Void all Judge Yaffe's Orders in the Marina case was scuttled by yet another nervous judge. Judge Berle disappeared and the Court notified Fine his motion was moved off calendar on Friday, March 4, 2001 by Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl (pictured left) Read the Order here. Richard Fine responded by filing this Notice declaring Judge Kuhl's actions had violated the Judicial Ethics Canons 2A, 3E(1) and (2) and 4D(1) and an Obstruction of Justice when she removed the hearing from the calendar as she was Disqualified from taking any action due to her having taken money from the County. Based on the payments to all Judges over the past 24 years Fine estimated that both Judge Kuhl and her husband have received at a minimum $700,000 each in illegal payments from the County Controller's Report here.

Upon his release from jail Richard I. Fine began to research the extent of County payments to the individual State Superior Court Judges and was provided with the following information from the county records on five judges so far where his Motion had been scheduled for hearing. All five judges are disqualified due to having taken the money from L A County. They are:

Judge David P. Yaffe $850,000.00
Judge Ann I. Jones $500,000.00 (estimate)
Judge Robert O'Brien $270,000.00
Judge Elihu Berle $660,000.00
Judge Carolyn B Kuhl $1,600,000.00 Estimate includes husband Superior Court Judge Wm. Foster Highberger

Eight Minute Video: Richard Fine On L A County Corruption

NEW VIDEO COMING Thursday, March 17, 2011

(click on subscribe in top right column)

Monday, March 07, 2011

Did L.A. County & Marina Developers Commit Redevelopment Fraud In Pay-to-Play Scheme?

The latest hearing on attorney Richard I. Fine's Motion to void and annul all improper orders entered by Judge David P. Yaffe has been set for March 10, 2011, in Dept. 1 of the Los Angeles Superior Court before Supervising Judge Elihu Berle. Dr. Fine's Motion exposes more details concerning the "redevelopment fraud" rampant in Los Angeles County.


  • Reply filed on March 2, 2011, for hearing to be held March 10th in Dept. 1 at 9:00 a.m. (This filing has yet to be posted electronically on the Court's website.) Now Available Here 3-10-11

  • Reply In Support of Motion for Renewal of Motion to Void and Annul All Orders and Judgments, Including Those in the Contempt Proceedings in the Case Made by Judge Yaffe. [Download and Print entire ten-page document with exhibits here, or individual Exhibits #1 thru #6, below.]

Summary Headings as stated in the Reply Brief:

1. No Opposition Filed by L A County or Del Rey Shores. (If this were an appellate case, "failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion". Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).)

2. L. A.. County Did Not "Serve" Any Opposition.
Exhibit #1 Superior Court Website Case Summary #BS109420

3. The "Unfiled" Del Rey Shores Opposition Did Not Contest Any of the Grounds, New Facts, Legal Significance of Such New Facts or Reasons for the Motion, Thereby Effectively Conceding to the Granting of the Motion.

4. New Documents Confirm L. A. County and Del Rey Shores Commit Redevelopment Fraud From the Outset of This Case.
  • A. - L. A. County Supervisors, L. A. County and the Epsteins Have Engaged in a Fraud Regarding the Del Rey Shores Redevelopment Project from the Outset.

  • Exhibit #4, Letter, Beaches & Harbors' response to Public Records Act Request

  • B. - "Pay To Play" - All L. A. County Board of Supervisors' Approvals of the Del Rey Shores Redevelopment Were Illegal Due to the Illegal Votes of Supervisors Voting for the Project Who Had Received Contributions of $500.00 or More Within One Year of Their Votes on the Project from Epstein and the Epstein Interest.

5. California and Federal Statutory and Case Law Mandate that Judges Taking Money from a Person Appearing Before Them Lose Their Judgeships and Be Imprisoned for "Bribery" and the Violation of the "Intangible Right to Honest Services".

6. Senate Bill SBX2-11, Section 5, the Retroactive Immunity Section, Does Not Protect the Judges, Government Entities, Government Officials and Employees from State Criminal Prosecution and Removal From Office for Obstruction of Justice and Federal Prosecution for Bribery. (Exhibit #6, L. A. County Auditor-Controller - Report on Judicial Benefits)

7. Section 5 of Senate Bill SBX2-11 is Unconstitutional.

8. The Del Rey Opposition's Argument that this Motion Is For Reconsideration Is Fraudulent, Frivolous and Totally Without Merit.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: Fine respectfully requests that the Court take Judicial Notice of all exhibits to the Declaration of Richard I. Fine shown as having been obtained from Los Angeles County as official records of Los Angeles County.

County Redevelopment Partners
Jerry & Pat Epstein ~ Kirk & Anne Douglas
Del Rey Shores Developers

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR READERS: California Senate Bill SBX2-11, which the judges use to avoid prosecution for receiving illegal county payments, provides NO immunity for "obstruction of justice" for sitting on cases while receiving money from a party to the case; Canons of Judicial Ethics offer them no safe harbor either. (See Summary Items #6 and #7.) SBX2-11 also did not amend the California Constitution, thus judges remain in violation of Article VI, Section 19, which states that judges' income is limited to that provided by the State alone (with a few minor exceptions for educators, etc.).

Richard I. Fine: County Influencing Judges With Double $ Benefits, Developers Pay To Play - Exclusive Video News Report (8 min)

Los Angeles, CA ~ In an 8-minute video news report, former U.S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine describes his strategy for returning integrity to the California Court system and the reasons why State Superior Court Judges cannot sit on cases where they have received money from parties who appear before them. At a hearing on March 10, 2011, he is asking the Supervising Judge, Elihu Berle in Department 1, to rule on his Motion to Null and Void all Court Orders issued by Judge David Yaffe in a controversial Marina del Rey redevelopment case Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs. County of Los Angeles, et al. View exclusive video report here.


Since September 2010, three other judges have refused to hear Fine's motion: Judge Yaffe abruptly resigned from office after refusing to hear the matter, Judge Ann Jones recused herself because she had discussed the matter with Yaffe, and Judge O'Brien refused a hearing but denied the motion. According to L A County Auditor's Records attached to Fine's Motion to Null and Void JudgeYaffe has taken over $850,000 in double benefits, payments from the County while sitting on cases where the County is involved as a party. Judge Berle has taken $637,000, and Judge O'Brien almost $300,000. Fine contends that by taking these payments from the County, the Judges are disqualified from hearing any case based where the county is involved based on the Judicial Canons of Ethics and the State Constitution's prohibition against such payments.


Fine's court documents point to an alleged "Pay-to-Play" political contribution scheme between the Del Rey Shores developers and the elected County Board of Supervisors, who have given over $350 million in double benefits to all the L A. County Judges since 1987. Fine states that Marina del Rey Developers Jerry and Pat Epstein and their development partners, Hollywood icon Kirk Douglas and his wife Ann Douglas, have given Supervisors thousands of dollars in contributions since 2008, a fact that Fine contends makes illegal the votes in favor of the controversial project. Richard Fine was the former attorney representing homeowners who oppose the development at the time he landed in L A County Jail in solitary "coercive confinement" for 18 months for "civil contempt" of court. This was an unusual occurrence for a prominent former U. S. Prosecutor who served in the Department of Justice in Washington D.C.


A total of three Superior Court Judges have refused to hear Richard Fine's ten page Motion to Null and Void all Orders issued by Yaffe in favor of the Del Rey Shores development. Now a fourth, Judge Berle, is faced with the same decision. Will he refuse to hear the matter too? Is there any Superior Court Judge who is not conflicted by the County double benefits that can hear this case?