Monday, December 12, 2011

Politics And Budget Cuts: Governor Brown Kills DOJ Drug Enforcement

Sacramento, CA Full Disclosure Network® 8 min video news report with Cary Cavaleri, Board Member of the Assn. of Special Agents, Calif. Department of Justice regarding the impending demise of the DOJ’s Narcotic investigations and enforcement . Political forces favoring the legalization of drugs in California could be cheered by Governor Jerry Brown’s approved budget that was negotiated in almost secret, and resulted in the defunding of the DOJ’s Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (BNE) and Bureau of Intelligence and Investigations (BII). This action threatens many on-going prosecutions and investigation state wide.
Cavaleri told Full Disclosure® that Governor Brown’s approved budget cuts, were described as “reallocating” funding, and in fact, the action has cut the in half the enforcement authority of the California Attorney General Kamala Harris. Cavaleri told Full Disclosure® 200 of the 400 DOJ investigators are being notified they will lose their jobs if the budget cuts stand.


In the absence of opposition from the Attorney General the Association of Special Agents for the California Department of Justice has stepped in to fight what may be an illegal action on the part of the Brown administration. Naming both Governor Jerry Brown and the Director of Department of Finance, Ana, J. Matosantos, the Assn. of Special Agents filed a Writ of Mandate in Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 34-2011-80001009 on November 23, 2011, asking for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.


According to the association’s Sacramento based attorney David P. Mastagni he expects to the case to involve extensive discovery, with requests for admissions and video depositions. Presumably the Special Agents are looking to determine who and how the decision to gut the DOJ budget was influenced. When asked why the Governor would want to cut the Attorney General’s enforcement staff in half, Cavaleri speculated the Brown administration may be harboring resentment for the Special Agents Association endorsement of Meg Whitman for Governor.

Sunday, December 04, 2011

Judicial Revenge, The State Bar & The Private Attorney General Richard I. Fine, Ph.d.

Summary: This is a preview from a one-hour exposè of the judicial revenge against former U. S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D. who challenged judicial corruption from his L.A. County jail cell while in solitary "Coercive Confinement". This 72-year-old public interest attorney exposed government corruption all the way up to the U. S. Supreme Court. He is fighting to restore his law license that was taken from him by the Judges who retaliated. He was used as an example as to how a whistle blowers are treated in the United States.
Judicial Retaliation Behind Disbarment of Richard I. Fine
Segment #1: Former U. S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D., was disbarred in 2009 from practicing law in retaliation by State Superior Court Judges who he exposed taking illegal double benefits from Los Angeles County while sitting on cases involving him and the county. At the behest of judges and attorneys for a powerful developer proposing a massive project on County-owned property, Fine was disbarred for "moral turpitude" in the State Bar charges. But recent court filings show the State Bar admission that Fine was disbarred for filing "frivolous lawsuits against the judges". According to Fine, this admission reveals that the action was purely retaliation having him having litigated the illegal payments in Fedral Civil Rights lawsuits, which were not held to be frivolous. (See 10-31-11 Reply to 9th Circuit) An emergency bill was passed in Feb. 2009 (Senate Bill SBX2 11) that purportedly gave all California Judges retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for taking the double benefits which are prohibited by law. That bill is now under attack with the prospect of being overturned. The State Bar reply.
Conflicted Judges, State Bar Move To Destroy Attorney Fine
Segment #2: The California State Bar sent out Notices of Disbarment to other Bar Associations to prevent Richard I. Fine from practicing law in any other jurisdictions, while knowingly obstructing justice, according to Dr. Fines' court filings. Fine alleges in his court filings. The action of the State Bar was motivated by Fine's court filings alleging that County payments to judges were considered "bribes" under California and case law as "double benefits" from the County of Los Angeles.
State Bar Admits Fraud In Fine Disbarment
Segment # 3: An admission of fraud, in a Ninth Circuit Appellate Court filing by the State Bar, prompts Richard Fine to raise the issue of extrinsic fraud and obstruction of justice. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Motions Clerk refused to allow any motion filed by former U S Prosecutor Richard I. Set Aside a fraudulent disbarment order. Motions attorney Susan Gelmus tells Fine that the Court refused to allow him to file. Fine is continuing to challenge what he claimed are "VOID" orders of the court.
Private Attorney General Richard I. Fine
Segment #4: In an effort to fight government corruption, Richard I. Fine began specializing in public interest law and became known as "the" Private Attorney General. When citizens groups were being victimized by corrupt government policies, Richard Fine would represent them against government agencies. This specialization led to his eventual disbarment when he challenged the Superior Court Judges for taking illegal payments from the County and then sitting on cases where the County was a party to the case, a clear conflict with the law and Judicial Canons of Ethics, but ignored by all the Judges.
Conflicted Justices Of 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals
Segment #5: L. A. County Sheriff Baca was respondent in the case involving Richard I. Fine whose Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal in 2009. According to court filings by Richard Fine, all three justices assigned to the case had ties to Los Angeles power players who were involved in conflict and questionable practices. While he remained in solitary "coercive confinement" for 18 months, California Judges inexplicably denied, without hearing, his petition to be released from jail. Fine's descriptions of the cast of characters, as stated in his court documents, paints a trail of intrigue starting from a big law firm with a County contract to negotiate leases in Marina del Rey. A partner in the firm was also President of the State Bar at the time Fine's disbarment proceedings were underway. This occurred while Fine was suing one of the Marina lessees on behalf of homeowners. According to the California Judicial Council, 90% of the State Judges are receiving illegal payments from counties, but were given retroactive criminal immunity in Senate Bill SBX2 11 for taking the illegal payments and failing to report and to disclose to litigants in the courtroom of their conflict.
Attorneys Fear Judges Who Control The State Bar
Segment #6: According to Richard I. Fine, California lawyers are well aware of corruption in the Judiciary, but are afraid to challenge it. The State Bar is charged with disciplining attorneys but controlled by Supreme Court Judges. Recently the California State Bar has admitted in Court filings that Fine was disbarred for having challenged the judges. This raises the possibility that State Supreme Court Justices may be asked to disqualify themselves inasmuch as five of the Justices previously also received illegal payments from L A County, according to court documents filed by Richard I. Fine and the office County Auditor-Controller.