tadalafil long term Parent Advocates - ParentAdvocates.org
Parent Advocates
Search All  
 
Richard I. Fine Launches The Campaign For Judicial Integrity
It hurts you every time you walk into a court room in a case from a county traffic ticket, to a divorce, child custody, child support, or foster care, to a problem with a county, to a criminal case where the county district attorney is the prosecutor, or to any case where any amount of an award will go to the court. Because the judge has been paid by one of the parties to the case an entity that will benefit from the judge’s decision, the judge is biased against you and under law cannot sit on your case. Need more proof? The LA County Counsel Annual Litigation Reports for 2005-2010 show that only three cases were won against LA County when a state Superior Court judge made the decision. About 650-850 cases are filed against LA County each year.
          
   Richard I. Fine   
Who is Richard Fine?
This from the Baltimore Chronicle:

COMMENTARY: Richard I. Fine's Judicial Lynching
by Stephen Lendman, Sunday, 18 April 2010
LINK

Fine's case exposes the dark underside of California politics and appalling level of official malfeasance, involving greedy developers, corrupt LA County Supervisors and judges, the state Supreme Court, its Bar Association, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, co-conspiring to protect ongoing criminality and punish anyone challenging it.

The Law Offices of Richard I. Fine & Associates (richardfinelaw.com) web site says he established the firm in 1974. His credentials include a Doctor of Law from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in International Law from the London School of Economics, a Certificate from the Hague Academy of International Law, among his many other awards, including Lawyer of the Decades 1976 - 2006.

He's also been widely published in legal journals with regard to antitrust, comparative and international law. Fine's resume is long and impressive.

Before entering private practice, he "founded and was chief of the first municipal antitrust division in the United States, for the City of Los Angeles." He was also Special Counsel to the Government Efficiency Committee of the LA City Council, and a member of the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division.

In addition, he practiced law in London and with another firm before establishing his own. He was also Norway's Southern California Consul General.

Background on Fine's Case
Detailed information can be found on (Free Richard fine), established by his friends and associates seeking justice in return for Fine's years of public service as a taxpayer-advocate attorney

From the early 1990s until his illegal disbarment and March 4, 2009 jailing, Fine challenged and corrected state corruption, returning about "$350 million to California taxpayers which state, county and municipal governments (unlawfully took from) 'special funds' and 'trust funds' in a series of taxpayer cases filed in federal" and state courts, specifically:

$6 million returned to the Tidelands Trust Fund (TTF) in Malibu Video, et al. v. Wilson, et al.;
in other cases against California cities and ports, another $350 million prevented from being unlawfully spent from TTF;
the class action Lido v. State of California returned funds not paid to small and minority businesses during California's budget crises;
in Shinkle, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, Fine got the city to change its "sewer service charges" calculation method, saving residents "tens of millions of dollars" annually;
in Amjadi and LACAOEHS v. LA Board of Supervisors, et al., LA County had to establish a special environmental inspection fee fund from wrongfully deposited funds in its General Fund; also freeze its environmental inspections fees until an initial $11 million deposit was spent, as well as deposit about $40 million annually into a "special fund" for environmental inspection fees; and
many other legal victories against corrupt state officials saving California taxpayers about "$1 billion," illegally "enrich(ing) developers, and blatantly trampl(ing) the people's rights;" Fine calls it "a true story....wrapped up in one man's personal nightmare."

Overall, he stopped "Twenty-Six Years of California's Annual Budget Crisis," and was the first lawyer to "Challenge, In Court, The Unconstitutional Payments Given By Los Angeles County (Supervisors) To The Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges," over $300 million since the late 1980s.

Over the same period, these "judges decided cases and made orders in favor of the County to the exclusion of the opposing parties in cases before them." For example, from 2005 - 2007, no one won a case against the county in courts presided over by LA Superior Court judges. Over many years, as a result, Californians were swindled out of hundreds of millions of dollars, and most troubling of all, county judges knew "taking payments from LA County was unconstitutional," in violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics and Political Reform Act for not disclosing them.

The same practice was common around the state, but not like in LA County, where state legislators exempted judges and county supervisors from prosecution.

For his many years of crime fighting, Fine was charged with "contempt of court" and "moral turpitude," disbarred by California's Supreme Court and jailed by Superior Court Judge David Yaffe "in retaliation for bringing the cases and exposing the unconstitutional payments," ones later held to be unconstitutional.

Fine's case is currently before the US Supreme Court. The California Bar waived its right to respond, meaning his appeal is unopposed. Also in his favor was a late 2009 decision in Sturgeon v. LA County (brought by Judicial Watch) deciding that county payments to judges are illegal.

Yet, with the help of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George, state-paid lobbyists got legislators to pass "a midnight bill" (SBX2-11) at the peak of last year's budget crisis, changing the law to make the payments appear legally authorized to continue, besides giving everyone involved retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution.

Note: immunity is never given when no crime was committed.

The latest on SBX2-11 immunity is that it's not in the "official Code" like the rest of the bill, Fine's friends and associates asking, "Why are they hiding this pardon of over Ten Million Felonies from the public." They further say the bill "is an ex post facto law. Its immunity provisions will ultimately be repealed," so complicit judges aren't off the hook.

As of mid-April, 2010, Fine remains in LA County Men's Central Jail, the "worst jail in the United States," according to an ACLU investigation and report (aclu.org/prisoners-rights/aclu-releases-report) calling it "nightmarish" because of severe overcrowding (with over 20,000 detainees), violence, and overall conditions causing serious mental illness.
Judge Yaffe
Fine is held in solitary confinement under horrendous conditions to punish him - with no fresh air, bright all-night overhead lighting, and no pen and paper to petition a higher court, a right ever serial killers get. Also, reporters were denied permission to interview him. He's not allowed to post bond or get a hearing, and is ordered to stay in jail until he relents and withdraws his charges.
Fine is held in solitary confinement under horrendous conditions to punish him - with no fresh air, bright all-night overhead lighting, and no pen and paper to petition a higher court, a right ever serial killers get. Also, reporters (at least until now) were denied permission to interview him. He's not allowed to post bond or get a hearing, and is ordered to stay in jail until he relents and withdraws his charges.

In a Full Disclosure.net April 7, 2010 interview, Fine states:

"This is the beginning of what happens when you lose a democracy. There is absolutely no question I'm a political prisoner," held without bail, without trial, and with every state appeal denied. The issue is "a straight out-an-out abuse of power, and I'm the person who went in and called them on it....This is the biggest judicial scandal and judicial bribery scheme in American history. My being in jail for (over a year) should show you that no one is immune from this abuse of power."

Fine's case exposes the dark underside of California politics and appalling level of official malfeasance, involving greedy developers, corrupt LA County Supervisors and judges, the state Supreme Court, its Bar Association, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, co-conspiring to protect ongoing criminality and punish anyone challenging it.

On April 9, Contra Costa Times writer Troy Anderson headlined, "Supreme Court to hear Fine case," quoting Brooklyn Law School Professor Jayne Ressler, an expert in "coercive confinement" saying:

"The fact the Supreme Court is involved in any way is a big deal. It certainly speaks volumes to the importance of this case, and it's quite intriguing."

At issue is Fine's "coercive confinement," but he also hopes California corruption will be addressed. The issue of judges' pay is currently before the California Supreme Court, but given how judges and legislators conspire, it'll likely go nowhere to let illegal behavior continue.

The state Supreme Court disbarred Fine. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe jailed him for allegedly practicing law while being inactive and refusing to answer questions about his assets to pay court-ordered attorney fees in connection with a Marina del Rey case.

The US Supreme Court will hear his case on April 23. It gets thousands of applications annually, but considers about 80 or 90 at most. His appeal cites the precedent of a Los Angeles newspaper reporter jailed in 1972, in contempt, for refusing to divulge sources relating to the Charles Manson case. After six weeks in confinement, the US Supreme Court ordered him released while his case was considered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "Lower courts later determined that lengthy confinements for contempt" are to punish in violation of "legal limits on punitive sentences for contempt."

The US Supreme Court has the final say. Meanwhile, at age 70 and in deteriorating health, Fine remains incarcerated, his freedom very much in jeopardy.

Also at issue is due process and judicial fairness, fast disappearing in America and denied anyone challenging corrupt power and privilege effectively. Fine did it courageously and expertly. He's now paying the price.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His blog is sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to Lendman's cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Mr. Lendman's stories are republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.


Video on his 18 months in prison

From Betsy Combier:

Richard sent an email received May 10, 2012, as follows:

Dear All:

I have formed the Campaign for Judicial Integrity.
Vimeo link

The web site is www.campaignforjudicialintegrity.org.
Our immediate goal is to vote out the corrupt judges who received illegal payments and who are running for re-election on the California June 5, 2012 Primary ballot.

This is the most effective way to remove corrupt judges. It requires only one action, VOTE!

Please spread the word and the web site.

I am available for media interviews.

After the June 5, 2012 Primary, the Campaign will work on the November, 2012 judicial elections and will unveil its national Campaign.

Thank you in advance for all your help. Let's show the judges that the democratic process will overcome judicial corruption and its resultant systemic tyranny.

Regards,

Richard I. Fine
Chairman, Campaign for Judicial Integrity

What is wrong with these payments?
LINK

The counties are parties in cases before the judges. The counties also may reimburse the courts for the court’s payments to the judges. If the court is not being reimbursed by the county, the court is be illegally using state money to double pay the judge above the compensation set by the state legislature.

Payments from parties to judges caused judges to lose their jobs* and were held to be bribes and to violate the “intangible right to honest services”**.

In the 2008 case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeal held that the payments from Los Angeles County to state elected Superior Court judges which were called “local judicial benefits” violated Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution.

In response to the Sturgeon case, a special law called Senate Bill SBX 2 11 jointly sponsored by the California Judicial Council and the California Judges Association was enacted on February 20, 2009. This gave the judges who received the illegal payments from the counties and the government officials retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action. It also required the counties making such payments to continue the payments made as of July 1, 2008, during the then current term of the judge. The last of those current terms expire in 2014.

In the follow-up case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, the court reaffirmed the illegality of the payments and held that the continuation of the payments was only an interim solution until the legislature solved the problem. The court did not address the constitutionality of the retroactive immunity or violations of federal law.

California now has a judiciary with over 90 percent of the Superior Court judges violating the federal law and receiving retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for violating the state criminal law.

Why should you care?

It hurts you every time you walk into a court room in a case from a county traffic ticket, to a divorce, child custody, child support, or foster care, to a problem with a county, to a criminal case where the county district attorney is the prosecutor, or to any case where any amount of an award will go to the court. Because the judge has been paid by one of the parties to the case an entity that will benefit from the judge’s decision, the judge is biased against you and under law cannot sit on your case.

Need more proof? The LA County Counsel Annual Litigation Reports for 2005-2010 show that only three cases were won against LA County when a state Superior Court judge made the decision. About 650-850 cases are filed against LA County each year.

Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance 10 Cal.4th 866, (July 20, 1995) Rehearing Denied Sept., 14, 1995, citing Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 8 Cal.4th 630, (1994) (Adams I)

18 U.S.C. Section 1346, U.S. v. Frega, U.S. v. Malkus, U.S. v. Adams
179 F.3d 793 (1999).

The United States Supreme Court Rule In Brown V Plata That The California Prison System Violates The Constitutional Rights Of Inmates

Judicial Corruption Follows Richard Fine, Still Imprisoned Without A Hearing In Solitary Confinement In California

Plea From Imprisoned-For-Life Attorney Richard Fine: Citizens Army Needed To Reform Judicial System Top To Bottom

Complaint Filed Against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and Others at US District Court, Central District of California For Public Corruption and deprivation of rights.

Attorney Richard I. Fine Files A Complaint Against Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yaffe Who Put Him In Jail Indefinitely Without A Hearing

Misprison of Clerk: The Clerks And The Emergence of Executive Branch Supervision of The Federal Courts

 
© 2003 The E-Accountability Foundation