The jailing of Att Richard Fine was brought about through multiple alleged frauds. Here we focus only on the alleged frauds related to the judgment record itself.
Background: False Jailing of Att Richard Fine as Retaliation
Att Richard Fine has been indefinitely jailed on contempt since March 4, 2009, in what is widely perceived as retaliation by the judges of the LA Superior Court for his efforts in recent years to expose and terminate payments to LA County judges by LA County. Such payments were indeed ruled on October 10, 2009 “not permitted” and unconstitutional by the California Court of Appeals, 4th District.
During some of the years that such payments were accepted by the judges and where records were studied,  no judgment by court was entered against LA County by judges of the LA Superior Court. Therefore, a lay-person would call such payments “bribes”.
Alleged Fraud #1:
The Purported Judge David Yaffe, March 4, 2009 Judgment for Jailing of Att Richard Fine was never entered and therefore was and is not an effectual judgment for any purpose.
Alleged Fraud #2:
The March 24, 2009 Judge David Yaffe Verification on the purported Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine, is false and deliberately misleading.
Copy #1 of the purported Judgment:
The purported Judgment from the Pacer records of the Habeas Corpus petition of falsely jailed Att Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), where it was included as Exhibit in the Petition per se (Doc #1):
Copy #2 of the purported Judgment:
The purported Judgment from the Pacer records of the Habeas Corpus petition of falsely jailed Att Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), where it was included as Exhibit A to Declaration of Att McCormick, Counsel for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court (Doc #16):http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-contempt-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
For detailed review of the frauds in these two purported Judgment records, please see:
 Sturgeon v County of LA
 Studying such question is complicated by the fact that LA County does not maintain a Book of Judgment or Index of Judgments, either on paper or electronic, where public access is permitted to inspect and to copy.
Failure to maintain a Book of Judgment is on its face in violation of the law – California Gov Code, California Code of Civil Procedure, and LA County Local Rules of Court: