Los Angeles, March 11 - in response to an article in the ABA Journal, titled: 70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, posted the correction, copied and linked, below. [1]
Dr Zernik concluded: The case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.
JUDICIARY
70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case
Posted Mar 10, 2010 1:03 PM CST
By Sarah Randag
By Sarah Randag
A year ago, a Los Angeles County superior court judge sentenced lawyer Richard Fine to jail indefinitely after he refused to provide personal financial information in an attorney fee dispute.
Now? He is still in jail, Dan Walters writes in a column for the Sacramento Bee, if not still a lawyer: TheState Bar of California indicates that he has been disbarred.
Fine has been a longtime critic of Los Angeles County's practice of giving its judges nearly $50,000 in extra pay over their state salaries, and that it creates a conflict of interest for judges hearing cases involving the county, Walters writes. And, on top of that, Fine says that because of the extent of his criticism, it's a conflict for any judge to hear a case involving him.
A state appellate court agreed with Fine in 2008, saying the payments violated California's constitution. But the legislature passed a retroactive authorization of the payments last year, Walters writes.
Fine has petitioned for his release, but the California Supreme Court refuses to interfere, and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied his petition, Walters writes.
"Fine holds the key to his jail cell," Kevin McCormick, an attorney for the Los Angeles court, said in an appellate brief. "By simply agreeing to answer the questions and produce documents concerning his assets, that he has a legal obligation to provide, his coercive confinement will end."
Mar 11, 2010 12:19 PM CSTComments
Please stand corrected, being the ABA Journal, regarding the facts in the Richard Fine Case:
1) Richard Fine was never sentenced for Contempt, there is no valid court record such as judgment or sentencing in the case - Marina v LA County (BS109420). Neither is there any Assignment Order for the Judge in the case, or Appointment Order for the purported Debtor Examiner, Murray Gross, whose authority Mr Fine therefore justly disputed.
2) Neither was the March 4, 2009 proceeding that was described by media as the “Sentencing Hearing”, ever included in the informal, online, litigation chronology (which comes with a disclaimer).
3) However, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles continues to deny access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS10940) the case, in ancillary proceedings of which Mr Fine was purportedly arrested, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
4) Neither was there ever a valid warrant for the arrest of Mr Fine.
5) Accordingly, the Sheriff’s Department denied for months access to the Arrest and Booking records, in disregard of California Public Records Act.
6) Even after numerous complaints, the Sheriff’s Department insisted on keeping falsely publishing online that Richard Fine was arrested at and by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro, when media reported that the arrest took place on March 4, 2009, in downtown Central District of the Superior Court Courthouse, in the city of Los Angeles.
7) In response to inquiry by Supervisor Antonovich, the Sheriff’‘s Bureau finally responded that California Public Records Act did not require it to produced records which did not exist.
8) In her scholarly June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine - US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, never mentioned the word Warrant in a case highlighted by warrantless arrest, neither did it mention the caption of the case of the Superior Court , which purportedly was under reviewed. Moreover, the habeas corpus petition was concluded without the Register of Actions of Marina v LA County ever being produced, therefore, with no foundation at all for any other record in the case.
9) Respondent Sheriff refused to respond on the habeas corpus petition.
10) The Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe joined the case as Intervenors, through false representation by Attorney Kevin McCormick, was failed to file certification of Counsel of Record, failed to ever provide any declaration by his clients, or ever file any record provided by his clients. In short, he was likely employed as false counsel, with ” no communications with client” clause.
11) Accordingly - none of the Minutes, Orders, Judgment in Fine v Sheriff, was ever entered as valid court records - all were served on Richard Fine with no valid NEFs (Notice of Electronic Filing) at all. Neither would Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court allow access to inspect and to copy the NEFs in Fine v Sheriff, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
12) The Clerk of the US District Court, Los Angeles, Terry Nafisi, has continuously refused to answer on the question whether the online PACER docket in Fine v Sheriff was an honest, valid, and effectual record of the US District Court. Such docket would not be certified either.
13) Clerk Nafisi would not answer on whether Donna Thomas, who was listed as conducting transactions on the docket of Fine v Sheriff, was at all authorized as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
14) Likewise, in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) Mr Fine’s petitions at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, - June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition, issued in the names of Kozinski, Paez and Tallman, was an unsigned order, which was served with no NEF at all.
In Short, the case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.
12.
13.
LINKED:
[1] ABA Journal article and comments:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#67761
5.
Mar 11, 2010 3:50 PM CST
Mr B McLeod is surely a legal scholar, to blame Attorney Richard Fine for being a victim of widespread corruption of the justice system…
We, the 10 million who live in Los Angeles County are deprived of the right for honest Habeas Corpus petitions, and with it - the right to access court record, to inspect and to copy. Both are rights of medieval origins in the English speaking legal system.
In short - we are subjected to corrupt justice system of medieval nature. No doubt - Attorney Richard Fine is to blame for it all…
6.
B. McLeod
Mar 11, 2010 7:23 PM CST
Mar 11, 2010 7:23 PM CST
Maybe that is why they have him in the pokey.
For the people in Los Angeles County who are not in the pokey, I suppose they can leave if they don’t like how the county is run.
7.
Joseph Zernik
Mar 11, 2010 9:13 PM CST
Mar 11, 2010 9:13 PM CST
Again - the genius of a legal scholar in Mr McLeod is unmistaken…
This nation was founded on a Constitution, The ABA runs under the motto of “Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice”... The Late William Brenna called the Habeas Corpus “The Great Writ”, and the “Corner Stone of the US Constitution”. The late Louis Brandeis called the Habeas Corpus the greatest achievement of the English speaking legal system - establishing Liberty by law.
Those who hold offices where they took oaths of loyalty to the US Constitution, but are no longer loyal to it, should be removed from office - is an alternative solution…
8.
Bill Dugan
Mar 11, 2010 9:38 PM CST
Mar 11, 2010 9:38 PM CST
No Mas. Let the geezer out of the klink. What do they think they are going to accomplish by leaving this old cocker in jail.
Enough already!
9.
Joseph Zernik
Mar 11, 2010 10:19 PM CST
Mar 11, 2010 10:19 PM CST
First - again - correction on the facts - Richard Fine has not been held in the jail itself. Instead, he has been falsely hospitalized for a full year in a solitary confinement, with no medical reason at all… Needless to say, the conduct of the justice system in this case stands contrary to fundamental Human Rights in ratified International Law and international medical conventions. It is prescribing to methods that appear as taken directly from the KGB cookbook in the former Soviet Union…
What was meant to be achieved, and was effectively achieved by the false hospitalization of Richard Fine and other attorneys who complained about judicial corruption (Richard Fine was not the only one), was:
a) Intimidate/retaliate/harass a victim/witness/informant - typical conduct of racketeers.
b) Make it abundantly clear to all that there is NO rule of law under the 9th Circuit. It is arbitrary tyranny of the courts.
10.
B. McLeod
Mar 11, 2010 11:18 PM CST
Mar 11, 2010 11:18 PM CST
Well, Joseph (@7), with all due humility, I would have to say that is what being a genius of a legal scholar is good for.
11.
Joseph Zernik
Mar 11, 2010 11:30 PM CST
Mar 11, 2010 11:30 PM CST
Back to the facts stated in original article:
“...the legislature passed a retroactive authorization of the payments last year”... The California legislature indeed passed SBX 2-11 - “Retroactive Immunities” (i.e. Pardons) - for all those who took “not permitted” payments. Such false pardons were signed into law by the California Governor on February 20, 2009, less than two weeks prior to the taking of Richard Fine by the Sheriff, with no warrant at all.
“...the legislature passed a retroactive authorization of the payments last year”... The California legislature indeed passed SBX 2-11 - “Retroactive Immunities” (i.e. Pardons) - for all those who took “not permitted” payments. Such false pardons were signed into law by the California Governor on February 20, 2009, less than two weeks prior to the taking of Richard Fine by the Sheriff, with no warrant at all.
However:
1) The California Constitution prohibited retroactive laws.
2) The “Retroactive Immunities” passed in disregard of the Rules of the California Senate - with no debate on the floor and no referral to committee.
3) Such dubious law passed through the efforts of a lobbyist, who according to media was paid by the judges of LA Superior Court $60,000 for a fruitful one-week effort.
4) Regardless of the conduct of the California authorities, the conduct of the judges in this case remained alleged taking of bribes. As Richard Fine and other showed, it became practically impossible to win a case against LA County in LA County Courts during the years of the “not permitted” payments.
5) As has been the case for at least two decades, US law enforcement and the US Department of Justice are patronizing such justice system in California, and refuse to enforce US Law. The corruption of the local justice system was fully documented during the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000), but the thousands of victims - the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) are yet to be freed. [1]
1) The California Constitution prohibited retroactive laws.
2) The “Retroactive Immunities” passed in disregard of the Rules of the California Senate - with no debate on the floor and no referral to committee.
3) Such dubious law passed through the efforts of a lobbyist, who according to media was paid by the judges of LA Superior Court $60,000 for a fruitful one-week effort.
4) Regardless of the conduct of the California authorities, the conduct of the judges in this case remained alleged taking of bribes. As Richard Fine and other showed, it became practically impossible to win a case against LA County in LA County Courts during the years of the “not permitted” payments.
5) As has been the case for at least two decades, US law enforcement and the US Department of Justice are patronizing such justice system in California, and refuse to enforce US Law. The corruption of the local justice system was fully documented during the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000), but the thousands of victims - the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) are yet to be freed. [1]
One must congratulate the ABA Journal for publishing this short article, on a subject that is generally under-reported. However, one must wonder about its numerous inaccuracies…
LINKED:
[1] The Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons)- a Review
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729660/09-12-17-Rampart-FIPs-Falsely-Imprisoned-Persons-Review
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729660/09-12-17-Rampart-FIPs-Falsely-Imprisoned-Persons-Review
12.
Joseph Zernik
Mar 12, 2010 8:17 AM CST
Mar 12, 2010 8:17 AM CST
In conclusion:
Upon the first anniversary of the false hospitalization of Attorney Richard Fine, let’s repeat the call for the immediate resignation of Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, ALEX KOZINSKI, for the alleged fraud in the June 30. 2009 Order, issued in the names of KOZINSKI, PAEZ, and TALLMAN, which was served on Attorney Richard Fine and on me unsigned, and with no NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) at all.
There is no plausible explanation for such conduct by ALEX KOZINSKI and the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, unless to defraud the falsely hospitalized Richard Fine and deprive him of Liberty.
One must also call for the immediate resignation of FBI Director ROBERT MUELLER III, who permits and patronizes the widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and the deprivation of Liberty of the thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons).
One should be reminded on the standing FBI policy, announced again in December 2008 in New York State:
“This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society,” said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.
13.
Joseph Zernik
Mar 12, 2010 8:48 AM CST
Mar 12, 2010 8:48 AM CST
LINK TO THE OFFENDING ORDER BY KOZINSKI ET AL IN FINE V SHERIFF (09-71692):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28261044/09-06-30-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-71692-US-Court-of-Appeals-for-the-9th-Circuit-Dkt-04-Order-Denying-Petition-alleged-as-fraud-by-Kozinski-et-al-s
LINKED:
[1] ABA Journal article and comments:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#67761
Mar 10, 2010 4:37 PM CST
Mar 11, 2010 6:12 AM CST