Former US Prosecutor Richard Fine released last night - with no due process of law - additional evidence of false imprisonment
Los Angeles, September 18 - 70 year old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine was released last night from a year and a half of solitary confinement with no evidence that his release was the outcome of due process of law. California law is explicit in stating that the Sheriff must not take any person into custody, or release any person from custody, without valid court orders to such effect. The release of Richard Fine with no evidence of court order to that effect, however, matches his taking into custody with no warrant and with no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered in his case.
Combined, Richard Fine's taking into custody and his release with no due process of law provide evidence of false imprisonment through collusion of Judge David Yaffe, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca.
As documented in court actions filed by Richard Fine over the past year and a half, such conduct was fully patronized by the United States courts - national tribunals for protection of rights - from the US District Court, Central District of California, through the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Richard Fine had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.
Richard Fine attempted to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court, through the US Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States; however, all United States courts involved in the matter denied Richard Fine access to valid judicial review; instead, Richard Fine was subjected only to pretense judicial review, while false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online, affecting the pretense that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid and effectual judicial review and was duly denied.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.
