Saturday, September 18, 2010

10-09-18 Richard Fine Released with no Due Process - Additional Evidence of False Imprisonment


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.

10-09-17 RICHARD FINE RELEASED FROM FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Attorney jailed on contempt charges freed after 1 1/2 years behind bars

September 17, 2010 | 10:39 pm
A 70-year-old lawyer who was sentenced to jail “indefinitely” on contempt-of-court charges was abruptly released Friday evening after spending a year and a half behind bars.
Richard Fine was released from Los Angeles County Jail in downtown Los Angeles shortly after 9 p.m. but did not wish to speak to a Times reporter, said his daughter, Victoria.
Fine, an antitrust and taxpayer advocate attorney, was thrown in jail last year by  Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe for failing to answer questions about his finances and for practicing law without a license.
The contempt charges stemmed from a case Fine filed on behalf of Marina del Rey homeowners who sued local developers. Fine had been ordered to pay sanctions and attorneys’ fees in the case.
Fine contends he was being targeted by Yaffe because of his challenges to county-funded benefits that judges receive on top of their state pay.
Rather than comply with Yaffe’s orders and be released from jail, Fine vowed to take his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In May, however, the court declined to take up his petition, meaning he could have remained in jail indefinitely as Yaffe had ordered. The judge could not be reached for comment late Friday.
While in solitary confinement, Fine filed habeas corpus petitions for his release with the California Supreme Court, district court and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that Yaffe was biased against him and should have recused himself from the contempt-of-court case.
His imprisonment was “the latest encounter in the 10-year campaign by Fine to restore due process in the California judicial system,” the attorney, who has been representing himself, wrote in his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Fine is the only attorney, of the approximately 208,000 California attorneys, with the courage to challenge the California judiciary,” he wrote.
In a telephone interview with The Times in May, Fine said the U.S. Supreme Court had made the wrong decision by allowing him to remain in jail. He said he would be filing another petition.
“I'm in fighting condition,” he said. “They haven't broken me down, and they won't break me down.”
-- Scott Glover