AXJ-INTERNATIONAL FORUM

Ex-lawyer Richard Fine jailed 14 months, but not charged with a crime!



THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS ACTION FOR JUSTICE ( AXJ ® ) INVOKES HIS HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS ON FACE BOOK:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/AXJ-R-FRE ... all&ref=ts

http://www.facebook.com/pages/AXJ-R-LET ... ted&v=wall

United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which states: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_cor ... ted_States

By Abbie Boudreau, Emily Probst and Dana Rosenblatt, CNN Special Investigations Unit

May 24, 2010 10:17 a.m. EDT

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pag ... 3979254503

* Former Beverly Hills lawyer has been in solitary confinement for 14 months
* Richard Fine, 70, is not charged with a crime; he's being held in contempt
* Supreme Court decides Monday it won't hear the case

Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- Once a dapper Beverly Hills attorney known for his bow tie, Richard Fine has been held in solitary confinement at Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail for 14 months, even though he's never been charged with a crime.

Fine, a 70-year- old taxpayer's advocate who once worked for the Department of Justice, is being held for contempt of court.

Superior Court Judge David Yaffe found Fine in contempt after he refused to turn over financial documents and answer questions when ordered to pay an opposing party's attorney's fees, according to court documents.

Fine says his contempt order masks the real reason why he's in jail. He claims he's a political prisoner.

"I ended up here because I did the one thing no other lawyer in California is willing to do. I took on the corruption of the courts," Fine said in a jailhouse interview with CNN.

More details on the Special Investigations Unit's blog

For the last decade, Fine has filed appeal after appeal against Los Angeles County's Superior Court judges. He says the judges each accept what he calls yearly "bribes" from the county worth $57,000. That's on top of a $178,789 annual salary, paid by the state. The county calls the extra payments "supplemental benefits" -- a way to attract and retain quality judges in a high-cost city.

While the practice of paying supplemental benefits is common in California, most high-cost cities elsewhere don't hand out these kinds of benefits. Judges in Miami, Chicago and Boston receive no extra county dollars.
Video: In jail but not charged with a crime
Video: L.A. attorney in solitary confinement
Video: Attorney was 'shut up and locked away'
RELATED TOPICS

* Los Angeles County
* Los Angeles County Jail
* Civil Trials

Judges in Los Angeles County not only have the highest state salaries in the nation, they also get tens of thousands of dollars in county benefits. These payments, Fine says, mean judges are unlikely to rule against the county when it is involved in a lawsuit.

In the last two fiscal years, Los Angeles County won all but one of the nine trials that went before a judge, according to Steven Estabrook, the county's litigation cost manager.

"The reason I'm here is the retaliation of the judges," Fine says. "They figured they're going to throw me in jail and that way they feel that they can stop me."

Fine's decade-long crusade against the judges eventually led to his disbarment last year. Joe Carlucci was the lead prosecutor for the California State Bar. Carlucci says whenever Fine lost a case, he would appeal and argue the judges were corrupt.

"What he ultimately did was to delay proceedings, to level false accusations against judges," Carlucci says. "All of those lawsuits were found to have been frivolous and meritless."

Judge Yaffe and county officials refused to comment on Fine's case while it's still pending.

"Fine holds the key to his jail cell," Kevin McCormick, one of the court's attorneys, pointed out in a court filing. In other words, Fine will go free once he hands over the documents the court seeks and answers the judge's questions.

The technical term is "coercive confinement" -- jail-time until a person follows a judge's order.

"He's probably done more time than most burglars, robbers and dope dealers," says Sterling Norris of the public-interest group Judicial Watch.

Norris says Fine's confinement has gone on too long.

Norris won a case in 2008 that found county payments to judges unconstitutional. The California Legislature swiftly passed a bill that enabled counties to continue paying the extra benefits.

"I think it's a lack of judicial integrity to say enough is enough," Norris says. "We've got a man, 70-year-old attorney, in jail for over a year on coercive confinement and that is way beyond the pale. No matter what else he may have done, that is improper."

Steve Whitmore, a spokesman for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, calls the length of Fine's contempt confinement an "anomaly."

Fine's jail cell could be used for a more violent offender, Whitmore added. In fact, Los Angeles County's jails have in recent months released hundreds of inmates before their terms were up due to budget constraints.

Fine took his pencil-and-paper fight from solitary confinement to the U.S Supreme Court, which ruled Monday it would not hear the case. The court offered no explanation.

Meanwhile, Fine's family stands behind him -- even in the face of home foreclosure.

"My husband has always been the straightest arrow, hardworking, very successful attorney, and for this to happen to him is unbelievable," says Maryellen Fine, his wife of 27 years.

"I'll look back with tears with all the time I might have missed with the family," Fine says tearfully just before he is handcuffed and walked back to his cell.

"We don't know what is going to be next," says Fine's daughter, Victoria. "Every day is just one more day where I think maybe I'm going to get a phone call that says dad's coming home."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/24/jai ... index.html

Richard Fine on CNN –Correction of Errors in Reporting by CNN

May 24, 11:27 PMLA Business Headlines ExaminerJoseph Zernik

Washington DC, May 24 - the CNN report provided errorneous information regarding the core facts in the case of Richard Fine: "Superior Court Judge David Yaffe found Fine in contempt after he refused to turn over financial documents and answer questions when ordered to pay an opposing party's attorney's fees, according to court documents."

There are no honest, valid, and effectual court documents in the case of Richard Fine. That is the hallmark of the corruption in his case and in the cases of thousands of others who are falsely held in Los Angeles County, California.

As documented in a UTube clip, Motion to Intervene was filed in the case of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court, Washington DC. [1] The Motion to Intervene did not address the various arguments brought up by Richard Fine himself in the application to US Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg. Instead, it argued that Richard Fine must be immediately released for the simple reason that there were no records, conforming with the fundamentals of the law, to provide the legal basis for his confinement.

Therefore, the filing provided detailed evidence of the alleged fraud in respective records of the various agencies of the justice system:

(a) The Los Angeles Superior Court - refuses to this date to allow access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case, in disregard of First Amendment rights;

(b) The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - insists to this date on fraudulently claiming that Richard Fine was arrested and booked at an by the authority of the non-existent "Municipal Court of San Pedro";

(c) The US District Court, Los Angeles - purported to conduct a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but served minutes, orders, judgment, and mandate with no valid authentication at all;

(d) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - likewise served orders, judgments, and a mandate unsigned, and with no authentication at all.
The US Supreme Court handled such filing the same way the other courts did - the papers simply vanished. A declaration [2] posted at Scribd detailed what took place: The exhibits to the declaration provided the conformed copies that were received from the US Supreme Court as evidence of the filing.

It also recorded the phone call with the US Supreme Court the next day: Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell initially tried to deny that the papers were filed and were held in his possession. Later he stated that he had not yet made the decision whether the papers would or would not appear in the Supreme Court docket of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827). When asked whether he was the Clerk of the Court or whether he was authorized as Deputy Clerk, he admitted he was neither.

Regardless, Mr Bickell stated that he would made the decision... And indeed he apparently did - the papers simply vanished with no Due Process at all...

No discrepancy notice or any other notation ever appeared in the docket to document the filing... Forget about the First Amendment right to to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." The US Supreme Court disregarded it, just like the lower courts...
The reason that the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case as presented by Richard Fine is likely to be of the same nature - there was no judgment or mandate in the case to take the application of Richard Fine from, and therefore, the US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the matters that Richard Fine brought before that court.
For such reasons, the case and the filings of Richard Fine, futile as they may be, are of historic significance. Richard Fine, in his filings, documented in great detail the alleged fraud in the US justice system from top to bottom. [3]

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION - FREE RICHARD FINE
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

LINKS:

[1] UTube clip - filing at the US Supreme Court in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRKUbhmoCpU

[2] 10-04-22 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court Dr Zernik’s Declaration RE Court Counsel Danny Bickell and Filing at US Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31430464/

[3] Human Rights Alert submission to the United Nations:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31632549/
10-05-19 Human Rights Alert: PowerPoint presentation, as forwarded to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, as part of the 2010 UPR
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
10-04-19 Press Release: Human Rights Alert (NGO) Filed UPR Report with the United Nations
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
10-04-18 Human Rights Alert: Final submission to the United Nations for the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the US
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
10-04-19 Human Rights Alert: Final Appendix for Submission to the United Nations for the 2010 UPR of the United States
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31136665/
10-05-10 Human Rights Alert: Human Rights in the Digital Era – A Call for Publicly Accountable Validation of the justice system case management and online public access systems

Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Busi ... ing-by-CNN

Dear Amigo Carlos:

Please note two scholarly papers recently prepared for publication (still drafts):

1) http://www.scribd.com/doc/32470740/10-0 ... ly-paper-s

2) http://www.scribd.com/doc/32589780/10-0 ... ly-paper-s

Although the papers are addressed to the computing professionals community, and address alleged large scale fraud in computers of the justice system, they use a examples data related to Richard Fine.

Joseph Zernik

Do you feel your detention is violating your civil rights and is political in nature?

Thank for inviting me to appear here. I speak for the Los Angeles based Human Rights Alert (NGO), but am not authorized to speak on behalf of Mr Fine.
I was personally arrested and jailed twice for a couple of days each time, under circumstances that I considered in violation of my Human Rights. I filed complaints with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on the matter, but the Sheriff's Department refused to accept my complaints, even after I forwarded them through the office of the Los Angeles County Ombudsman, whose mission is defined as helping in "filing complaints, finding out the status of complaints, reviewing to make sure a thorough process was done".

As for Mr Fine, there is no doubt that he is held under false and deliberately misleading records. The Sheriff's Department insisted for almost a year on claiming that Mr Fine was arrested on March 4, 2009 on location and pursuant to the authority of the "San Pedro Municipal Court". However, no such court existed for almost a decade. Media reports, in contrast, reported that he was arrested by the Sheriff's Department at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, Mosk Courthouse, 111 North Hill Street. Moreover, the only existing court in San Pedro today is the San Pedro Annex of the Superior Court. The Sheriff Deputy there denied that Richard Fine or anybody else had been arrested and booked there. In fact, he stated that there were no booking facilities on location at all.

Richard Fine is only one notable example. However, a paper filed by Human Rights Alert for peer review in professional conferences provided evidence that many thousands of prisoners are held by the Sheriff of Los Angeles County under such fraudulent records.

There is no novelty in the claims, only in the detailed analysis of how such false imprisonments are affected through a fraudulent computer system. The facts regarding Los Angeles County were well versed by official and unofficial reports:
"Los Angeles County got the best courts that money could buy".
KNBC (October 16, 2008)
"Innocent people remain in prison"
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
“…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean of Loyola Law School, LA (2000)
“This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”
Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Dean of Irvine Law School (2000)
"Condado de Los Angeles tiene las mejores canchas que el dinero puede comprar".
KNBC (16 de octubre de 2008)
"Las personas inocentes permanecen en prisión"
LAPD Blue Ribbon Panel de Revisión Report (2006)
"... Los jueces juzgado y condenado a un asombroso número de personas por crímenes que no cometieron."
Prof. David Burcham, Decan, Loyola Law School, LA (2000)
"Esta es una conducta asociada con los dictadores más represivos y los estados de la policía ... y los jueces deben compartir la responsabilidad, cuando es condenado a personas inocentes."
Prof. Erwin Chemerinksy, Decan, Irvine, la Facultad de Derecho (2000)

Who exactly is responsible and why?

One should separate the answer as to the case of Richard Fine, and the case of many thousands of others who are falsely imprisoned, as opined by official and unofficial reports.
In the case of Richard Fine, he was subjected to fraudulent imprisonment less than two weeks after the Governor of California signed pardons ("retroactive immunities") for all judges of Los Angeles County, who Richard Fine had exposed, advertised, and protested, had taken for over a decade "not permitted" payments of ~$45,000 per judge, per year. A reasonable person would conclude that he is a political prisoner.

As for the thousands of others, almost exclusively blacks and Latinos, who are falsely imprisoned, as opined by official and unofficial reports - the answer is more banal. The justice system in Los Angeles County has been documented as corrupt at least since the early 1980s in official reports, with full cooperation and patronizing of federal agencies. Upon review of the evidence as a whole, a reasonable person would conclude that Los Angeles County has been treated at least since the early 1980's as an "extra-constitutional zone" - something similar to Guantanamo Bay - in LA. In fact, both Guantanamo Bay and LA shared the distinction in the 2000s of having a federal "Overseer" for Civil Rights appointed - to protect the people against government officials. However, upon review, a reasonable person would conclude that in both cases such "Overseers" were fig leaves, nothing more.

Links to records in the case of Richard Fine can be found at the petition site - Free Fine (anonymous signature option is available):
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

Previous reply was by
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Los Angeles County, California.
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Complaint Filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles, against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pag ... 3979254503

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/10-0 ... eprivation

Human Rights Alert
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com /
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-07-07

In re: Richard Fine - Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Los Angeles Superior Court, and Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and others – for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights.

Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.
221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012 USA

By certified mail, by fax: 213-894-6269, 213-894-0141

TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s Complaint against David Yaffe - Judge, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke - Clerk, and Frederic Bennett – Counsel, all of the Superior Court of California, and against Lee Baca – Sheriff of Los Angeles County – for public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in re: False imprisonment of Richard Fine.

Executive Summary

Complaint was filed July 8, 2010, with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California, against DAVID YAFFE – Judge, CHARLES MCCOY – Presiding Judge, JOHN A CLARKE – Clerk, and FREDERIC BENNETT – Counsel, of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and LEE BACA – Sheriff of Los Angeles County, for public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in the matter of Richard Fine.

The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to hold Richard Fine (#1824367) in solitary confinement at the Central Men’s Jail since March 4, 2009, with no legal foundation at all for the imprisonment.

Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, 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 Richard Fine’s case.

Instead, the complaint alleged that the accused engaged since March 2009 in the production and publication of fraudulent records, including, but not limited to records filed in the habeas corpus of Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09- cv-01914) at the US District Court, Los Angeles and records produced by the Sheriff in response to inquiry by Los Angeles Supervisor Michael Antonovich.

The complaint further claimed that inherent to the conduct of the accused was failure of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles for over a quarter century, to publish honest Local Rules of Court pertaining to the entry of judgment - in violation of due process rights, and refusal of the Court to allow access to court records, which were the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS109420), the case where Richard Fine was purported to have been arrested and imprisoned – in violation of First Amendment rights.

Moreover, the complaint detailed refusal of Presiding Judge McCoy and Clerk Clarke to initiate corrective actions relative to the alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine, to correct false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Court repeatedly published by the Court pertaining to the entry of judgments in Los Angeles County, to publish valid and effectual Local Rules of Court, and to allow access to the Register of Actions in Marina v LA County (BS109420).

Instead, in 2009-10 Court Counsel Frederic Bennett sent a series of false and deliberately misleading letters to complainant Dr Zernik, with no authority at all, pertaining to Local Rules of Court and denial of access to court records.

Combined, the complaint alleged that the four accused conspired to falsely imprison Richard Fine, under the color of law, as retaliation, harassment and intimidation of a victim, witness and informant.

The complaint further alleged that the conduct of the Court relative to the ongoing publication of fraudulent Local Rules of Court, refusal to disclose and publish honest Local Rules of Court, and denial of access to court records amounted to severe violation of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all residents of Los Angeles County.

The complaint requested the US Attorney, Central District of California, provide equal protection for Richard Fine and all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, and investigate and prosecute, if appropriate, the accused to the full extent of the law.

Source: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pag ... 3979254503

POLITICAL PRISONER IN THE USA MR. RICHARD FINE ( 70 ) INITIAL RESPONSE FROM STATE DEPARTMENT



http://www.facebook.com/pages/AXJ-R-FRE ... all&ref=ts

http://www.facebook.com/pages/AXJ-R-LOS ... 3979254503

Initial Responses Received from US State Department on Human Rights Alert 2010 UPR Report Alleging Widespread Corruption of the Justice System in Los Angeles County, California, and Large-scale False Imprisonments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) – Jul 14, 2010 – Los Angeles, July 15 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) reported receipt of initial responses (copied below) from the US State Department as part of the first ever, 2010 review of Human Rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department were merely confirmations of receipt. However, such notices stood in stark contrast with failure of the US State Department to acknowledge receipt of any communications in the past.

In April 2010 Human Rights Alert filed its UPR (Universal Periodic Review) report with the United Nations, alleging widespread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, large-scale false imprisonments, and numerous cases of collusion by the courts and large financial institutions in alleged fraud at the courts. Moreover, the Human Rights Alert 2010 UPR report documented refusal of the most senior US Government officers to address such conditions, affecting the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California.

The April 2010 Human Rights Alert UPR report was largely based on official, unofficial, and media reports.

Following the UPR protocol outlined by the United Nations, Human Rights Alert simultaneously filed its April 2010 UPR report with the US State Department.

The United Nations offices involved in the 2010 UPR process consistently and expediently responded on Human Rights Alert's communications as part of the 2010 UPR process, and also routinely provided relevant information. In contrast, the US State Department failed until its July 14, 2010 notices to even acknowledge receipt of any UPR related communications by Human Rights Alert.

Furthermore, the UPR protocol outlined by the United Nations proposed communications by stakeholder, who filed 2010 UPR reports, with the US State Department prior to the State Department's response to the United Nations, due August 2010. Such communications are intended to facilitate an effective UPR process.
However, the US State Department to this date failed to enter any such communications with Human Rights Alert regarding the Human Rights Alert 2010 UPR report.

In its July 15, 2010 follow up letter, addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (copied below), Human Rights Alert expressed its hope that the initial responses, recently received, would signal the initiation of discussion with the US State Department regarding Human Rights conditions in Los Angeles County, California, which were stated by a highly regarded expert, Erwin Chemerinsky - Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as "conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states."

Human Rights Alert also routinely copies its UPR communications with the US State Department to the US Congress Judiciary Committees and to the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Senator from California, who proved over the years a staunch advocate of equal protection under the law for all residents of the State of California.

Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine -

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

ATTACHED:
1) July 14, 2010 US State Department notices to Human Rights Alert (NGO)
2) July 15, 2010 Human Rights Alert follow up letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

# # #

Human Rights Alert, a Los Angeles County, California, NGO, is committed to monitoring Human Rights violations by the US government, and reporting such violations, including, but not limited to the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the US by the UN.

Contact Email : jz12345@earthlink.net Email Verified
Issued By : Human Rights Alert, NGO
Address : PO Box 526: La Verne, CA
Zip : 91750
City/Town : Los Angeles
State/Province : California
Country : United States
Categories : Legal, Finance, Government
Tags : judicial corruption, los angeles county, CA
Last Updated : Jul 14, 2010
Shortcut : http://prlog.org/10796181

http://www.facebook.com/pages/AXJ-R-FRE ... all&ref=ts

Source: http://www.prlog.org/10796181-initial-r ... eport.html