A Christmas Plea For Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

8/14/2019 A Christmas Plea For Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

1/4

FFFRRREEEDDD SSSOOOTTTTTTIIILLLEEE2691 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220

(310) 638-2825 [email protected]

December 21, 2009

Justice Anthony M. KennedyTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

One First Street, NEWashington, D.C. 20543

RE: Petition for Stay of Execution of Sentence for Coercive Confinement

Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-56073; USDC Case Nos. CV-09-1914, CV-09-7943

Honorable Justice Kennedy:

Submitted simultaneously herewith to the Clerk was Petitioner Richard I. Fines Petition

for Stay of Execution of Sentence for Coercive Confinement. A ten-month unlawfullyincarcerated, pro per litigant, Dr. Fine requests release on righteously solid grounds in

fervent hopes of spending the last month in his home before its lost forever toforeclosure as a consequence of his making a principled stand by not relenting onhonoring his oath as an officer of the court.

I apologize for the length of this letter, but the courts below have used a convolutedand complicated situation to protect judges and others from the consequences ofengaging in an illegal payment scheme for 20+ years with only ex post facto secretlegislation for (temporary) cover. Caught in the middle is an innocent man literally

battling corruption to the end.

Until earlier this year, Dr. Fine was an attorney with a very distinguished career as ataxpayers advocate, and one who successfully prosecuted many civil rights and classaction matters over the years. He worked for the Justice Department. He founded the

first Anti-Trust division in Los Angeles County. He has served as Special Consul General inSouthern California for the Kingdom of Norway for more than the past ten years

Dr. Fine was disbarred to try and silence his exposure of the criminal payment schemebetween Los Angeles Superior Court judges and members of the County Board of

Supervisors1 (and his exposure of a developer with very influential ties to consecutivepresidents of the State Bar and who benefited from a sweetheart deal costing LACounty taxpayers an estimated $700 million dollars in lost revenue as a result of these

questionable relationships).

1 Dr. Fine was disbarred for moral turpitude for filing civil rights lawsuits concerning certain

judges and others involvement with the unconstitutional payments.


2/4

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

December 21, 2009

Page 2

But as the judges and supervisors were informed early on by two opinions by the

Attorney General, the payments to judges were (and remain) contrary to the CaliforniaConstitution. Still, the payments continued uninterrupted. (Inasmuch as the CountyCharter sets the Supervisors salaries to match superior court judges salaries, there is

little doubt that they have all been receiving the illegal payments as well.)

LA Superior Court judges have simultaneously been hearing cases in which LA County is

a party, all the while failing to disclose to litigants that they are receiving, presently, over$57,000 per year from the County (with whom they have no employment agreement),

and while the County enjoys a near-100% win/loss civil litigation success rate (accordingto the Countys litigation cost management reports).

One such judge, David P. Yaffe, jailed Dr. Fine for contempt rather than recuse himselffrom a case in which he has tremendous conflicts. Moreover, he allowed himself to be

automatically disqualified under operation of law when he neglected to respond to aC.C.P. 170.3 objection, but repeatedly refused to leave the case. He held a hearingthat Dr. Fine was not informed of, then, in Dr. Fines absence, ordered him pay

attorneys fees of $47,000 to LA County. Dr. Fine was held in contempt and jailed afterhe challenged the void orders and refused to answer questions at a judgment debtor

exam.

Judge Yaffe should have recused himself immediately after he was assigned Fines

case, filed on behalf of homeowners and against LA County and the developer. Hewas paid $46,000 that year from LA County, a defendant in the case. Instead, he

withheld that information from plaintiffs.

Judge Yaffe should have recused himself from trying the contempt matter against Dr.

Fine because he was ineligible to determine the truth of his own testimony at trial.

These events all occurred well before the ex post facto law granting immunity, Senate

Bill SBX2-11, was secretly passed. SBX2-11 has been cited by the courts below asprotecting Judge Yaffe (and all the other judges), even though it has nothing to do with

his obligation to recuse himself from hearing a case in which LA County was a party.

In Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, brought by Judicial Watch to challenge and stop

the payments, the California Court of Appeals confirmed in its October 10, 2008decision that the payments were not constitutional; the California Supreme Court

denied review. It is safe to say that everyone involved in the giving and receiving ofthe payments grew fearful when they were exposed and challenged. But rather thanhonestly address the situation, the California Judicial Council (chaired by Ronald

George, California Supreme Court Justice and former presiding judge in LA SuperiorCourt in the late 1980s) drafted a bill authorizing the payments and granting retroactive

immunity for criminal prosecution, civil liability and judicial discipline. (Despite repeatedrequests, there has been no explanation given for why the immunity paragraph of SBX2-11 was not codified.)


3/4

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

December 21, 2009

Page 3

Californias judicial disciplinary body, the Commission on Judicial Performance,immediately requested an official opinion from the Attorney General concerning the

effect of SBX2-11 on its obligation to discipline wayward judges. The request wasquashed by the Attorney General and no opinion issued.

It has been almost ten month since Dr. Fine was placed in solitary coerciveconfinement by Judge Yaffe, at whose order Dr. Fine was denied even pencil andpaper with which to fashion an appeal. He was denied access by the media. He was

denied access to legal materials, and thus has written everything since filed frommemory. He continues to be denied access to any legal assistance whatsoever

because of the necessity of providing a financial declaration, the substance of whichwould result in the void order being obeyed, a Catch-22 for Dr. Fine.

Numerous documents have been improperly withheld from the public in the DistrictCourts and the Ninth Circuits online files. There are no orders that the documents be

sealed, nor was there even ever any discussion about it, but the Courts steadfastlyrefuse to post these documents (all of which contain unflattering evidence). In somecases, documents were received but not filed until months later, when they could

then be cast as moot in order to arrive at the courts pre-determined conclusion.

Most egregiously, District Court Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla M.Woehrle dismissed a case filed against them and others. A man cannot be a judge inhis own case, but Judges Walter and Woehrle ignored this basic tenet.

In replying to Fines appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Yaffe referred to a non-existent

order and engaged in other frauds on the court in defending his actions. Similarfrauds were perpetuated on the California Supreme Court in connection with Dr. Finesdisbarment. (Those acts are the subject of a pending motion to set aside.)

The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed (on December 16th) the District Courts denial of Dr.Fines writ of habeas corpus, posturing that Judge Yaffe was protected by SBX2-11,

even though it wasnt in existence at the time, and wouldnt be for another year. Thecourts use of a crystal ball burst all boundaries of credulity.

Co-incidentally, the Judicial Council of California just last week issued a report 2 in whichit recommended that judges who receive more than $1,500 in campaign donations

from any party to a future case are automatically disqualified. $1,500 is too muchinfluence, but $46,000 was not enough?

Given the absolute truth of the foregoing, Dr. Fine requests that execution of thesentence of coercive confinement be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal

process. As he noted in his Petition, this relief has previously been granted under similarcircumstances. And as argued to the courts below, the statutory 5-day maximum for

criminal contempt has long since expired.

2 http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/commimpart.htm


4/4

Justice Anthony M. KennedyTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

December 21, 2009Page 4

Nor will Dr. Fine ever be coerced into violating his oath. His principled stand has cost

him his home and his license, a devastating price to have paid to resist being made apart of the corruption rampant in LA County.

Ten Million Felonies.

Literally ten million felonies3 were pardoned in February, about 1.6 million of themcommitted by superior court judges, when Senate Bill SBX2-11 was passed. Itsunderstandable that those involved are desperate to escape the consequences of

their deeds, but it is unconscionable to hold an innocent person in jail while thecharade proceeds.

I and the other members of Dr. Fines non-attorney volunteer support team collectivelybeseech you to grant Dr. Fines petition and order his release It will be far too late to

save his home, but he ought not be denied from spending the last month in it, over theholidays, with his family. Ultimately, we hope to win the restoration of due process for all

Californians. We are on the right track, as evidenced by the recent statement bySupervisor Michael Antonovich, a man previously found liable for calling a judge onbehalf of constituents in attempt to influence the outcome of their case, when he

announced that the payments would not be given to new judges.

Dr. Fine is almost 70 years old, and his health has deteriorated significantly as a directresult of his incarceration. He has contracted a staph infection, suffers from edema ofthe legs, back pain and now is being medicated for a high cholesterol count.

Please order Dr. Fines immediate release.

Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any questions orconcerns. The bulk of the evidence and case history can be viewed online at

http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home

Sincerely,

FRED SOTTILEFS/mlm

Enclosures

cc: Dr. Richard I. FineBrian Shaughnessy, Esq.

Aaron Mitchell Fontana, Esq.Paul B. Beach, Esq.

Kevin M. McCormick, Esq.

3http://righttrumpsmight.blogspot.com/2009/12/aha.html

A Christmas Plea For Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy

Documents

Transcript of A Christmas Plea For Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy