Full Disclosure ® Transcript #

8/14/2019 Full Disclosure Transcript #

1/8

FULL DISCLOSURE Transcript #

RICHARD I. FINE TELEPHONE INTERVIEW 12/17/09

2009 All Rights Reserved, AAW/Full Disclosure Network/CitizensProtection Alliance

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 1 of 8

DUTTON: Mr. Fine would you explainto us what the 9th Circuit Panel hasdone with this memorandum that'sapparently unpublished? What'shappened?

FINE: well, in short, and to use theopening words of the brief that I'msubmitting for an en bank hearing, thePanel has succumbed to the cancer ofcorruption and the criminals in judicialrobes. What they have done is that theyhave gone through and they haveviolated hundreds of years ofestablished judicial precedent that aparty cannot be a judge in his own case,and they have gone through and they

have tried to literally emasculate thelegislative decision that the judges havereceived criminal payments.

DUTTON: Now when you sayemasculate, what do you mean by that?The legislation was approved andsigned into law and it was put into thegovernment code, wasn't it?

FINE: Yes. In fact, what I mean by it

is there's a part of their memorandumdecision where they recognize that thepayments to the judges are criminal butthen they go in and say that thelegislation SBX211 that allows the newpayments to be made, the Panel tries tosay that that is attempting to emasculatethe criminality of the old payments, and

in fact, that is totally wrong. First of allit's wrong because of the fact that thenew payments are only being allowedas of May 21, 2009, which is after theold payments have been made. Andsecond of all, it is wrong because in factthat would be known as an expo facto

law because the retroactive immunitythat was given by Senate bill SBX211gave immunity to these judges forgetting these criminal payments. And ifyou were to follow the Panel'sreasoning what would happen is that thenew payments would be removing thatimmunity, and therefore, establishingnew criminal payments. And to do that,you would be violating Article I,Section 9, Laws 3 of the United States

Constitution which says that you cannotmake an expo facto law. So basicallythat shows you how far off this Panelreally is.

DUTTON: Critics of the 9th CircuitCourt of Appeals have jokingly called itthe 9th Circus Court of Appeals.Would you say this decision is one thatcould foster that perception?

FINE: There's no question that this particular opinion is clearly violatingthe Supreme Court precedent. And the9th Circuit is bound to follow theSupreme Court. They do not have achoice. And in this opinion, they areviolating the case ofIn Re Murchisonwhich holds that no man can be a judge


2/8


in his own case. And here Judge Yaffewas judging his actions in the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners

Assoctiona vd County of L. A. casewhen Judge Yaffe was sitting at the judge in the contempt case. So he'sdoing that violation right then and there.There's Judge Yaffe was violatingSupreme Court decisions of the Tumeyvs Ohio 273 US 510 (1927) case, andthe Cambridge Case, and a number ofothers when he was taking the moneyfrom L.A. County which was a party infront of him. So the 9th Circuit isviolating Supreme Court decisions onthat, and the 9th Circuit was violatingthe Supreme Court decisions on the

expo facto laws. So there's absolutelyno question that the 9th Circuit isviolating the Supreme Court. So if onewants to go ahead and say that the 9thCircuit is now the 9th Circus, one maysay that that is absolutely correct. But Ithink worse than that what is happeningis that the 9th Circuit is buying into thecorruption. The 9th Circuit is goingalong and literally exposing andallowing 38 million Californians to be

subject and remain subject to thetyranny of these criminal judges that areexisting in the California judicialsystem. The 9th Circuit is allowing theCalifornians to be stripped of theirconstitutional rights and to be laid barefor this tyranny to continue to exist as ithas been existing for the last 20 years.So the cancer of the tyranny has nowspread into the 9th Circuit. And basically what it means is that

California has got a judicial system thatis equal to that of the developingcountries and the war-torn countries thatthe United States is complaining about.

DUTTON: Well, I'd like to ask you aquestion. You have been sitting in jailnow for 10 months.

FINE: That's correct.

DUTTON: You've cited in your insome of your court filings that, by law,you should not have held in jail formore than five days. Do you think thatthe 9th Circuit Court of Appeals isaware of the fact that by keeping you,not letting you out, not granting yourwrit of habeas corpus that they'reviolating your rights?

FINE: Oh they absolutely have to beaware of that. I think that there's noquestion that their actions aredeliberate. In fact, I mention in thisparticular brief that I am filing that this

brief should be done on an emergency basis because of the fact that the 9thCircuit has denied two motions to setme free which are unopposed, onemotion for reconsideration of a motionto set me free which is unopposed, onemotion to grant my habeas corpus basedupon the opening brief which isunopposed. So the 9th Circuit's actionshere are definitely deliberate. They aredefinitely keeping me here against my

rights and knowing so. And the reasonfor it is is because the 9th Circuit has become the advocate of the corrupt judges. At this point in time, basedupon the unopposed motions the otherside has given up. There's no one that'sreally fighting me right now. The onlypeople that are fighting me at this pointin time are the judges of the 9th Circuit.That is demonstrated by Judge Reinhart,Judge Trott, and Judge Wardlaw that

have come out with this memorandumopinion that is unpublished and said tonot be a precedent. Justices Reinhart,Trott and Wardlaw have become theadvocates of judicial corruption. Theother side has dropped out.


3/8


DUTTON: Would you say that the judges, in accepting the criminal payments and now being protected bythe 9th Circuit Court, that this is astriking at the core of the corruption inLos Angeles?

FINE: Oh, there's absolutely noquestion about it that there's absolutelyno question that the corruption in LosAngeles is probably (recording) --There' absolutely no question that thecorruption in Los Angeles is thegreatest parts of the judicial corruptionin California. Because remember thecorruption in Los Angeles of thepayments to the judges was $46,000 and

now being raised to $57,000 a year. Sothat is 27% to rising to a higher percentage of the judicial salaries of$178,000 per year. Now we have heardfrom County Supervisor MichaelAntonovich that those payments aregoing to stop as far as new judges areconcerned. So hopefully that corruptionis going to cease as far as the newjudges are going to be taking place. Butclearly the Los Angeles corruption was

the key to the judicial corruption inCalifornia.

DUTTON: You know, we've tried andtried many, many times to get permission to come into the jail tointerview you on camera. Other mediaagencies have been granted that permission. ABC's 20/20 was granted permission to come into the jail andinterview other inmates and you even

did get an in the facility, the jail facility,an interview with the L.A. Times. Haveyou ever been approached by theSheriff asking if you wanted to beinterviewed by Full Disclosure?

FINE: No, the Sheriff has neverapproached me asking me if I wanted to be interviewed by Full Disclosure. I

can tell you that had he asked me if Iwanted to be interviewed by FullDisclosure, I would have told him,"Absolutely yes and as fast as possible."

DUTTON: Do you know it to be truethat it is your right to be able to beinterviewed?

FINE: I do not know it to be true but I believe it to be true that I probably dohave a right to be interviewed by thepress. And I would fight for that right.

DUTTON: Okay. Well, we're going tokeep trying because our viewers arefollowing this case closely and they're

very concerned about you and your physical well-being. How are youdoing?

FINE: Well, I'm basically doing allright. The legs are still swollen. Theytook a series of blood tests on me and atthe present time they believe that mycholesterol count is somewhere in the300s. So they've provided a prescription to bring that down, but I

think that's due to being confined(recording) in a 7 1/2 by 13 foot cellwhere one doesn't get exercise, andprobably has jail food that is not exactlythe best for one.

DUTTON: Jail food is not only nottasty, it's not good for you either.

FINE: I'm sure the jail would disagreebut I can tell you that you can get sick

of a constant diet of jail food.

DUTTON: Well, it happened when Iasked Mike Antonovich about thesituation, he told me that it youshouldn't be in the jail having to eat thathorrible food. That's exactly what hesaid. So he must know as Supervisor


4/8


since the 1980s, he must know that thefood's not too good there.

FINE: Well, then maybe he should dosomething about getting me out of herelike admitting to the fact that I shouldn'tbe here and have the Sheriff get me out.

DUTTON: Well, let me ask you. Itappears that you are being held there insolitary confinement by the Sheriff.You're in his custody. Isn't theresomething that Mike Antonovich coulddo to encourage the Sheriff to let yougo?

FINE: Well, I'm sure he could tell the

Sheriff to let me go and the Sheriffcould let me go. At this point in time,the five day period under CaliforniaCode of Civil Procedures, Section 1218has long expired. And under the precedent of the Farr Case, I shouldhave been out of here probably byMarch 9th.

DUTTON: Well, would you call thisfalse imprisonment?

FINE: There's no question about it.There's absolutely no question that I'min here under false imprisonment. Imean that is a given. It's a given on twogrounds. First of all, under the FarrCase because of the fact that I'mimprisoned based upon my moralgrounds of opposing Judge Yaffe. Andunder those moral grounds I shouldnever have been in here in the

beginning. And then, in addition to thatpart of it, under the California Code ofCivil Procedure you can't hold me herefor more than five days. Then on thesecond ground is because of the factthat Judge Yaffe should never have been sitting as a judge in either theMarina Strand Case or in the contempt proceeding. So those are the two basic

grounds with sub-grounds under each ofthem.

DUTTON: Okay. Well, give us anidea now. You are preparing now tofile and ask for a hearingreconsideration of what the 9th Circuithas done. Would you describe to uswhat it is you're doing and what is thetime frame for you for the next step?

FINE: Well, I have prepared and havealready dictated what is known as acombined emergency petition for panelrehearing and rehearing in bank of the panel's unpublished non-precedentmemorandum decision affirming district

court and denying writ of habeascorpus. Now what this particulardocument does is that it shows that the panel decision conflicts with theestablished United States SupremeCourt precedents. And then I go in andI show and cite exactly all of the precedents to which it conflicts byciting the precedents and their holdings,and I also show that it conflicts with theCalifornia Constitution and with the

United States Constitution, and particularly the expo facto laws of theUnited States Constitution. I then showthat we need the consideration of theentire court. I show that the immunity,that the removal of the immunityviolates the expo facto laws and it alsoviolates the California Constitution'ssingle subject rule, and I also show that based upon this memorandum decisionthat we're now going to find is that

every person who's been convicted of --who's being tried for bribery is nowgoing to cite to this memorandumdecision to basically show that theyhave not done any bribery because ofthe fact that under the holding of thismemorandum decision there's no suchthing as bribing a judge anymore because this memorandum decision


5/8


seems to say that anyone can pay off ajudge. Thats the effect of this position.Then I also show that -- I reinforce thefact that the payments violated Article6, Section 19 of the CaliforniaConstitution under theI recite theunderlying facts in the case, and then Igo through and I show the reasons whya reversal of the Panel's decision isnecessary and why the writ should begranted. I'll just read you the titleheadings under that. The first one is"Judge Yaffe Violated Due Process byJudging His Own Actions in theContempt Proceeding." The second oneis "Judge Yaffe Did Not Have an'Appearance of Justice' Because He

Took a Bribe from L.A. County." Thethird one is "Due Process Was Violatedby the Direct Payments to Judge Yaffefrom L.A. County Who Was a PartyBefore Him." The fourth one is "ThePanel's Argument that GovernmentCode Section 6800 200 Passes Part ofSenate Bill SBX211 'Belies' theCriminality of the Acts for theRetroactive Immunity isUnconstitutional." I then go on and say

that an emergency decision is needed because the court is replacing theopposition as an advocate. And then Icome to the conclusion. And since it'ssomewhat short I'll actually read youthe conclusion. And it says, "TheConclusion reads as follows: The Panelpresented a conclusive argument for theHouse of Representatives JudiciaryCommittee's current hearings to draftrecusal legislation. It demonstrated that

the judiciary cannot be trusted to governitself on recusal issues. The time hascome for the judicial sophistry to ceaseand the Constitution and rule of law to be obeyed. California Chief JusticeGeorge has stated in his speech to theAmerican Academy of Arts on October10, 2009 that the California governmentis 'dysfunctional.' He should know.

He's the Chief Justice of the CaliforniaSupreme Court. He supervises thecorrupt California judicial system, andis Chairman of the Judicial Council ofCalifornia which drafted Senate BillSBX211. Unless the en bank hearing isgranted, and the writ is granted, the 9thCircuit will endorse California'scorruption and dysfunction leaving itscitizens to suffer without constitutionalprotections under the (recording) underthe tyranny of criminals in judicialrobes. Justices Reinhardt, Trott, andWardlaw have opted for criminals andcorruption. It is now up to the en bank panel to restore the Constitution, therule of law, and the Republic." "Fine

respectfully requests -- respectfullyrequests that the en bank hearing begranted, that the writ be granted,thereby ending over 20 years of acorrupt California judicial system. Torefuse to do so will be to continue tosubject 38 million Californians tojudicial corruption on a level found onlyin the worst of the developing and war-torn countries." That's it.

DUTTON: Well, we're going to postthe whole filing once it is up onPACER. We will link to it so ourviewers and visitors to our website canread it. Well, is there anything else thatyou have planned for the future herebeyond the en bank hearing?

FINE: Well, we are also filing,hopefully within the next couple ofdays, we will be filing a petition to

Justice Kennedy of the United StatesSupreme Court to stay the execution ofsentence, which means to stay my beingin the L.A. County jail. And he is,under the precedent of the Farr Case hecan do that because Justice Douglas didthe same thing in the Farr Case. Andwe also have filed in the CaliforniaSupreme Court, it was received on


6/8


December 7th of this year, a motion toset aside my disbarment as having beena fraud upon the court. So those are thethree things that are taking place. Andhopefully these filings on the U.S.Supreme Court and the en bank filingshould be in the various courts byMonday or Tuesday. So that is theplan as of the present time.

DUTTON: Okay. Well, thank youvery much. We appreciate it. And Iwill make certain that the Sheriff knowsthat you do want to be interviewed byFull Disclosure. I know our viewerswant to be able to see you and knowthat you're all right. So, we'll keep you

posted.

DUTTON: Before you go, would yougive us further explanation on how thememorandum decision of the 9thCircuit Panel will impact the Sturgeonvs. the County case?

FINE: Okay, the impact runs asfollows. The memorandum of the 9th

Circuit attempts to take that part ofSBX211 which says that the county payments which existed as of July 1,2008 may continue as of May 21, 2009and to judges that are sitting and may bestopped by the counties with 180 daysnotice. Now, the impact runs asfollows. First of all, the question isdoes that particular part of SBX211violate Article 6, Section 19 of theCalifornia Constitution? My answer to

that is, "Yes it does," and for thefollowing reasons. Article 6 Section 19of the California Constitution as washeld in the Sturgeon Case states thatonly the legislature can set thecompensation of the judges. And thatduty to set the compensation of the judges cannot be delegated to anyoneelse. This particular part of Senate Bill

SBX211 does not have the legislatureset the compensation. What it does isallows the counties to set thecompensation because thecompensation that is being set is thecompensation that was set by thecounties as of July 1, 2008. So that'sthe first thing that is violating it becausethe compensation was set by the county,not by the legislature. So that's theviolation that is hitting. The secondpart of it is is that the counties can stopthe particular compensation with 180days notice. So the legislature is alsonot setting the compensation becausethe counties are stopping thecompensation. So there you have a

direct violation of Article 6, Section 19of the California Constitution. That'sthe first thing that happens. The secondthing that happened in the memorandumopinion is that the memorandumopinion said that the criminal aspect ofthe payments which is in Senate BillSBX211 as expressed by the retroactiveimmunity that was given from criminalprosecution is "belied" by this extensionof the payments. Now the problem with

this is that that particular statement is afalse statement and violates the singlesubject rule of the CaliforniaConstitution. And the single subjectrule of the California Constitution saysthat any piece of legislation can onlyhave a single subject. Now the subjectof Senate Bill SBX211 as expressed inthe bill was to deal with the SturgeonCase. It was not to amend theCalifornia Criminal Law. So you could

not have this portion of SBX211 whichis extending these payments be anamendment of the California CriminalLaw because first of all it doesn't saythat it's amending the CaliforniaCriminal Law, but second of all, itwould be a second subject of the bill.And it would be a subject of the billthat's not even mentioned. So therefore,


7/8


it's violating the California singlesubject rule of the CaliforniaConstitution. The third violation thattakes place is the fact that thememorandum, that by having theextension of the payments (recording).

FINE: The third thing that takes placeis that the memorandum states is thatthe extension of the payments is belyingthe criminal aspect of the payments by -- is belying the criminal aspect of thepayments becomes a violation of Article1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the UnitedStates Constitution which prohibits andexpo facto law. And also there is the

same type of provision in the CaliforniaConstitution. Now, an expo facto lawmeans that you cannot create a crimewhere a crime did not exist. Now theway that this works is that theretroactive immunity section of SenateBill SBX211 states that the judges whohave received these payments and thegovernment officials who gave the payments receive retroactive immunitywith respect to these payments

effective, or as of May 21, 2009. Nowfollowing the memorandum's reasoning,it would be that the new paymentswhich become effective May 21, 2009would remove that retroactive immunityfrom the criminal prosecution andtherefore would create a crime becauseif you remove the immunity, you're nowcreating the crime.

DUTTON: Oh.

FINE: Now you can't create a crimewhere a crime did not exist. So whenyou're removing the -- The crime didnot exist under the immunity, but byremoving the immunity, you're creatingthe crime and therefore you have theexpo facto law situation. And by doingthat you fall into the expo facto law

situation and therefore you end upviolating Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3of the United States Constitution andthe similar clause or provision of theCalifornia Constitution. So those arethe three constitutional violations thatyou have in the reasoning of the Panel'smemorandum and why that reasoning is basically fallacious and bottom-line nogood.

DUTTON: Now they have said in thememorandum decision, it specificallystated that it was not for publication.Does that mean that no one else willhave to abide by this ruling?

FINE: Well, yes. What happens is notfor publication means that it is not to be published which means that it shouldnot have any (inaudible) value and thatno one else has to abide by it.However, it's very, very interestingbecause in 2007 the Judicial Council ofthe Courts changed the rules and saidthat even though something is not published, it was still a precedent. Sowhen this particular memorandum says

in its footnotes that it's not forpublication and it's also not a precedent,this creates a very ambiguity with the2007 FRAP 32.1 rule that came outfrom the Judicial Council of the Courts.And it creates a situation that this casemay still be a precedent even thoughthey don't want it to be a precedent. Soit's a very, very interesting situation because I don't believe, I could bewrong on this, but I don't believe that

there are any more cases coming out ofthe circuits that cannot be precedentsanymore.

DUTTON: There was a controversywhen the Senate Bill SBX211 wascodified into the government code.They deleted or omitted the paragraphsthat referenced the retroactive immunity


8/8


from criminal and civil prosecution.Looking back now at the decision, orthis memorandum from the 9th CircuitPanel, does the fact that retroactiveimmunity is not in the governmentcode, or was not codified, does thathave any impact on this at all?

FINE: No it doesn't. The fact that theLegislative Council of Californiadecided not to codify the retroactiveimmunity has no effect. All theLegislative Council did is he made adecision that he wanted to hide thathorrendous action from the public. Butthat horrendous action of the retroactiveimmunity is still a law in California. I

think it was a decision by theLegislative Council to try and keep thepublic from knowing that they did this particular action. (Recording). Nowthe memorandum opinion from thePanel, however, is an entirely differenttype of animal because thememorandum opinion from the Panel isnow trying to go through and bluff the public by this specious type ofreasoning to try and say that there is no

longer any type of retroactiveimmunity. And that is a total falsity.

DUTTON: Well, we indeed have amemo from Senator Steinberg's officewhen we questioned them about the factthat they didn't codify that retroactiveimmunity. And they restated that it is inforce and in fact a part of the lawwhether it's in the code or not.

FINE: Well, Senator Steinbergs officeis absolutely correct. I think it is anembarrassment to the 9th Circuit Panelthat they would even try and attemptthis type of fallacious reasoning and thisfraud upon the public to try and comeup with this type of nonsense to try andsay that the payments were not criminal.And why they even attempted to do

something as patently false and patentlyfraudulent as this type of statement, youknow, is beyond me.

DUTTON: Well okay. I think wecovered it. I think we've covered it nowso we can, yeah...

(End of audio)

Full Disclosure ® Transcript #

Documents

Transcript of Full Disclosure ® Transcript #