Los Angeles, CA Following the announcement of an “unpublished” decision in a civil contempt of court case, a three Judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Reinhardt, Trott, Wardlaw) was described as having “succumbed to the cancer of corruption and the criminals in judicial robes.”
This statement, provided in an telephone interview with the Full Disclosure Network®, was made by jailed Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I. Fine, who has been held in solitary “coercive confinement” in the L.A. County Central Men’s jail for almost ten months, since March 4, 2009.
Fine was sentenced indefinitely, without bail, without a hearing date and without a release date by L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe following Fine’s attempt to disqualify the judge from sitting on a case where he had received illegal payments from L. A. County a party to the case, Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles.
Here are other points made by Richard I Fine in the Video News Report:
- The panel has violated hundreds of years of established Judicial Precedent and the Supreme Court Precedent In Re Murchison where it was held that “no man can be a judge in is own case”
- There is a 2007 FRAP 32.1 Rule established by Supreme court ruling and implemented by the Judicial Council that says a court may not prohibit or restrict citation of appellate court rulings.
- “The Ninth Circuit Court has deterioriated to the level of the developing countries that are war torn, that the U.S. has been critical of..."
- Ninth Circuit Court rulings have been overturned more than any other Court in the United States and that is why they have become known as the “Ninth Circus Court”.
Comments to date: 27. This is page 1 of 3.
joebanana so. cal.
Posted: 10:26 am [PST] on February 28 2010
It's deteriorated beyond third world status, it's gotten to human, civil, and constitutional rights violations of biblical proportions, along with the conspiracy of the FBI, DOJ, the governor, the state attorney general, and, the state legislature. Chicago has nothin' on LA.
jeffrey lynn colard SACRAMENTO
Posted: 03:05 am [PST] on February 15 2010
DO YOU NEED A MAD CITIZEN TO WALK THE HALLS OF THE CAPITAL WITH AN EXPOSURE OF THIS JUDICIAL CRIME.AS I HAVE NO MONEY ,BUT I WILL GO TO BAT AND CONFRONT THE DOME HEADS WHO SIGNED THIS ACT OF JUDICIAL COVERUP!
I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS AFTER REVIEWING SBX2-12 AND REALIZING THAT THEY HAVE WROTE THEM SELVES THIS FUNNY FUND WITH ITS MANNER OF
COLLECTING FINES TO PAY BACK THIS ILLEGAL FUND AND ALL ITS POWERS TURNED OVER TO BYPASS THE PROCESS PLEASE LET ME KNOW! AND TELL MR FINE HE HAS A CAPITAL RUNNER AT HIS DISPOSAL JEFFREY COLARD 916 803 2425 YOU MAY CALL ME TOO!
David Sharp Orange County, California
Posted: 09:31 pm [PST] on February 08 2010
I know for certainty that the following are all corrupt:
1. Los Angeles Superior Court
2. U.S. District Court, Central District of California
3. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
dollie ballard rockford, illinois
Posted: 05:41 am [PST] on February 05 2010
they should be investigated and removed from the bench without their retirements and benefits if found guilty. it is this kind of stuff that should be covered by the mainstream media, like a cancer it needs to be cut out immediately.
YDOBON WASHINGTON STATE
Posted: 08:05 pm [PST] on January 28 2010
WHEN A JUDGE IS NOT HONORABLE,YET THE COURT SAYS PLEASE RISE FOR THE HONORABLE ????? PRESIDING,WOULD YOU BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR NOT RISING?
jerry lux sacramento
Posted: 03:45 am [PST] on January 26 2010
what's new
Natalia Sidiakina Santa Rosa, CA
Posted: 09:30 pm [PST] on January 25 2010
Leslie,
I checked the FindLaw website for case In Re Farr. Below is the link to the US Supreme Court opinions with the party's name starting with Farr:
All US Supreme Court cases with “Farr”: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&navby=title&v1=Farr
The ONLY relevant case is Farr v. Pitchess, 409 U.S. 1243 (1973), the link to opinion is: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=409&invol=1243 or http://laws.findlaw.com/us/409/1243.html
Case Farr v. Pitchess, 409 U.S. 1243 (1973) DOES NOT set up the LIMIT of 5 DAYS for incarceration for civil contempt. It leaves the issue of time limit OPEN TO STATE'S INTERPRETATION.
For California, as of 1973, there was NO LIMIT, i.e. incarceration for civil contempt COULD BE FOR LIFE. (See the text of opinion).
Do you have ANY OTHER CASES that set up FEDERAL OR CA STATE TIME LIMIT FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT?
Dr. Natalia A. Sidiakina
Truth Seeker Location unknown
Posted: 09:18 am [PST] on January 24 2010
@ Courtwatch. Please work with Leslie Dutton on a report NAMING NAMES. We deserve the right to know the names of these Judges. All 2000 of them. We deserve the right to know, from top to bottom, who came up with the sudden SBX211 "Bill/Law" to make these payments legal. Every one of them.
It's extremely interesting that Marin County and San Diego County are now undergoing "audits" for Court Corruption, but Los Angeles, which is where THIS part of the corruption started has been left out. Los Angeles is the center of the septic system of Court Corruption, and the law makers as well. (Some who's spouses are Judges)
It appears that our Government is just really a large mafia. Why is Madoff in jail if these Judges aren't? They have done the exact same thing, but it's worse. He was at least caught, and stopped. There is no stopping the Government.
Leslie, please do a report, naming names of all the ones involved from top to bottom. Who drafted SBX 211, who supported it, and who is getting the payments. All 2000 names.
courtwatch Marin County
Posted: 07:31 pm [PST] on January 21 2010
For those of you who are interested in the Richard Fine issues, the statistics about the judicial perks he was complaining about can be found in the Judicial Council's December 15, 2009 report entitled "Historical Analysis of Disparities in Judicial Benefits". The key statistics are in attachment D, pages D-9 to D-14. In 2008, CA counties paid a total of $30,388,289 in "supplemental judicial benefits" to their judges, above and beyond their state salaries and benefits.$23,482,932 of this total $30.3 million was paid by Los Angeles County, to Los Angeles County judges. The report does not state how much each judge receives per capita, but it states that Los Angeles County has 436 judges-- that comes out to each LA judge receiving approximately $53,860 from LA County. Richard Fine challenged the LA judges, stating that those receiving these hefty benefits from LA County should not be hearing cases involving LA County. He also claimed the payments were illegal. In 2008, a court of appeal agreed that the payments were illegal.(Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 630.) According to the Judicial Council report (page 4), in response to the Sturgeon case, "the judicial branch sought legislation, Senate Bill X2 11".
The legislation, commonly known as SBX 211, was pushed through on an emergency basis. It allows judges to continue to receive these extra benefits, and also provides RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY from prosecution to counties paying the benefits, and judges receiving the benefits.
In other words, CA judges were taking the county benefits in violation of the law. When this was made public, the CA judiciary got emergency legislation passed, allowing them to continue to receive their benefits (while courts are being closed due to "budget constraints"), and also allowing them to escape prosecution. Meanwhile, the lawyer who had been challenging the LA bench for taking these hefty illegal perks for years, was disbarred and sent to jail, where he has been held in solitary confinement for almost a year.
The legality of SBX 211 has subsequently been challenged -- something the language of the legislation itself anticipated.
If you think this report on judicial benefits is interesting, check out the report issued the same day (12/15/09), by the CA Judicial Council's "Commission on Impartial Courts" recommending that judges be allowed to take campaign contributions from those who appear before them (notwithstanding the fact that 75% of the public, and over 25% of judges believe contributions affect the outcome of cases), and also recommending AGAINST the implementation of Judicial Performance Evaluations--which consultants to the Judicial Council have repeatedly,strongly recommended.
Judicial tyranny, and brutal retaliation against court critics are alive and well. Judicial oversight, and justice, are not.
And oh, by the way, the very favorite way of higher courts to hide their shame about their rulings, is to say they are "unpublished." Those cases reveal the judicial abuses they do not want used as "precedent".
kevin seccia los angeles
Posted: 02:32 pm [PST] on January 03 2010
The corruption in the los angeles courts is rampant!