As a former long-time newsman and writer for the Los Angeles Times for 25 years, Allan Parachini served for eight years as the Public Information Officer for the Los Angeles Superior Court. He was there during the incredible persecution of Dr. Richard Fine, who served eighteen months in solitary coercive confinement. In this preview of parts one and two of this three-part interview, he explains why the judges did everything they could to destroy Dr. Fine.



In this second interview, Alan Parachini was retired in his home. Full Disclosure had filed a request to get a copy of the contract between the County and the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges. Allan had seen this contract that specified an agreement between the two parties that established that each of them would receive the same generous benefits package. Allan explains how the Judges work hard to “keep the public out” of their business.

630 Segment 1

Allan Parachini describes the unreasonable hatred from the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges towards Mr. Fine.

630 Segment 2

Allan describes how the judges work to extricate themselves from the obvious embarrassing conflict with Mr. Fine.

630 Segment 3

The Administrative Office of the Court was established to oversee the California court system. As a result of the conflict with Mr. Fine, they discovered that the double-benefits were not just a problem isolated in Los Angeles. It was a disease that had spread statewide.

631 Segment 1

Allan Parachini explains how vindictive the judges were towards Mr. Fine, but they were not responsible for his condition of incarceration. Allan defends the policies of the Sheriff, claiming the deputies did the best they could to protect Mr. Fine.

631 Segment 2

According to Allan the judges were encouraging Judge Yaffe to “give Mr. Fine what he deserved.” But Allan disagreed with Mr. Fine’s assertion that the judges were influenced to decide in favor of LA County mostly because they were receiving double benefits from the County.

631 Segment 3

Allan explains how his office interfaced with the judges and the media and how the orders by the judges not to even speak about Mr. Fine made his life difficult. Full Disclosure has petitioned the court to use the courtroom where Mr. Fine was arrested as a backdrop to read from the transcript of his remarkable hearing for a movie being produced. Allan explains that the court has allowed the major media to use the courtrooms on a continuous and on-going manner, just not Full Disclosure.

632 Segment 1

In an interview in his home, Allan describes how resistance to public inquiry is a common and predictable response to any questions asked by the public or the media. As he admits, his standing orders in his role as Public Information Officer was to “keep them out”.

632 Segment 2

Who can curb the actions of a rogue judge? Allan discusses the role of the Commission on Judicial Performance and current legal arguments that are pending in light of the Sturgeon decision and the legislative response in passing SBX211.

632 Segment 3

Allan was aware of and had seen a contract between the County of Los Angeles and the Judges of the Superior Court that authorized the initial double benefits payments. Interestingly, he noted that each party gets the same benefits and the policy is in force until “the parties” agree to end the practice. Full Disclosure has struggled long and hard to get a copy of this contract. Allan explains that the Court has unlimited resources to keep resisting any intrusion into “their business.”

Full Disclosure Network® and The News Behind The News® are trademarks and DBAs of The American Association of Women, Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization, EIN 95-3922910.

All content © 2019 The American Association of Women, Inc.