FULL DISCLOSURE ® Transcript #

RICHARD I. FINE TELEPHONE INTERVIEW 12/17/09

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 1 of 8DUTTON: 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 Fine would you explainto us what the 9th Circuit Panel hasdone with this memorandum that'sapparently unpublished?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 of corruption and the criminals in judicialrobes. What they have done is that theyhave gone through and they haveviolated hundreds of years of established judicial precedent that a party cannot be a judge in his own case,and they have gone through and theyhave 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 itis there's a part of their memorandumdecision where they recognize that the payments to the judges are criminal butthen they go in and say that thelegislation SBX211 that allows the new payments to be made, the Panel tries tosay that that is attempting to emasculatethe criminality of the old payments, andin 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 factolaw because the retroactive immunitythat was given by Senate bill SBX211gave immunity to these judges for getting these criminal payments. And if you 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 StatesConstitution 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 of

In Re Murchison

which holds that no man can be a judge

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 2 of 8in 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

Tumey

vs Ohio 273 US 510 (1927)

case, andthe Cambridge Case, and a number of others 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 theexpo 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 besubject 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 their constitutional 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 thatCalifornia 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 for more 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 your writ 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 this particular 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 myrights 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 other side has given up. There's no one that'sreally fighting me right now. The only people 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 thathave 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.

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 3 of 8DUTTON: 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 the payments to the judges was $46,000 andnow 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 new judges are going to be taking place. Butclearly the Los Angeles corruption wasthe 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 evendid 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 never approached me asking me if I wanted to be interviewed by Full Disclosure. Ican 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 the press. And I would fight for that right.DUTTON: Okay. Well, we're going tokeep trying because our viewers arefollowing this case closely and they'revery 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 Ithink that's due to being confined(recording) in a 7 1/2 by 13 foot cellwhere one doesn't get exercise, and probably 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 disagree but 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