High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Habeas Corpus in the United States – the case of Richard Isaac Fine
Human Rights Alert
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine
Abstract
Former US prosecutor Richard I. Fine exposed and rebuked the taking by Los Angeles judges of“not permitted” payments, which were labeled by media “bribes”. Consequently, the State Bar ofCalifornia disbarred Fine in 2007. From March 4, 2009 to September 17, 2010, he was jailed insolitary "coercive confinement" in the Los Angeles Men’s Central Jail, albeit with neither warrantnor valid and effectual conviction nor sentencing records.His efforts to gain his own release through habeas corpus petitions to the US District Court, theUS Court of Appeals for the 9
th
Circuit, and the US Supreme Court were repeatedly denied.However, all judicial reviews in the US courts were characterized by the falsification of courtrecords.The case reflects widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of LosAngeles, the largest county court in the United States, and cover-up of the same by the UScourts. Report regarding corruption of the Superior Court, including, but not limited to, theimprisonment of Richard Fine, was incorporated by reference into the 2010 UPR (UniversalPeriodic Review) Staff Report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, with a noteregarding “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by lawenforcement in California”.Coverage of the case was mostly left to off mainstream media. Large corporate media outletsreports were incomplete and at times partial.One of the central recommendations of the 2010 UPR report on the United States pertained torestoration of the right for habeas corpus, with reference to detentions in Guantanamo Bay. Asdocumented in the case of Richard Fine, the right of habeas corpus was effectively denied alsoon a US citizen, former US prosecutor, in the territorial United States, through effective denial ofaccess to honest courts.Perhaps the most important insight gained from the case of Richard Fine pertains to the key roleof false and deliberately misleading computerized records in the courts and prisons in the UnitedStates in the abuse of Human Rights.Due to the unusual set of characters, the number of court cases filed by Richard Fine, and themeticulous documentation, the case as a whole provides unparalleled study of the justice system,Human Rights, and civil society conditions in the United States at the beginning of the 21
st
century.
1/9
Contents
1.Childhood, education, practice of law 2.Disbarment 3.Exposition of unconstitutional payments to California Superior Court judges 4.March 4, 2009 arrest and jailing 5.Failed petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an emergency petition 6.Arbitrary release 7.Public responses and media coverage 8.The Los Angeles Superior Court 9.Computerized records in the courts and prisons 10.References
1. Childhood, education, practice of law
Fine was born and raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to a middle-class family. He earned hisbaccalaureate degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, his law degree from the Universityof Chicago, and a doctorate from the London School of Economics. Fine served at the U.S.Department of Justice (1968-72) in the Anti Trust Division. Later he served the City of Los Angeles(1973-74) in anti-trust capacities.[
]In private practice, Fine was successful as an anti-trust attorney in pursuing taxpayers' cases against theCounty of Los Angeles and the State of California. [
] His resume shows his efforts have returnedapproximately $1 Billion US Dollars to California taxpayers. [
]
2. Disbarment
Fine's disbarment in October 2007 was the outcome of administrative procedure of the State Bar of California, where he was charged with "moral turpitude" for filing complaints against California judges who had received illegal supplemental payments from Los Angeles County while rulingfavorably in cases in which Los Angeles County was a party. [
] Effectively, he was punished forrepresenting his clients in court.Fine alleged violations of his First Amendment rights in response. [
]Fine's petitions for review his disbarment to the California Supreme Court, and later the US SupremeCourt were denied, allowing the disbarment to stand. Fine was listed as being "involuntarily inactive"beginning 10/17/2007 and as of 3/13/2009 disbarred. [
]
3. Exposition of unconstitutional payments to California Superior Court judges
Richard Fine was the first to expose that unconstitutional payments were being made to Los AngelesCounty judges. In August 2001, Fine's opening brief in the appeal of
Silva v Garcetti
, revealed thatpayments of over $46,000 per judge, per year were being made by Los Angeles County to all (~430)2/9
Los Angeles County judges (and ~140 Commissioners). [
] The payments, now some $57,000 per judge per year, have been made since the late 1980s, costing taxpayers over $300 million over adecade, and figuring prominently in County's "budget crisis". [
]Fine also revealed that it had become practically impossible to win a case against the County at theSuperior Court during the same period. [
]Litigation, which originated from taxpayer objections to such payments, and where plaintiff HaroldSturgeon was represented by Judicial Watch,
Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles
(BC351286) resultedin a October 2008 decision by the California Court of Appeal, 4th District (San Diego) that thepayments were constitutionally "not permitted", as judges were to be paid only by their employers, theState of California. [
] To counter potential civil and criminal liabilities to the California judges, andthe County supervisors who approved the payments, a bill was passed and signed into law byCalifornia Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009, providing “retroactive immunity”to all involved. [
]It should be noted that the California Constitution prohibits retroactive laws. Effectively, the“retroactive immunity” amounted pardons to all involved.
4. March 4, 2009 arrest and jailing
Two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, Richard Fine was arrested by the Warrant Detail of LosAngeles County Sheriff's Department, at the end of a dramatic proceeding, represented as"Sentencing" - in the presence of media - by Judge David Yaffe. Richard Fine was attempting todisqualify Judge Yaffe. The basis for affidavits of disqualification for a cause was Judge DavidYaffe's accepting of such payments from a party to the litigation then at bar –
Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles
(BS109420). [
]
The entire proceeding later failed to appear in the publicly available litigation chronology, publishedonline by the court. Likewise, the court record that was the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt, including what was representedas sentencing, which was widely reported by media, was
later discovered to be invalid on its face. [
]. The record was also lacking authentication. [
]Throughout the habeas corpus petitions of Richard Fine, and to this date, the Los Angeles SuperiorCourt denies access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket – the official record of thelitigation) in the case of
Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles.
Therefore, there is no way to tell whether the March 4, 2009 proceeding was at all listed as a courtproceeding by the court itself. The March 4, 2009 Minutes (protocol), remained unsigned, andnever mentioned any sentencing hearing at all.
Richard Fine was later held in the Men's Central Jail facility in Los Angeles - part of the Twin TowersJail complex, under unusual, possibly unprecedented conditions. [
] He was held under continuoussolitary confinement, in a hospital room in the jail, albeit - no disease or disability were ever claimedby jail authorities.
5. Failed petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an emergency petition tothe US courts
Richard Fine was held all along with no warrant at all. [
] The information provided by the Sheriff'sDepartment of Los Angeles County in this matter on its
Inmate Information Center
was false and3/9
Add a Comment
Human Rights Alert, NGOleft a comment