You are on page 1of 8

FULL DISCLOSURE ® Transcript #

RICHARD I. FINE TELEPHONE INTERVIEW 12/17/09

© 2009 All Rights Reserved, AAW/Full Disclosure Network/Citizens


Protection Alliance

in fact, that is totally wrong. First of all


DUTTON: Mr. Fine would you explain it's wrong because of the fact that the
to us what the 9th Circuit Panel has new payments are only being allowed
done with this memorandum that's as of May 21, 2009, which is after the
apparently unpublished? What's old payments have been made. And
happened? second of all, it is wrong because in fact
that would be known as an expo facto
FINE: well, in short, and to use the law because the retroactive immunity
opening words of the brief that I'm that was given by Senate bill SBX211
submitting for an en bank hearing, the gave immunity to these judges for
Panel has succumbed to the cancer of getting these criminal payments. And if
corruption and the criminals in judicial you were to follow the Panel's
robes. What they have done is that they reasoning what would happen is that the
have gone through and they have new payments would be removing that
violated hundreds of years of immunity, and therefore, establishing
established judicial precedent that a new criminal payments. And to do that,
party cannot be a judge in his own case, you would be violating Article I,
and they have gone through and they Section 9, Laws 3 of the United States
have tried to literally emasculate the Constitution which says that you cannot
legislative decision that the judges have make an expo facto law. So basically
received criminal payments. that shows you how far off this Panel
really is.
DUTTON: Now when you say
emasculate, what do you mean by that? DUTTON: Critics of the 9th Circuit
The legislation was approved and Court of Appeals have jokingly called it
signed into law and it was put into the the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.
government code, wasn't it? Would you say this decision is one that
could foster that perception?
FINE: Yes. In fact, what I mean by it
is there's a part of their memorandum FINE: There's no question that this
decision where they recognize that the particular opinion is clearly violating
payments to the judges are criminal but the Supreme Court precedent. And the
then they go in and say that the 9th Circuit is bound to follow the
legislation SBX211 that allows the new Supreme Court. They do not have a
payments to be made, the Panel tries to choice. And in this opinion, they are
say that that is attempting to emasculate violating the case of In Re Murchison
the criminality of the old payments, and which holds that no man can be a judge

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 1 of 8
in his own case. And here Judge Yaffe FINE: That's correct.
was judging his actions in the Marina
Strand Colony II Homeowners DUTTON: You've cited in your in
Assoctiona vd County of L. A. case some of your court filings that, by law,
when Judge Yaffe was sitting at the you should not have held in jail for
judge in the contempt case. So he's more than five days. Do you think that
doing that violation right then and there. the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is
There's Judge Yaffe was violating aware of the fact that by keeping you,
Supreme Court decisions of the Tumey not letting you out, not granting your
vs Ohio 273 US 510 (1927) case, and writ of habeas corpus that they're
the Cambridge Case, and a number of violating your rights?
others when he was taking the money
from L.A. County which was a party in FINE: Oh they absolutely have to be
front of him. So the 9th Circuit is aware of that. I think that there's no
violating Supreme Court decisions on question that their actions are
that, and the 9th Circuit was violating deliberate. In fact, I mention in this
the Supreme Court decisions on the particular brief that I am filing that this
expo facto laws. So there's absolutely brief should be done on an emergency
no question that the 9th Circuit is basis because of the fact that the 9th
violating the Supreme Court. So if one Circuit has denied two motions to set
wants to go ahead and say that the 9th me free which are unopposed, one
Circuit is now the 9th Circus, one may motion for reconsideration of a motion
say that that is absolutely correct. But I to set me free which is unopposed, one
think worse than that what is happening motion to grant my habeas corpus based
is that the 9th Circuit is buying into the upon the opening brief which is
corruption. The 9th Circuit is going unopposed. So the 9th Circuit's actions
along and literally exposing and here are definitely deliberate. They are
allowing 38 million Californians to be definitely keeping me here against my
subject and remain subject to the rights and knowing so. And the reason
tyranny of these criminal judges that are for it is is because the 9th Circuit has
existing in the California judicial become the advocate of the corrupt
system. The 9th Circuit is allowing the judges. At this point in time, based
Californians to be stripped of their upon the unopposed motions the other
constitutional rights and to be laid bare side has given up. There's no one that's
for this tyranny to continue to exist as it really fighting me right now. The only
has been existing for the last 20 years. people that are fighting me at this point
So the cancer of the tyranny has now in time are the judges of the 9th Circuit.
spread into the 9th Circuit. And That is demonstrated by Judge Reinhart,
basically what it means is that Judge Trott, and Judge Wardlaw that
California has got a judicial system that have come out with this memorandum
is equal to that of the developing opinion that is unpublished and said to
countries and the war-torn countries that not be a precedent. Justices Reinhart,
the United States is complaining about. Trott and Wardlaw have become the
advocates of judicial corruption. The
DUTTON: Well, I'd like to ask you a other side has dropped out.
question. You have been sitting in jail
now for 10 months.

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 2 of 8
DUTTON: Would you say that the can tell you that had he asked me if I
judges, in accepting the criminal wanted to be interviewed by Full
payments and now being protected by Disclosure, I would have told him,
the 9th Circuit Court, that this is a "Absolutely yes and as fast as possible."
striking at the core of the corruption in
Los Angeles? DUTTON: Do you know it to be true
that it is your right to be able to be
FINE: Oh, there's absolutely no interviewed?
question about it that there's absolutely
no question that the corruption in Los FINE: I do not know it to be true but I
Angeles is probably (recording) -- believe it to be true that I probably do
There' absolutely no question that the have a right to be interviewed by the
corruption in Los Angeles is the press. And I would fight for that right.
greatest parts of the judicial corruption
in California. Because remember the DUTTON: Okay. Well, we're going to
corruption in Los Angeles of the keep trying because our viewers are
payments to the judges was $46,000 and following this case closely and they're
now being raised to $57,000 a year. So very concerned about you and your
that is 27% to rising to a higher physical well-being. How are you
percentage of the judicial salaries of doing?
$178,000 per year. Now we have heard
from County Supervisor Michael FINE: Well, I'm basically doing all
Antonovich that those payments are right. The legs are still swollen. They
going to stop as far as new judges are took a series of blood tests on me and at
concerned. So hopefully that corruption the present time they believe that my
is going to cease as far as the new cholesterol count is somewhere in the
judges are going to be taking place. But 300s. So they've provided a
clearly the Los Angeles corruption was prescription to bring that down, but I
the key to the judicial corruption in think that's due to being confined
California. (recording) in a 7 1/2 by 13 foot cell
where one doesn't get exercise, and
DUTTON: You know, we've tried and probably has jail food that is not exactly
tried many, many times to get the best for one.
permission to come into the jail to
interview you on camera. Other media DUTTON: Jail food is not only not
agencies have been granted that tasty, it's not good for you either.
permission. ABC's 20/20 was granted
permission to come into the jail and FINE: I'm sure the jail would disagree
interview other inmates and you even but I can tell you that you can get sick
did get an in the facility, the jail facility, of a constant diet of jail food.
an interview with the L.A. Times. Have
you ever been approached by the DUTTON: Well, it happened when I
Sheriff asking if you wanted to be asked Mike Antonovich about the
interviewed by Full Disclosure? situation, he told me that it you
shouldn't be in the jail having to eat that
FINE: No, the Sheriff has never horrible food. That's exactly what he
approached me asking me if I wanted to said. So he must know as Supervisor
be interviewed by Full Disclosure. I

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 3 of 8
since the 1980s, he must know that the grounds with sub-grounds under each of
food's not too good there. them.

FINE: Well, then maybe he should do DUTTON: Okay. Well, give us an


something about getting me out of here idea now. You are preparing now to
like admitting to the fact that I shouldn't file and ask for a hearing
be here and have the Sheriff get me out. reconsideration of what the 9th Circuit
has done. Would you describe to us
DUTTON: Well, let me ask you. It what it is you're doing and what is the
appears that you are being held there in time frame for you for the next step?
solitary confinement by the Sheriff.
You're in his custody. Isn't there FINE: Well, I have prepared and have
something that Mike Antonovich could already dictated what is known as a
do to encourage the Sheriff to let you combined emergency petition for panel
go? rehearing and rehearing in bank of the
panel's unpublished non-precedent
FINE: Well, I'm sure he could tell the memorandum decision affirming district
Sheriff to let me go and the Sheriff court and denying writ of habeas
could let me go. At this point in time, corpus. Now what this particular
the five day period under California document does is that it shows that the
Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1218 panel decision conflicts with the
has long expired. And under the established United States Supreme
precedent of the Farr Case, I should Court precedents. And then I go in and
have been out of here probably by I show and cite exactly all of the
March 9th. precedents to which it conflicts by
citing the precedents and their holdings,
DUTTON: Well, would you call this and I also show that it conflicts with the
false imprisonment? California Constitution and with the
United States Constitution, and
FINE: There's no question about it. particularly the expo facto laws of the
There's absolutely no question that I'm United States Constitution. I then show
in here under false imprisonment. I that we need the consideration of the
mean that is a given. It's a given on two entire court. I show that the immunity,
grounds. First of all, under the Farr that the removal of the immunity
Case because of the fact that I'm violates the expo facto laws and it also
imprisoned based upon my moral violates the California Constitution's
grounds of opposing Judge Yaffe. And single subject rule, and I also show that
under those moral grounds I should based upon this memorandum decision
never have been in here in the that we're now going to find is that
beginning. And then, in addition to that every person who's been convicted of --
part of it, under the California Code of who's being tried for bribery is now
Civil Procedure you can't hold me here going to cite to this memorandum
for more than five days. Then on the decision to basically show that they
second ground is because of the fact have not done any bribery because of
that Judge Yaffe should never have the fact that under the holding of this
been sitting as a judge in either the memorandum decision there's no such
Marina Strand Case or in the contempt thing as bribing a judge anymore
proceeding. So those are the two basic because this memorandum decision

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 4 of 8
seems to say that anyone can pay off a He's the Chief Justice of the California
judge. That’s the effect of this position. Supreme Court. He supervises the
Then I also show that -- I reinforce the corrupt California judicial system, and
fact that the payments violated Article is Chairman of the Judicial Council of
6, Section 19 of the California California which drafted Senate Bill
Constitution under theI recite the SBX211. Unless the en bank hearing is
underlying facts in the case, and then I granted, and the writ is granted, the 9th
go through and I show the reasons why Circuit will endorse California's
a reversal of the Panel's decision is corruption and dysfunction leaving its
necessary and why the writ should be citizens to suffer without constitutional
granted. I'll just read you the title protections under the (recording) under
headings under that. The first one is the tyranny of criminals in judicial
"Judge Yaffe Violated Due Process by robes. Justices Reinhardt, Trott, and
Judging His Own Actions in the Wardlaw have opted for criminals and
Contempt Proceeding." The second one corruption. It is now up to the en bank
is "Judge Yaffe Did Not Have an panel to restore the Constitution, the
'Appearance of Justice' Because He rule of law, and the Republic." "Fine
Took a Bribe from L.A. County." The respectfully requests -- respectfully
third one is "Due Process Was Violated requests that the en bank hearing be
by the Direct Payments to Judge Yaffe granted, that the writ be granted,
from L.A. County Who Was a Party thereby ending over 20 years of a
Before Him." The fourth one is "The corrupt California judicial system. To
Panel's Argument that Government refuse to do so will be to continue to
Code Section 6800 200 Passes Part of subject 38 million Californians to
Senate Bill SBX211 'Belies' the judicial corruption on a level found only
Criminality of the Acts for the in the worst of the developing and war-
Retroactive Immunity is torn countries." That's it.
Unconstitutional." I then go on and say
that an emergency decision is needed DUTTON: Well, we're going to post
because the court is replacing the the whole filing once it is up on
opposition as an advocate. And then I PACER. We will link to it so our
come to the conclusion. And since it's viewers and visitors to our website can
somewhat short I'll actually read you read it. Well, is there anything else that
the conclusion. And it says, "The you have planned for the future here
Conclusion reads as follows: The Panel beyond the en bank hearing?
presented a conclusive argument for the
House of Representatives Judiciary FINE: Well, we are also filing,
Committee's current hearings to draft hopefully within the next couple of
recusal legislation. It demonstrated that days, we will be filing a petition to
the judiciary cannot be trusted to govern Justice Kennedy of the United States
itself on recusal issues. The time has Supreme Court to stay the execution of
come for the judicial sophistry to cease sentence, which means to stay my being
and the Constitution and rule of law to in the L.A. County jail. And he is,
be obeyed. California Chief Justice under the precedent of the Farr Case he
George has stated in his speech to the can do that because Justice Douglas did
American Academy of Arts on October the same thing in the Farr Case. And
10, 2009 that the California government we also have filed in the California
is 'dysfunctional.' He should know. Supreme Court, it was received on

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 5 of 8
December 7th of this year, a motion to SBX211 does not have the legislature
set aside my disbarment as having been set the compensation. What it does is
a fraud upon the court. So those are the allows the counties to set the
three things that are taking place. And compensation because the
hopefully these filings on the U.S. compensation that is being set is the
Supreme Court and the en bank filing compensation that was set by the
should be in the various courts by counties as of July 1, 2008. So that's
Monday or Tuesday. So that is the the first thing that is violating it because
plan as of the present time. the compensation was set by the county,
not by the legislature. So that's the
DUTTON: Okay. Well, thank you violation that is hitting. The second
very much. We appreciate it. And I part of it is is that the counties can stop
will make certain that the Sheriff knows the particular compensation with 180
that you do want to be interviewed by days notice. So the legislature is also
Full Disclosure. I know our viewers not setting the compensation because
want to be able to see you and know the counties are stopping the
that you're all right. So, we'll keep you compensation. So there you have a
posted. direct violation of Article 6, Section 19
of the California Constitution. That's
the first thing that happens. The second
DUTTON: Before you go, would you thing that happened in the memorandum
give us further explanation on how the opinion is that the memorandum
memorandum decision of the 9th opinion said that the criminal aspect of
Circuit Panel will impact the Sturgeon the payments which is in Senate Bill
vs. the County case? SBX211 as expressed by the retroactive
immunity that was given from criminal
FINE: Okay, the impact runs as prosecution is "belied" by this extension
follows. The memorandum of the 9th of the payments. Now the problem with
Circuit attempts to take that part of this is that that particular statement is a
SBX211 which says that the county false statement and violates the single
payments which existed as of July 1, subject rule of the California
2008 may continue as of May 21, 2009 Constitution. And the single subject
and to judges that are sitting and may be rule of the California Constitution says
stopped by the counties with 180 days that any piece of legislation can only
notice. Now, the impact runs as have a single subject. Now the subject
follows. First of all, the question is of Senate Bill SBX211 as expressed in
does that particular part of SBX211 the bill was to deal with the Sturgeon
violate Article 6, Section 19 of the Case. It was not to amend the
California Constitution? My answer to California Criminal Law. So you could
that is, "Yes it does," and for the not have this portion of SBX211 which
following reasons. Article 6 Section 19 is extending these payments be an
of the California Constitution as was amendment of the California Criminal
held in the Sturgeon Case states that Law because first of all it doesn't say
only the legislature can set the that it's amending the California
compensation of the judges. And that Criminal Law, but second of all, it
duty to set the compensation of the would be a second subject of the bill.
judges cannot be delegated to anyone And it would be a subject of the bill
else. This particular part of Senate Bill that's not even mentioned. So therefore,

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 6 of 8
it's violating the California single situation and therefore you end up
subject rule of the California violating Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
Constitution. The third violation that of the United States Constitution and
takes place is the fact that the the similar clause or provision of the
memorandum, that by having the California Constitution. So those are
extension of the payments (recording). the three constitutional violations that
you have in the reasoning of the Panel's
memorandum and why that reasoning is
FINE: The third thing that takes place basically fallacious and bottom-line no
is that the memorandum states is that good.
the extension of the payments is belying
the criminal aspect of the payments by - DUTTON: Now they have said in the
- is belying the criminal aspect of the memorandum decision, it specifically
payments becomes a violation of Article stated that it was not for publication.
1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the United Does that mean that no one else will
States Constitution which prohibits and have to abide by this ruling?
expo facto law. And also there is the
same type of provision in the California FINE: Well, yes. What happens is not
Constitution. Now, an expo facto law for publication means that it is not to be
means that you cannot create a crime published which means that it should
where a crime did not exist. Now the not have any (inaudible) value and that
way that this works is that the no one else has to abide by it.
retroactive immunity section of Senate However, it's very, very interesting
Bill SBX211 states that the judges who because in 2007 the Judicial Council of
have received these payments and the the Courts changed the rules and said
government officials who gave the that even though something is not
payments receive retroactive immunity published, it was still a precedent. So
with respect to these payments when this particular memorandum says
effective, or as of May 21, 2009. Now in its footnotes that it's not for
following the memorandum's reasoning, publication and it's also not a precedent,
it would be that the new payments this creates a very ambiguity with the
which become effective May 21, 2009 2007 FRAP 32.1 rule that came out
would remove that retroactive immunity from the Judicial Council of the Courts.
from the criminal prosecution and And it creates a situation that this case
therefore would create a crime because may still be a precedent even though
if you remove the immunity, you're now they don't want it to be a precedent. So
creating the crime. it's a very, very interesting situation
because I don't believe, I could be
DUTTON: Oh. wrong on this, but I don't believe that
there are any more cases coming out of
FINE: Now you can't create a crime the circuits that cannot be precedents
where a crime did not exist. So when anymore.
you're removing the -- The crime did
not exist under the immunity, but by DUTTON: There was a controversy
removing the immunity, you're creating when the Senate Bill SBX211 was
the crime and therefore you have the codified into the government code.
expo facto law situation. And by doing They deleted or omitted the paragraphs
that you fall into the expo facto law that referenced the retroactive immunity

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 7 of 8
from criminal and civil prosecution. something as patently false and patently
Looking back now at the decision, or fraudulent as this type of statement, you
this memorandum from the 9th Circuit know, is beyond me.
Panel, does the fact that retroactive
immunity is not in the government DUTTON: Well okay. I think we
code, or was not codified, does that covered it. I think we've covered it now
have any impact on this at all? so we can, yeah...

FINE: No it doesn't. The fact that the (End of audio)


Legislative Council of California
decided not to codify the retroactive
immunity has no effect. All the
Legislative Council did is he made a
decision that he wanted to hide that
horrendous action from the public. But
that horrendous action of the retroactive
immunity is still a law in California. I
think it was a decision by the
Legislative Council to try and keep the
public from knowing that they did this
particular action. (Recording). Now
the memorandum opinion from the
Panel, however, is an entirely different
type of animal because the
memorandum opinion from the Panel is
now trying to go through and bluff the
public by this specious type of
reasoning to try and say that there is no
longer any type of retroactive
immunity. And that is a total falsity.

DUTTON: Well, we indeed have a


memo from Senator Steinberg's office
when we questioned them about the fact
that they didn't codify that retroactive
immunity. And they restated that it is in
force and in fact a part of the law
whether it's in the code or not.

FINE: Well, Senator Steinberg’s office


is absolutely correct. I think it is an
embarrassment to the 9th Circuit Panel
that they would even try and attempt
this type of fallacious reasoning and this
fraud upon the public to try and come
up with this type of nonsense to try and
say that the payments were not criminal.
And why they even attempted to do

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 8 of 8