FULL DISCLOSURE ® Transcript #

RICHARD I. FINE TELEPHONE INTERVIEW 12/17/09

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

DUTTON: Mr. Fine would you explain to us what the 9th Circuit Panel has done with this memorandum that's apparently unpublished? What's happened? FINE: well, in short, and to use the opening words of the brief that I'm submitting for an en bank hearing, the Panel has succumbed to the cancer of corruption and the criminals in judicial robes. What they have done is that they have gone through and they have violated hundreds of years of established judicial precedent that a party cannot be a judge in his own case, and they have gone through and they have tried to literally emasculate the legislative decision that the judges have received criminal payments. DUTTON: Now when you say emasculate, what do you mean by that? The legislation was approved and signed into law and it was put into the government code, wasn't it? FINE: Yes. In fact, what I mean by it is there's a part of their memorandum decision where they recognize that the payments to the judges are criminal but then they go in and say that the legislation SBX211 that allows the new payments to be made, the Panel tries to say that that is attempting to emasculate the criminality of the old payments, and

in fact, that is totally wrong. First of all it's wrong because of the fact that the new payments are only being allowed as of May 21, 2009, which is after the old payments have been made. And second of all, it is wrong because in fact that would be known as an expo facto law because the retroactive immunity that was given by Senate bill SBX211 gave immunity to these judges for getting these criminal payments. And if you were to follow the Panel's reasoning what would happen is that the new payments would be removing that immunity, and therefore, establishing new criminal payments. And to do that, you would be violating Article I, Section 9, Laws 3 of the United States Constitution which says that you cannot make an expo facto law. So basically that shows you how far off this Panel really is. DUTTON: Critics of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have jokingly called it the 9th Circus Court of Appeals. Would you say this decision is one that could foster that perception? FINE: There's no question that this particular opinion is clearly violating the Supreme Court precedent. And the 9th Circuit is bound to follow the Supreme Court. They do not have a choice. And in this opinion, they are violating the case of In Re Murchison 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 was judging his actions in the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assoctiona vd County of L. A. case when Judge Yaffe was sitting at the judge in the contempt case. So he's doing that violation right then and there. There's Judge Yaffe was violating Supreme Court decisions of the Tumey vs Ohio 273 US 510 (1927) case, and the Cambridge Case, and a number of others when he was taking the money from L.A. County which was a party in front of him. So the 9th Circuit is violating Supreme Court decisions on that, and the 9th Circuit was violating the Supreme Court decisions on the expo facto laws. So there's absolutely no question that the 9th Circuit is violating the Supreme Court. So if one wants to go ahead and say that the 9th Circuit is now the 9th Circus, one may say that that is absolutely correct. But I think worse than that what is happening is that the 9th Circuit is buying into the corruption. The 9th Circuit is going along and literally exposing and allowing 38 million Californians to be subject and remain subject to the tyranny of these criminal judges that are existing in the California judicial system. The 9th Circuit is allowing the Californians to be stripped of their constitutional rights and to be laid bare for this tyranny to continue to exist as it has been existing for the last 20 years. So the cancer of the tyranny has now spread into the 9th Circuit. And basically what it means is that California has got a judicial system that is equal to that of the developing countries and the war-torn countries that the United States is complaining about. DUTTON: Well, I'd like to ask you a question. You have been sitting in jail now for 10 months. Fine12/17/09.doc

FINE: That's correct. DUTTON: You've cited in your in some of your court filings that, by law, you should not have held in jail for more than five days. Do you think that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is aware of the fact that by keeping you, not letting you out, not granting your writ of habeas corpus that they're violating your rights? FINE: Oh they absolutely have to be aware of that. I think that there's no question that their actions are deliberate. 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 9th Circuit has denied two motions to set me free which are unopposed, one motion for reconsideration of a motion to set me free which is unopposed, one motion to grant my habeas corpus based upon the opening brief which is unopposed. So the 9th Circuit's actions here are definitely deliberate. They are definitely keeping me here against my rights and knowing so. And the reason for it is is because the 9th Circuit has become the advocate of the corrupt judges. At this point in time, based upon the unopposed motions the other side has given up. There's no one that's really fighting me right now. The only people that are fighting me at this point in time are the judges of the 9th Circuit. That is demonstrated by Judge Reinhart, Judge Trott, and Judge Wardlaw that have come out with this memorandum opinion that is unpublished and said to not be a precedent. Justices Reinhart, Trott and Wardlaw have become the advocates of judicial corruption. The other side has dropped out.

Page 2 of 8

DUTTON: Would you say that the judges, in accepting the criminal payments and now being protected by the 9th Circuit Court, that this is a striking at the core of the corruption in Los Angeles? FINE: Oh, there's absolutely no question about it that there's absolutely no question that the corruption in Los Angeles is probably (recording) -There' absolutely no question that the corruption in Los Angeles is the greatest parts of the judicial corruption in California. Because remember the corruption in Los Angeles of the payments to the judges was $46,000 and now being raised to $57,000 a year. So that is 27% to rising to a higher percentage of the judicial salaries of $178,000 per year. Now we have heard from County Supervisor Michael Antonovich that those payments are going to stop as far as new judges are concerned. So hopefully that corruption is going to cease as far as the new judges are going to be taking place. But clearly the Los Angeles corruption was the key to the judicial corruption in California. DUTTON: You know, we've tried and tried many, many times to get permission to come into the jail to interview you on camera. Other media agencies have been granted that permission. ABC's 20/20 was granted permission to come into the jail and interview other inmates and you even did get an in the facility, the jail facility, an interview with the L.A. Times. Have you ever been approached by the Sheriff asking if you wanted to be interviewed by Full Disclosure? FINE: No, the Sheriff has never approached me asking me if I wanted to be interviewed by Full Disclosure. I Fine12/17/09.doc

can tell you that had he asked me if I wanted to be interviewed by Full Disclosure, I would have told him, "Absolutely yes and as fast as possible." DUTTON: Do you know it to be true that it is your right to be able to be interviewed? FINE: I do not know it to be true but I believe it to be true that I probably do have a right to be interviewed by the press. And I would fight for that right. DUTTON: Okay. Well, we're going to keep trying because our viewers are following this case closely and they're very concerned about you and your physical well-being. How are you doing? FINE: Well, I'm basically doing all right. The legs are still swollen. They took a series of blood tests on me and at the present time they believe that my cholesterol count is somewhere in the 300s. So they've provided a prescription to bring that down, but I think that's due to being confined (recording) in a 7 1/2 by 13 foot cell where one doesn't get exercise, and probably has jail food that is not exactly the best for one. DUTTON: Jail food is not only not tasty, 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 I asked Mike Antonovich about the situation, he told me that it you shouldn't be in the jail having to eat that horrible food. That's exactly what he said. So he must know as Supervisor

Page 3 of 8

since the 1980s, he must know that the food's not too good there. FINE: Well, then maybe he should do something about getting me out of here like admitting to the fact that I shouldn't be here and have the Sheriff get me out. DUTTON: Well, let me ask you. It appears that you are being held there in solitary confinement by the Sheriff. You're in his custody. Isn't there something that Mike Antonovich could do to encourage the Sheriff to let you go? FINE: Well, I'm sure he could tell the Sheriff to let me go and the Sheriff could let me go. At this point in time, the five day period under California Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1218 has long expired. And under the precedent of the Farr Case, I should have been out of here probably by March 9th. DUTTON: Well, would you call this false imprisonment? FINE: There's no question about it. There's absolutely no question that I'm in here under false imprisonment. I mean that is a given. It's a given on two grounds. First of all, under the Farr Case because of the fact that I'm imprisoned based upon my moral grounds of opposing Judge Yaffe. And under those moral grounds I should never have been in here in the beginning. And then, in addition to that part of it, under the California Code of Civil Procedure you can't hold me here for more than five days. Then on the second ground is because of the fact that Judge Yaffe should never have been sitting as a judge in either the Marina Strand Case or in the contempt proceeding. So those are the two basic Fine12/17/09.doc

grounds with sub-grounds under each of them. DUTTON: Okay. Well, give us an idea now. You are preparing now to file and ask for a hearing reconsideration of what the 9th Circuit has done. Would you describe to us what it is you're doing and what is the time frame for you for the next step? FINE: Well, I have prepared and have already dictated what is known as a combined emergency petition for panel rehearing and rehearing in bank of the panel's unpublished non-precedent memorandum decision affirming district court and denying writ of habeas corpus. Now what this particular document does is that it shows that the panel decision conflicts with the established United States Supreme Court precedents. And then I go in and I show and cite exactly all of the precedents to which it conflicts by citing the precedents and their holdings, and I also show that it conflicts with the California Constitution and with the United States Constitution, and particularly the expo facto laws of the United States Constitution. I then show that we need the consideration of the entire court. I show that the immunity, that the removal of the immunity violates the expo facto laws and it also violates the California Constitution's single subject rule, and I also show that based upon this memorandum decision that we're now going to find is that every person who's been convicted of -who's being tried for bribery is now going to cite to this memorandum decision to basically show that they have not done any bribery because of the fact that under the holding of this memorandum decision there's no such thing as bribing a judge anymore because this memorandum decision

Page 4 of 8

seems to say that anyone can pay off a judge. That’s the effect of this position. Then I also show that -- I reinforce the fact that the payments violated Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution under theI recite the underlying facts in the case, and then I go through and I show the reasons why a reversal of the Panel's decision is necessary and why the writ should be granted. I'll just read you the title headings under that. The first one is "Judge Yaffe Violated Due Process by Judging His Own Actions in the Contempt Proceeding." The second one is "Judge Yaffe Did Not Have an 'Appearance of Justice' Because He Took a Bribe from L.A. County." The third one is "Due Process Was Violated by the Direct Payments to Judge Yaffe from L.A. County Who Was a Party Before Him." The fourth one is "The Panel's Argument that Government Code Section 6800 200 Passes Part of Senate Bill SBX211 'Belies' the Criminality of the Acts for the Retroactive Immunity is Unconstitutional." I then go on and say that an emergency decision is needed because the court is replacing the opposition as an advocate. And then I come to the conclusion. And since it's somewhat short I'll actually read you the conclusion. And it says, "The Conclusion reads as follows: The Panel presented a conclusive argument for the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's current hearings to draft recusal legislation. It demonstrated that the judiciary cannot be trusted to govern itself on recusal issues. The time has come for the judicial sophistry to cease and the Constitution and rule of law to be obeyed. California Chief Justice George has stated in his speech to the American Academy of Arts on October 10, 2009 that the California government is 'dysfunctional.' He should know. Fine12/17/09.doc

He's the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. He supervises the corrupt California judicial system, and is Chairman of the Judicial Council of California which drafted Senate Bill SBX211. Unless the en bank hearing is granted, and the writ is granted, the 9th Circuit will endorse California's corruption and dysfunction leaving its citizens to suffer without constitutional protections under the (recording) under the tyranny of criminals in judicial robes. Justices Reinhardt, Trott, and Wardlaw have opted for criminals and corruption. It is now up to the en bank panel to restore the Constitution, the rule of law, and the Republic." "Fine respectfully requests -- respectfully requests that the en bank hearing be granted, that the writ be granted, thereby ending over 20 years of a corrupt California judicial system. To refuse to do so will be to continue to subject 38 million Californians to judicial corruption on a level found only in the worst of the developing and wartorn countries." That's it. DUTTON: Well, we're going to post the whole filing once it is up on PACER. We will link to it so our viewers and visitors to our website can read it. Well, is there anything else that you have planned for the future here beyond the en bank hearing? FINE: Well, we are also filing, hopefully within the next couple of days, we will be filing a petition to Justice Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court to stay the execution of sentence, which means to stay my being in the L.A. County jail. And he is, under the precedent of the Farr Case he can do that because Justice Douglas did the same thing in the Farr Case. And we also have filed in the California Supreme Court, it was received on

Page 5 of 8

December 7th of this year, a motion to set aside my disbarment as having been a fraud upon the court. So those are the three things that are taking place. And hopefully these filings on the U.S. Supreme Court and the en bank filing should be in the various courts by Monday or Tuesday. So that is the plan as of the present time. DUTTON: Okay. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate it. And I will make certain that the Sheriff knows that you do want to be interviewed by Full Disclosure. I know our viewers want to be able to see you and know that you're all right. So, we'll keep you posted.

DUTTON: Before you go, would you give us further explanation on how the memorandum decision of the 9th Circuit Panel will impact the Sturgeon vs. the County case? FINE: Okay, the impact runs as follows. The memorandum of the 9th Circuit attempts to take that part of SBX211 which says that the county payments which existed as of July 1, 2008 may continue as of May 21, 2009 and to judges that are sitting and may be stopped by the counties with 180 days notice. Now, the impact runs as follows. First of all, the question is does that particular part of SBX211 violate Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution? My answer to that is, "Yes it does," and for the following reasons. Article 6 Section 19 of the California Constitution as was held in the Sturgeon Case states that only the legislature can set the compensation of the judges. And that duty to set the compensation of the judges cannot be delegated to anyone else. This particular part of Senate Bill Fine12/17/09.doc

SBX211 does not have the legislature set the compensation. What it does is allows the counties to set the compensation because the compensation that is being set is the compensation that was set by the counties as of July 1, 2008. So that's the first thing that is violating it because the compensation was set by the county, not by the legislature. So that's the violation that is hitting. The second part of it is is that the counties can stop the particular compensation with 180 days notice. So the legislature is also not setting the compensation because the counties are stopping the compensation. So there you have a direct violation of Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution. That's the first thing that happens. The second thing that happened in the memorandum opinion is that the memorandum opinion said that the criminal aspect of the payments which is in Senate Bill SBX211 as expressed by the retroactive immunity that was given from criminal prosecution is "belied" by this extension of the payments. Now the problem with this is that that particular statement is a false statement and violates the single subject rule of the California Constitution. And the single subject rule of the California Constitution says that any piece of legislation can only have a single subject. Now the subject of Senate Bill SBX211 as expressed in the bill was to deal with the Sturgeon Case. It was not to amend the California Criminal Law. So you could not have this portion of SBX211 which is extending these payments be an amendment of the California Criminal Law because first of all it doesn't say that it's amending the California Criminal Law, but second of all, it would be a second subject of the bill. And it would be a subject of the bill that's not even mentioned. So therefore,

Page 6 of 8

it's violating the California single subject rule of the California Constitution. The third violation that takes place is the fact that the memorandum, that by having the extension of the payments (recording).

FINE: The third thing that takes place is that the memorandum states is that the extension of the payments is belying the criminal aspect of the payments by - is belying the criminal aspect of the payments becomes a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution which prohibits and expo facto law. And also there is the same type of provision in the California Constitution. Now, an expo facto law means that you cannot create a crime where a crime did not exist. Now the way that this works is that the retroactive immunity section of Senate Bill SBX211 states that the judges who have received these payments and the government officials who gave the payments receive retroactive immunity with respect to these payments effective, or as of May 21, 2009. Now following the memorandum's reasoning, it would be that the new payments which become effective May 21, 2009 would remove that retroactive immunity from the criminal prosecution and therefore would create a crime because if you remove the immunity, you're now creating the crime. DUTTON: Oh. FINE: Now you can't create a crime where a crime did not exist. So when you're removing the -- The crime did not exist under the immunity, but by removing the immunity, you're creating the crime and therefore you have the expo facto law situation. And by doing that you fall into the expo facto law Fine12/17/09.doc

situation and therefore you end up violating Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution and the similar clause or provision of the California Constitution. So those are the three constitutional violations that you have in the reasoning of the Panel's memorandum and why that reasoning is basically fallacious and bottom-line no good. DUTTON: Now they have said in the memorandum decision, it specifically stated that it was not for publication. Does that mean that no one else will have to abide by this ruling? FINE: Well, yes. What happens is not for publication means that it is not to be published which means that it should not have any (inaudible) value and that no one else has to abide by it. However, it's very, very interesting because in 2007 the Judicial Council of the Courts changed the rules and said that even though something is not published, it was still a precedent. So when this particular memorandum says in its footnotes that it's not for publication and it's also not a precedent, this creates a very ambiguity with the 2007 FRAP 32.1 rule that came out from the Judicial Council of the Courts. And it creates a situation that this case may still be a precedent even though they don't want it to be a precedent. So it's a very, very interesting situation because I don't believe, I could be wrong on this, but I don't believe that there are any more cases coming out of the circuits that cannot be precedents anymore. DUTTON: There was a controversy when the Senate Bill SBX211 was codified into the government code. They deleted or omitted the paragraphs that referenced the retroactive immunity

Page 7 of 8

from criminal and civil prosecution. Looking back now at the decision, or this memorandum from the 9th Circuit Panel, does the fact that retroactive immunity is not in the government code, or was not codified, does that have any impact on this at all? FINE: No it doesn't. The fact that the 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

something as patently false and patently fraudulent as this type of statement, you know, is beyond me. DUTTON: Well okay. I think we covered it. I think we've covered it now so we can, yeah... (End of audio)

Page 8 of 8