You are on page 1of 89

10

11 VS.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2

-- I --

21 Pursuant to the Court's Minute Order of February 8, 2010, Richard 1. Fine

22

23

3

.,

CONJ~_n.-~PPY

S~rior Court of Ca1if~

RICHARD 1. FINE, In Pro Per "CountY°fLosAn;Cei

Prisoner ID # 1824367 MAR 252010

c/o Men's Central Jail Clerk.

lobnA. Clarke, Executive ~ffic«1 .

441 Bauchet Street . ~ ~ . _DeputY

Los Angeles, CA 90012 By - - Betij;lau.regw

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

4

5

6

7

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al,

DATE:

THv1E:

COURTROOM: Dept. 86

8

9

MARINA STRAND COLONY II HONlEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Case No. BS 109420

Petitioner,

DEMAND FOR AN Th1MEDIATE "F ARR HEARINGH NO LATER THAN 3/31/10 PURSUANT TO COURT'S 2/3/10 MINUTE ORDER

Respondents.

DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE; DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE NORTH,

Real Parties In Interest.

(hereinafter referred to as "Fine") demands an immediate "Farr Hearing" to be

24 heard no later than March 31, 2010. The purpose of the hearing is to determine:

25

26

27

28

A. If there was, as of March 4, 2009, or any time thereafter through the

present, "no substantial likelihood that the March 4, 2009 Judgment

and Order of Contempt would serve its coercive purpose; and

10

2

-- 2--

~,

, I

\.,

B. When the commitment became punitive in nature and subject to the

3

5-day statutory limitation of CCP § 1218 (see In Re Farr, 36

4

Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3rd 605, 611-612 (1976).

5

6

7

As shown in Fine's Demand of January 27, 2010, Fine contends that the

8

incarceration should not have occurred. A true and correct copy of the Demand

9

and Memorandum of Points and Authorities marked as Exhibit "A" is attached to

11 the Declaration of Richard I. Fine (the "Fine Declaration") and incorporated

12

13

, 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

herein by this reference as if set forth in full.

The February 3, 2010 Minute Order at pages 1 and 2 affirms: "Fine stated

to the Court that he would not answer questions put to him at a Judgment Debtor

Examination until he exhausts his right to petition for Habeas Corpus". This

concession and admission by Judge Yaffe, who is also Fine's direct adversary in

this case (as he appeared personally in the writ proceedings), shows that there

was "no substantial likelihood" on March 4,2009, or any time, thereafter, that the

March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt would serve its "coercive"

purposes.

The commitment became "punitive" on March 4, 2009 and should have

ended 5 days later, on March 9,2009. It has now been almost 13 months, and as

shown in the Fine Declaration, Fine will still not be coerced into answering the

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

questions.

The admission of Judge Yaffe, as set forth above in the Minute Order, dispels and invalidates any argument in the Minute Order at page 1, paragraph 3, that the incarceration is anything but punitive.

Further, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed and served with the Demand referred to the 3/4/09 sentencing transcript at page 8, line 8, to page 9, line 14, and page 16, line 18, to page 25, line 3, which emphasized that Fine was not going to answer the questions. There is no way that Judge Yaffe could conclude in the Minute Order that the Judgment and Order of Contempt was anything but punitive, when both Judge Yaffe and the transcript agree that Fine said he would not answer the questions while the appeals were proceeding.

Judge Yaffe's statement at paragraph 2 of page 1 of the Minute Order is also very "off the wall". The 1127/10 Demand and Memorandum of Points and Authorities refers to the same arguments to disqualify Judge Yaffe as have been used throughout the case.

Judge Yaffe's denial of service is also very strange as the 2/10/10 letter from Fred Sottile shows that service was made in Judge Yaffe's courtroom, with a copy for him and his "clerk" who verbally advised Mr. Sottile that "one copy is

enough".

The Declaration of Richard I Fine, incorporated herein as if set forth in full,

-- 3 --

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

,··4·-

states all the reasons to grant the within demand.

3

Dated: March 24, 2010

4

5

6

7

8

9

Respectfully submitted,

BY: _

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

Former Counsel for

Marina Strand Colony II HOA

6 7 8 9

10

1 I 12 13 14

15

16 17 18 19 20

2 3 4

-- 5 --

DECLARATION OF RICHARD I. FINE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

5

I, RICHARD I. FINE, declare:

The following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if called to testify, I could and would competently testify as follows:

1.

I have been incarcerated in the Los Angeles County Jail in "coercive

confinement" under a Judgment and Order of Contempt entered by Judge Yaffe in this case since March 4, 2009 when I was taken from Judge Yaffe's courtroom directly to the Los Angeles County Jail. The "Remand Order" from Judge Yaffe tathe Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, remanding me to his custody,

does not show any "bail amount" or anY "appearance date", which is mandatory

as shown on the Remand Order.

2.

The "Remand Order" lists, under the heading "Charges": "CCP §

21 1219(a)." CCP §1219(a) by its tenns allows a judge to order a person to be

22

23

24

25

26 !

27 I

28

confined in a county jail indefmitely to "coerce" such person to divulge information which the judge has ordered such person to divulge. Such "coercive confinement" may last for a lifetime, unless it is established that is there is no substantial likelihood that this Contempt Order would serve its coercive purpose. When the Contempt Order is no longer able to fulfill its purpose of coercion, it

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

becomes "penal" in nature and the confmement is "punishment". The term of incarceration for "penal" confinement is five days in the county jail under CCP § 1218. See In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 573, 584 (1974), cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976). In the worst case, the confinement should have ended on 3/9/09, over a year ago.

3.

The Contempt Order had two operative "orders":

A. "Fine is sentenced to confinement in the County Jail until he provides all the information he has been ordered to provide or is hereafter ordered to provide, by the Commissioner .... ". Fine may end his confinement by filing a declaration under penalty of perjury "stating that he is willing to answer the all questions ... "; and

B. "Fine is sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00 or to spend five days in the county jail for advertising or holding himself out as practicing or as entitled to practice law, and for practicing law in this court without being an active member of the State Bar" (Contempt Order, page 14, paragraphs 4,5 and 7).

The Order of Confinement to "coerce" me to answer questions did

4.

not provide for any release from confinement as set forth in the cases of In . Re Farr, supra and In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, supra. This clear

-- 6--

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

omission shows a deliberate refusal to provide a mechanism to be relieved from life imprisonment other than answering questions and giving all information sought. It further states that any and all forms of civil and political rights were summarily removed from me.

5.

Such deliberate removal of my civil and political rights as part of the

coercion constitutes "torture" and is a violation of the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the United States in 1992. Under Article VI Clause 2, "treaties made under the authority of the United States must be followed by state court judges along with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S.

laws."

A formal complaint setting forth the violations of the International

Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, as has occurred in this case, has been filed with the United Nations. Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the United States is submitting to the review of the United Nations Council on Human Rights. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, marked collectively as Exhibit "B", are true and correct copies of the March 10,2010 article from the Sacramento Bee referring to me as a '~political prisoner", a formal complaint to the United Nations (without attachments) and a copy of the Huffmgton Post news article.

6.

The formal complaint to the United Nations and the documents

28 attached thereto shows that "torture" as defined in the Geneva Convention on

--7 --

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2 3

War Crimes and the Covenant violations have occurred in my case and that neither the California judiciary nor the Federal judiciary took any action to stop

4 the abuses.

The complaint and attached documents also show the

misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice and bribery between the Los Angeles County Supervisors and Los Angeles County on the one hand, and the state judges sitting in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles on the other hand. The complaint and the attached documents demonstrate that, due to the same schemes existing in 55 of 58 of California's counties, and due to the State Senate Bill SBx2-II (giving retroactive immunity to judges, governmental entities, employees, and state officials from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action regarding county payments to judges) that "the entire California judicial system cannot function." It IS estimated by Daniel Gottlieb, a retired professor emeritus of mathematics at Purdue University, that over the last 20 years, the judges and the county supervisors in the 55 counties have committed approximately Ten Million Felonies through county payments to the judges. It is estimated that over 90% of the justices on the California Court of Appeal have received the illegal payments and retroactive immunity. Five of the seven California Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Ronald M. George, were formerly Superior Court judges in counties where the illegal payments were made during a time when they were

.- 8 --

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

made. A sixth California Supreme Court Justice, Baxter, was on the Judicial Council of California, which drafted Senate Bill SBx2-11 and gave it to Senate President-elect Pro Tern Darrell Steinberg for introduction.

7. The formal United Nations complaint and attached documents show that, in the Federal writ of habeas corpus case challenging Judge Yaffe's actions, Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, violated 28 USC § 2243 by not following the time limitations, nor granting the writ when Sheriff Baca did not oppose it. The U.S. District Court did not address the crucial issue of Judge Yaffe judging his own actions by presiding over the contempt proceedings even though it was raised in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the U.S. District Court does not cite to any precedent in denying Judge Yaffe's recusal for taking bribes and illegal payments from L.A. County. These acts by the District Court demonstrated the complicity of the U.S. District Court in the bribery and corruption scheme and its abject refusal to enforce the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws or treaties authorized by the United States.

8.

The formal United Nations complaint and attached documents show

that the Ninth Circuit denied four (4) unopposed motions, including: two motions to set me free, one motion for reconsideration, and one motion to grant the writ based upon my opening brief. Also shown is the bias of the Ninth

__ 9 _.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Circuit panel due to their fmancial and other relationships with the L.A. County and its Supervisors who received retroactive immunity under Senate Bill SBx2- 11. The Ninth Circuit panel, comprised of Circuit Judges Stephen R. Reinhardt, Stephen S. Trott and Kim M. Wardlaw, denied the writ while a 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) motion to disqualify each of the panel members was pending. The panel members then "judged their own actions", and denied the motion to disqualify themselves.

9.

In a "not- for-publication", "not precedent" "Memorandum" (despite

the right to cite the opinion as precedent under FRAP Rule 32.1 (which prohibits a court from restricting the citation of the opinion)), the Ninth Circuit panel falsely stated that the District Court had decided the issue of a "judge deciding his own actions", used the wrong criterion to determine bias, and did not address the fact that the retroactive immunity of Senate Bill SBx2-11 did not extend to judges presiding over cases where a county had given the judge a bribe or illegal payment, nor did the legislature's continuation of county payments to state judges from county funds commencing May 21, 2009 without immunity, have any relevance to Judge Yaffe's actions or affect whether state judges who are receiving payments from counties who are appearing before themselves, as the misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice and bribery still exists. The state legislature does not have the power to order a county taxpayer to pay a state

- 10·_

5 6 7 8 9

to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2 3

-- 11 --

employee a second time. This IS a tax and would reqUITe a vote under Proposition 13.

4 10. No judge in the Ninth Circuit voted for an en bane hearing. The

documents attached to the United Nations complaint show that the Ninth Circuit was complicit in the state bribery and corruption scheme.

11. Both the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court refused to follow clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In the recent case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Ina; 566 U.S. _ (2009), the Supreme Court reviewed the principals relating to recusals:

At Slip Opinion page 10, it cited to In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), which stated the general rule that "no man can be a judge in his own case", adding that "no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome". In Caperton, supra, the Supreme Court stated that the test for bias was objective. It showed that the common law principal of a direct pecuniary interest was not the only test, but that the Court, after Tumey v. Ohio, 273, U.S. 510 (1927), "was also concerned with a more general concept of interests that tempt adjudicators to disregard neutrality". (Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion page 8.) This manifested a test of any procedure or action which "offer a possible temptation to the average ... judge to ... lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true" between the parties is a denial of due process. Caperton, supra,

28 that an application was made to Justice Kennedy for a Stay of Execution of

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

-- 12--

Slip Opinion page 16, citing to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 57, 60 (1972), in turn quoting Tumey, supra, 273 U.S. at 532. In Caperton, supra, the actions were A.T. Massey's chairman and principal officer's "significant disproportionate influence - coupled with the temporal relationship .. , [with] the pending case", (Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion at page 16.) He had contributed $3 Million Dollars to Justice Benjamin' scampaigncommittee during the election for the high court in West Virginia, while at the same time A.T. Massey had a case which was to appear in such court. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Justice Benjamin was required to recuse himself under the due process clause. As stated above, the Ninth Circuit did not use the test used by the Supreme Court in Caperton, supra, which is the current test and has been such since 1927. Had they used such, the writ would have been granted.

Judge Yaffe received $46,466.00 per year in illegal payments (bribes) from L.A. County. That is 27% of his state salary of $178,800.00 per year. He presided over L.A. County cases and decided them in favor of L.A. County. In this case, he did not grant the writ on the grounds that the L.A. Board of Supervisors' vote was illegal, even though such was brought to his attention during the contempt trial. Instead, he proceeded to incarcerate me.

12. The complaint to the United Nations and attached documents show

5 6 7 8 9

10

2 3 4

Sentence. The Application was denied on March 12,2010.

13. The complaint to the United Nations and attached documents show that the federal judiciary is complicit with the bribery and corruption scheme and will remove fundamental constitutional rights to maintain and preserve the bribery and corruption scheme, and does not provide the safeguards or protections mandated in the Covenant.

14. At the same time, other branches of the California and federal

II governments have not responded to pleas for help. I and others have sent formal 12

complaints to both U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his predecessor

13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

seeking prosecution under federal law for the bribery and corruption scheme. No help was forthcoming. A formal complaint was filed with California Attorney General Jerry Brown seeking prosecution. No help was forthcoming.

15. The California Legislature has the power to impeach and convict all of the state judges who have taken the county bribes and illegal payments and who have presided over cases where the county who made the illegal payment or paid the bribe to the judge was a party to the case. However, since the State Legislature passed Senate Bill SBx2-11, it is doubtful that the members would engage in the impeachment process. The same may be said for the Governor who signed Senate Bill SBx2-11. In summary, the federal executive branch, the State Legislature and the State Governor are all complicit with the bribery and

-13 --

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2

-- 14--

corruption scheme. The State Legislature and the Governor are, however, more

3

than complicit as they are active participants through the enactment of Senate Bill

4

SBx2-Il.

5

16. This leaves the U.S. Congress. The Congress does not allow judges to

6

7

take bribes from parties or lawyers appearing before them. On March 11, 2010,

8

the House of Representatives voted to impeach New Orleans U.S. District Court

9

Judge Thomas Porteous. He received money from lawyers who appeared before

him when he was a state judge and failed to reveal this activity during his

nomination proceedings in the Senate. Under Article III, Section 1, of the U.S.

Constitution, "the judges of both the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their

offices during good behavior..". Unfortunately, Article III, Section 1, only relates

to federal judges. The U.S. Congress cannot impeach state court judges. If it

could, Judge Yaffe would be impeached. He has admitted to having received

payments from the L.A. County. L.A. County appears as a party in cases before

him, as well as in this case, through the "in-house" L.A. County Counsel. The

L.A. County Counsel is not an independent lawyer, but an employee of L.A.

County. The illegal payment (bribe) that Judge Yaffe received from L.A. County

25 . came from the L.A. County Counsel as they are "one and the same". Neither

26

27

28

Judge Yaffe nor L.A. County nor the L.A. County Counsel disclosed the illegal

payments (bribes).

11 act is the Commission on Judicial Performance, which is established under the

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

17. The U.S. Congress can only pass legislation which may require recusals of state court Judges as a function of due process. The House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee has a sub-committee studying the recusal issue. However, no oversight is in place and the Congress cannot do anything to enforce the Covenant beyond passing legislation which the executive and judicial branches may ignore, as they have done in this case.

18. The only remaining domestic governmental organization which could

California Constitution. It has the power to discipline and remove a judge. However, Senate Bill SBx2-II gave the judges retroactive immunity from disciplinary action for receiving the illegal payments or bribes as of its effective date, which was May 21, 2009. The immunity did not extend to any payment (bribe) a Judge received from a county after May 21, 2009, even if such payment was authorized by the State Legislature. The "retroactive immunity" by the terms of Senate Bill SBx2-II was limited to "benefits provided to a judge under the official action of the governmental entity on the ground that those benefits were not authorized by law" (2009 Cal. Legis. Serv., 2d Ex. 5655. Chap. 9 (S.B.II)).

19. The Commission on Judicial Performance could prosecute and remove Judge Yaffe and other judges who received the illegal payments for

.- 15-

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

violations of the Canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics and refusing to recuse themselves under CCP § 170.1(a)(3)(A)(iii) in any case where a county who made an illegal payment (bribe) to the judges was or is a party before him. CCP § 170. 1 (a)(3)(A)(iii) states in relevant part: "A judge shall be disqualified if one or more of the following is true: 'A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the Judge would be impartial. '"

Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 2 states: "A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities."

Canon 2B(1) states in relevant part: "A judge shall not allow other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a judge convey any individual is in a special position to influence the judge".

Canon 3E(I) and (2) state: (1) "A judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law; (2) "In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification."

Canon 4D(1) states in relevant part: (1) "A judge shall not engage In financial and business dealings that (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge's judicial position, or (b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to appear

-- 16--

l4 Judicial Performance could remove the Judges under the same Canons and

7 8 9

10 11 12 13

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22

23

24

25 26 27 28

2 3 4 5

-- 17-

6

before the court on which the judge serves." The advisory note specifically refers to persons likely to appear before the judge personally or other judges on the judge's court.

20. Even with the retroactive immunity, the Commission on Judicial Performance could have rendered Judge Yaffe and every judge who received an illegal county payment and presided over a case where the county was a party

under Canons 2, 2B(1), 3E(I) and (2) and CCP § 170.1(a)(3)(A)(6)(A)(iii). If the

judge just received the illegal county payment and received retroactive immunity, but did not preside over a case where the county was a party, the Commission on

statute, but omitting Canon 3E(2). For any judge who is receiving county payments after May 21, 2009, Canon 40(1) would also apply. The case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. AppAth 630 (2008), rev. denied Dec .. 23, 2008 held that the L.A. County payments to the state judges in the L.A.

Superior Court violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution. Such Article states that only the State Legislature can "prescribe" the compensation of the judges. The case reaffirmed the principal that the duty of the Legislature could not be delegated.

21. One part of Senate Bill SBx2-11 states that, as of May 21, 2009, the

counties shall pay the judges the "benefits" on the same terms as such were paid

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

on July 1, 2008. Under Sturgeon, supra, the Legislature is not "prescribing" compensation. Each county had previously voluntarily determined its illegal payment to the judges. There was no prescribing. The Legislature was "reacting". In L.A. County, the July 1, 2008 payment structure expired on June 30, 2009, by its own terms. The payments were implemented as one-year budget appropriations. In the best case, if the payments were constitutional, that could only be so for 39 days. After June 20, 2009, if L.A. County decided to continue the payments, such payments violated Article VI, Section 14, of the California Constitution under Sturgeon, supra. Since the State Legislature cannot delegate its duty to "prescribe" the compensation of the judges, it cannot pass a law allowing the counties to set the level of compensation. Under Canon 4D(1), none of the judges can accept the county compensation, and, if they did, the Commission on Judicial Performance should remove them.

22. Despite its obligations, the Commission on Judicial Performance has done nothing. However, even if it had removed all of the judges who received and are receiving the illegal county payments (bribes), this still would not cure the problem. The Commission on Judicial Performance does not have the power to change or reverse judicial decisions, or to order my release.

23. The history of illegal payments in California, and particularly in LA

28 County, is long and deeply rooted. It encompasses the Superior Court judges of

_. 18 __

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

-- 19--

55 of the 58 California counties. The bribery scheme has been going on for

2

3

more than 20 years since its inception in the late 1980's. From the outset, both

4

L.A. County Supervisors and the L.A. Superior Court judges knew that the

5

payments were illegal, to wit; In a November 10, 1988 opinion letter from L.A.

6

7

Senior Asst. Court Counsel Roger Whitby (approved by L.A. County Counsel

8

DeWitt Clinton) to Frank S. Zolin, County Clerk/Executive Officer, Superior

9

Court, the L.A. County Counsel admitted at Page 2 that the Attorney General had

issued two opinions stating that the word "compensation" in Article VI, Section

19, encompassed the county employee benefits which L.A. County was providing

the state judges .. He gave the citations of the opinions and the citation to the case

of County of Madera v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.3d 668 (1974), which held

that the Legislature could not delegate a duty to "prescribe" something such as

the compensation of judges of courts of record. He also did not find any statute

that specifically authorizes the counties to provide any benefits to the judges and

admitted that "superior court judges are technically state constitutional officers .. ".

The rationale for the payments to the judges stated at Page 6 in relevant part as

follows:

"The Board of Supervisors has evidently found that in order to attract and retain qualified Judges to serve in this [L.A.] County, it is necessary and appropriate to provide them with benefits such as a flexible benefit plan contribution and the 401(k) match ... ".

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

-- 20--

1 The letter was part of documents procured by L. A. County during the appeal of

3

the Sturgeon case.

4 24. The letter showed that the Supervisors' claimed reason to pay the

5

judges benefits and retirement in addition to the benefits and retirement that the

6

7

judges were receiving from the state as state employees was a sham. It was also

8

a sham to pay the "benefits", which the letter stated could be taken in "cash", to

9

"attract" judges who were already in an elected office, or "retain" a judge who

could only keep his job by winning the next election. The "benefit" payments

were either a bribe or an illegal campaign contribution inasmuch as the judge

could not be "attracted" to a job he already had, and could not be "retained" in a

job where he had to first win an election.

25. The bribery scheme was shown to be true upon the analysis of the L.A. County Counsel Annual Litigation Cost Management Reports (which

commenced in 2005) for fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, which were attached to the March 25, 2008 CCP § 170.3 Objection to Judge Yaffe as Exhibit

"6" and showed that no person won a case against the L.A. County when a

Superior Court judge made the decision and not a jury, with hundreds of cases

being dismissed before trial each year.

26. L.A. County's Bribery and Corruption Scheme is estimated to have paid the judges approximately $300 Million in illegal payments in the last 23+

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 ]I

12 13

years. For just fiscal year 1999-2000 to fiscal year 2005-2006, Judicial Watch informed the California Court of Appeal in the Sturgeon case (in a letter dated February 22, 2008) that the payments to the judges from L.A. County during such time period was $127,250,409.00, based upon documents produced in discovery. This represents 7 of the 23 years of payments, with the highest payments in fiscal years 2006-2010. (The annual payments are now reportedly $57,017.00 per judge and commissioner, of which there are now approximately 571. The salaries of County Supervisors and others are also set by County Charter to equal the judges' salaries.)

14 27. When the effect of the payments is felt over 55 of California's 58

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

counties over a 20+-year time period, one may begin to appreciate the total devastation that has occurred to California's judicial system and begin to understand how it has spread to other parts of California's government and into the Federal judiciary. Effectively, a generation of judges, county supervisors and government employees at all levels have grown up and only worked under a scheme of bribery and corruption. It has become so cOmmon that bribery and corruption are considered the "nonn",while the people's right to enjoy honest judiciary and government to serve them and uphold the Constitution is no longer available as an option.

-- 21 --

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28. It was in this environment that the present lawsuit was filed in June, 2007. Prior thereto, I had challenged the L.A. County payments to state judges when it became known that the judge in that case was receiving payments. Without specific knowledge, however, one could not make a CCP § 170.3 objection. The only way to get the knowledge was either by the judge admitting to the payment in open court or obtaining payment records from L.A. County. No judge, including Judge Yaffe, was disclosing the payments on their mandatory Form 700 Financial Interest Statements, despite the obligation to do

so.

29. I filed the Petition for Writ of Mandate on behalf of the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association. The Petition was filed against L.A. County as Respondent. It also named Del Rey Shores, which later was amended to better identify that Respondent as Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, the co-applicant with the L.A. County for an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to redevelop the Del Rey Shores apartment complex in Marina del Rey, California, as the Real Party in Interest.

30. The case was assigned to Judge Yaffe. Judge Yaffe did not disclose on record the payments he was receiving from L.A. County at any time while I was the attorney for Marina .. Strand. Additionally, L.A. County had not

28 completed its website showing campaign contributions to members of the Board

-- 22--

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of Supervisors.

31. By not disclosing the L.A. Country payments to him and not immediately recusing himself, Judge Yaffe violated Canons 2, 2B(1), 3E(1) and (2) and 4D(I) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, and CCP § 170.1 (a)(3)(A)(6)(A)(iii). At the same time, L.A. County and its counsel committed fraud by not disclosing the payments to Judge Yaffe. Further, L.A. County and its counsel committed fraud along with Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North and their counsel by not disclosing the contributions of Jerry B. Epstein and David O. Levine to the campaigns of Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe, who subsequently within six weeks made illegal votes approving the Del Rey Shore project.

32. Jerry B. Epstein is a Trustee of the Epstein Family Trust. The Epstein Family Trust is the managing partner of Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North (collectively "Del Rey Shores"). David O. Levine is the "Chief of Staff' for Jerry B. Epstein. The campaign contributions were made in April 2007 and were greater than $500.00 to each Supervisor. This made each Supervisor ineligible to vote on the Environmental Impact Report on May 15, 2007 under the California Fair Political Practices Act and the case of BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal. App.a" 1205 (2000). The vote in favor of the EIR was 4-0, including the votes of Supervisors

-- 23 --

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

2 3

-- 24--

Antonovich and Knabe. Without the two illegal votes, the vote would have been 2-0 and the EIR would have failed to lawfully pass.

4 33. The L.A. County Counsel never discussed the illegal votes, nor did

Del Rey Shores' counsel, R.J. Comer and Joshua L. Rosen,even though they all had knowledge of such. During the contempt trial, I presented documents showing the contributions and the illegal vote. Judge Yaffe refused to enter the writ and stop the EIR even though he knew that the L.A. Board of Supervisors' May 15,2007 vote in favor of the EIR was illegal.

34. In the present case, the scheme of corruption and bribery was as

14 follows:

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1) L.A. County pays bribes to Judge Yaffe, who does not recuse himself from the case nor reveal the bribes;

2) Del Rey Shores, through Epstein and Levine, make campaign contributions to Antonovich and Knabe in April 2007;

3) Antonovich and Knabe illegally vote for EIR whose coapplicants are L.A. County and Del Rey Shores;

4) L.A. County Counsel and Del Rey Shores' lawyers do not disclose that the EIR vote is illegal;

5) In October 2007, I left the case;

6) On January 8,2008, Judge Yaffe orders me to pay attorney's fees

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-- 25 --

to L.A. County and Del Rey Shores in violation of the Public Resources Code and in violation of due process as the Order was given without notice to me and without me being present at the hearing;

7) On March 20, 2008, Judge Yaffe admits for the first time, under my questioning, to receiving payments from L.A. County;

8) On March 25, 2008, I served Judge Yaffe with a CCP § 170.3 Objection and filed such based upon the L.A. County payments.

9) On April 10, 2008, Judge Yaffe fails to respond to the CCP § 170..3 Objection and is automatically disqualified as of April 7, 2008 under CCP § 170.3(c)(4); Judge Yaffe takes my Motion to Dismiss the January 8, 2008 Order off calendar.

10) On November 3, 2008, Judge Yaffe signs Order to Show Cause Re Contempt against me on 16 counts for trial before Judge Yaffe.

a. After denying Motions to Dismiss, Judge Yaffe begins contempt trial. He is first witness and testifies to his actions of receiving money from L.A. County, not disclosing it on his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, not having any employment or service contracts

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

- 26--

with L.A. County, not putting the money in his re-election campaign account, and that he could not remember any case in the past three years that he decided against L.A. County other than the re-noticing of a minuscule part of the EIR relating to the "moving of dirt" issue in this case.

11) During the trial, I show that the L.A. County Board of Supervisors' vote on this EIR was illegal and that the Del Rey Shores project did not provide any positive financial benefit to L.A. County in the EIR.

12) Despite proof of the illegality of the vote on the EIR and the failure of the EIR to show a positive financial benefit to L.A. County, Judge Yaffe refused to strike the EIR on these grounds.

35. In the contempt trial, Judge Yaffe "judged his own actions". He found me "not guilty" on 14 counts and "guilty" on 2 counts. The first "guilty" count was "Failure to Answer Questions Before the Commissioner". The second "guilty" count was "Practicing Law While Not an Active Member of the Bar".

36. Even Judge Yaffe did not believe my guilt on the second count. At page 9, line 18, to Page 10, line 3, of the March 4,2009 Reporter's Transcript of the sentencing hearing (hereinafter referred to as "RT"), Judge Yaffe admitted that he did not find any court order that ordered me "inactive" or removed my

21 10-0048 JFW (CW). The case seeks to void and annul my disbarment by

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

license to practice law. It should be noted that the California Supreme Court ordered me "inactive" despite the October 12, 2007 report of the State Bar Court Hearing Judge. Also, at the time of the contempt proceeding, the California Supreme Court had not entered an order for my disbarment based upon the

recommendation of the State Bar Review Department.

Additionally, the

"practicing while not an active member of the State Bar" was inconsistent with Judge Yaffe's "not guilty" judgment on the charge of "lying about the status with State Bar in pleadings filed in the Court and oral arguments made before this Court" in which I had always represented and argued that the California Supreme Court had not ordered me inactive and shown the disposition of my Petition for Review of the October 12, 2007 State Bar Hearing Department Decision, which disposition did not order me inactive.

37. For the information of the Court, I have filed a Request to Enter Default in the case of Fine v. State Bar of CalifOrnia, et aI, USDC Case No. CV-

showing the State Bar's fraud upon the Court. At all times, the State Bar knew that its Notice of Disciplinary Charges was a sham, without merit, in violation of the First Amendment and brought in concert with the L.A. Superior Court judges in retaliation for my exposing and "prosecuting" them for taking illegal payments from L.A. County. As an example, the State Bar held me guilty of "moral

-- 27 --

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

turpitude" for bringing a case in the U.S. District Court that challenged the L.A. County payments to state judges in L.A. County as a violation of Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Under this theory, the lawyers of Judicial Watch who won the Sturgeon case, the Court of Appeal justices who decided the case, and the California Supreme Court justices who denied review would all be guilty of "moral turpitude" if brought before the State Bar for filing any document in a court reflecting their opinion on the case.

38. In his February 3, 2010 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe violated the law by not having a hearing but stating "When Fine notifies the court by declaration under penalty of perjury that he has exhausted or abandoned his quest for a writ of habeas corpus, this court will immediately set a hearing to determine whether Fine will answer the questions put to him and ifnot, why not."

39. Under Farr, supra, coercive incarceration ended when the contempt did not fulfill its purpose. That was on March 4, 2009. The ensuing year has not changed my mind. If anything, I am more firmly convinced of my position. I have seen the complicity, duplicity and incompetence of the Federal judiciary. I firmly believe in the U.S. Supreme Court procedures set forth herein as well as Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), wherein the Court stated "a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not

-- 28--

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

give the appearance of justice", and Levine v. UnitedStates, 362 U.S. 610 (1960), in which the Court cited QjJutt, supra, and ruled and reaffmned the principal that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice".

40. At the present time, a petition for writ of habeas corpus has been before the California Supreme Court since March 4, 2010 with respect to Judge Yaffe's February 3,2010 Minute Order. An Application for Stay of Execution of Sentence is before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A true and correct copy of the letter to her marked as Exhibit "C" is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is presently at the printer and will be delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court by March 26,2010. A complaint has also been filed with the United Nations.

41. For the perspective of Judge Yaffe and the Superior Court, this case IS over. The Supreme Court precedents are clear, as are the international obligations of the United States. The California precedents are clear. The Canons of Judicial Ethics are clear. They all mandate that Judge Yaffe should have recused himself from the contempt proceeding.

42. Judge Yaffe, the California judiciary, the U.S. District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court and even the U.S. Supreme Court, by denying the Petition for Certiorari in the disbarment case and Justice Kennedy's denial of the Application for Stay of Execution of Sentence, have all "lost".

~~ 29··

28 Supervisor who authorized such. In six years, California will have a new

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

-- 30-

43. This case has not been hidden or buried; it has been and is being avidly followed. Details concerning the bribery. corruption and "coercive confinement" issues have been extensively distributed via PR Newswire out of Washington, D.C., by news network FullDisclosure.net in Los Angeles, by the Los Angeles Times, Fox Business News, USA Today, Reuters News Services, the Los Angeles Daily News, the Huffmgton Post, and the Sacramento Bee, amongst others. (See attached Exhibit "D" consisting of the latest PR Newswire press release and related release report concerning the issue of my being held as a political prisoner, just one example of the many stories in the news of late.) The once-respected American judicial system has now been shown to be no better than those countries that the United States so avidly criticizes. It is difficult to criticize a foreign country for bribery and corruption when the United States has the example of California, $300 Million Dollars and Ten Million Felonies in its own backyard. It is difficult to criticize a foreign country for allowing criminals to roam free while California gives retroactive immunity to almost its entire judiciary (over 2,000 judges and commissioners) and past and present supervisors of 55 of its 58 counties ..

44. In the end, some good will come from this. The voters will hopefully vote out every judge who took a bribe or illegal payment and every County

10

2

-- 3] --

Superior Court and within twelve years, a new Court of Appeal and Supreme

3

Court, At the federal level, literally no California Superior Court judge will now

4

be able to receive a federal appointment unless they disclose the illegal payment.

5

And if they disclose such, their nomination will be withdrawn.

6

7

45. At the international level, the U.S. will now be more closely

8

scrutinized. This will only encourage more "integrity" in the judiciary and other

9

branches of government.

] 1 46. Based upon all of the statements in this Declaration and my firm

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

belief in the righteousness of the principals of the U.S. Constitution, the

Covenant and the moral, ethical, and legal correctness of my position, I will not

answer the questions and cannot be coerced into answering the questions.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 24th Day of March, 2010 at Los Angeles, California.

BY:

-----------------------

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

RICHARD I. FINE #1824367 c/o Men's Central Jail

441 Bauchet Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am Janette M. Saba. My address is 10464 Larwin Avenue, Chatsworth, CA, 91311 and my telephone number is (818) 772-6974.

On March 25, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as 9 DEMAND FOR AN IMMEDIATE "FARR.BEARING" NO LATER THAN 3/31110 PURSUANT TO COURT'S 2/3/10 MINUTE ORDER on interested 10

11

parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed 12 as follows:

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Kevin M.McCormick

Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham 39 N. California Street

P.O. Box 1178

Ventura, CA 93002

Elaine M. Lemke

Principal Deputy County Counsel

LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OFF. 500 West Temple Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713

Joshua Lee Rosen

Joshua L Rosen Law Offices 5905 Sherbourne Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90056

R.J. Comer

Armbruster & Goldsmith, LLP 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024

RoseM. Zoia

50 Old Courthouse Square, SteAOl Santa Rosa, CA 95404

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 25th day of March, 2010, at Chatsworth, California.

28 JANETTE M. SABA

-32-

- -_--- -,

·/

L2

I)

lS

19:

,zo

21

2

24 I

from the Los Angeles COWlty Jail and other re,~:ief as set forth in the attached , -j.

RICHARD I. In Fro Per

Prisoner ID n, 1824367

c/o Men s Central Jail 441 Banchet Street

.es Angeles, CA 90012

TE Of CALIFORNIA

;

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS AlGELES CENTRAL OISTRIC

MARINA STRAND OOLO- Y U HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION"

Case e, as 1,0942.0

Pe'ltioner~

DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RELEAS _, FROM LA COUNTY JAJL AND OTHER RELlEF; 'MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJES

VS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGE ES~ et al,

DATE:

TIME:

COUR RO M: Depl 86

DEL REV SHORES JOINT VENTURE; DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE'. ORTH~

TriaJ Date: 1212212008

Real Parties In Interest

Dem ad For'lmmediate Rlease Frem LA County Jau, Ad Other Relief

Richard! r. Fine (heleimdter~Fme~') h-ereby demands immediate release

I'

26 I Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

,

lrrounas iot <lemmd me:

. [.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1. From the outset, Judge Yaffe knew that "coercive incarceration"

would not "coerce" Fine into answering questions about his assets because:

A.

The issue in the case was whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself, and had no relevance or relationship to Fine's assets, and

2.

Fine informed Judge Yaffe in open court that Judge Yaffe had violated the law by taking payments from LA County, that he could not preside over the case and that Fine would answer the questions only if he lost all appeals on the issue.

Under the case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), once

B.

it was established that there was no substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, the commitment would become punitive in nature and thus subject to the statutory limitation. Cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605,611-612 (1976).

3. Judge Yaffe knew from the outset of March 4, 2009 that his

confinement of Fine violated the Farr case, was penal and unlawful.

4.

Judge Yaffe knew that the LA County payments to him violated

Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, were criminal (including misappropriation of funds, destruction of justice and bribes), and required him to recuse himself in the Marina Strand case at the outset under the due process

-2-

10

3

-3-

1 clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of

2

Judicial Ethics.

4

5.

Judge Yaffe also knew that the due process clause of the U.S.

5

Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics also

6

7

required him to recuse himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case even if

8

the LA County payments were not criminal.

9

6.

Judge Yaffe further knew that the due process clause of the U.S.

11 Constitution required him to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

because he was judging his own actions of receiving payments from LA County

and making orders in the County's favor.

The demand is based upon the aforementioned grounds and other reasons

set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto.

Dated this __ day of January, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

BY:

RICHARD 1. FINE, In Pro Per

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

-4-

Memorandum Of Points And Authorities

3

I.

Prefatory Statement.

4

5

Richard I. Fine (hereinafter "Fine") has been incarcerated in the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail since March 4, 2009 under a Remand Order from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe with "no bail," without a court date on such Order, and showing as the charge "CCP Section 1219." California Code of Civil Procedure § 1219(a) is a "coercive incarceration."

From the outset, the "coercive incarceration" was both unlawful and penal.

Judge Yaffe knew that "coercion" would not succeed and that answering questions was not related to the real issue of the case, his unlawful refusal to recuse himself.

It is now obvious that "coercive incarceration" has failed.

6

7

8

9

II.

"Coercive incarceration was a sham from the outset.

The "Answering Brief of Appellees, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and the Honorable David P. Yaffe, Judge of the Superior Court of Cali fomia, County of Los Angeles" stated at page 3, line 16, to page 4, line 2, in describing the contempt proceedings, as follows:

The proceedings culminated in a finding of both civil and criminal contempt. Coercive civil contempt pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1219(a) was imposed. Footnote 4

The Answering Brief then falsely stated in Footnote 4:

... the basis of the finding of the civil contempt was not related to Fine's challenges based upon the payment of local judicial benefits, but to Fine's failure to answer questions and produce

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

-5-

2

documents at the judgment debtor hearing conducted by Commissioner Gross.

3

The falsity of the aforementioned statement and the coercive confinement was shown by the fact that Fine had challenged Judge Yaffe's presiding over the Marina Strand case, as shown, as Judge Yaffe disclosed that he was receiving payments from LA County. The first disclosure by Judge Yaffe was made in a March 20, 2008 court hearing by Judge Yaffe, and Fine's CCP 170.3 Objection was filed and served on March 25, 2008. Fine subsequently challenged Judge Yaffe's judging his own actions by presiding over the contempt proceedings. The Answering Brief conceded that the LA County payments were one of the crucial underlying issues in the case, stated at page 3, lines 5-8, under the heading of Statement of Issues Presented.

On July 20, 2009, the Court [the Ninth Circuit] issued its order specifying a single issue on appeal as follows:

4

5

6

7

8

9

Appellant [Fine] is granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the trial judge [Judge Yaffe] should have recused himself.

The issue of recusal based upon Judge Yaffe having received payments from LA County, a party before him, and Judge Yaffe having presided over contempt proceedings in which he judged his own actions, did not have any relationship or relevance to Fine's answering questions about his assets before Commissioner Gross.

The California case law which Judge Yaffe knew, and was bound to know, at the time he issued the Contempt and Remand Order held in the case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), that once it was established that there was no substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, the commitment would become punitive in nature and thus subject to

17· Instead, after eleven months, Fine is still incarcerated.

18 The criminal contempt referred to in the Answering Brief reflects the penal

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

-6-

3

the statutory limitation [five days under CCP § 1218], cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App..3d 605,610-611 (1976).

The Contempt and Remand Orders were both penal from the outset as Judge Yaffe knew that such orders and incarceration would not coerce Fine to disclose his assets. The transcript of the March 4, 2008 hearings shows at page 8, line 8, to page 9, line 14, that Fine was not going to answer the questions unless he lost all of the writ proceedings because Fine believed that the proceedings were illegal as Judge Yaffe had violated the Constitution. This was repeated at page 16, line 18, to page 25, line 3, which further emphasized the illegal LA County payments, the immunity from criminal prosecution for Judge Yaffe under Senate Bill SBX2-11, the violation of the U.S. Constitution, federal law; i.e. 18 U.S.C. 1346, and the risk of false imprisonment by incarcerating Fine.

Despite the knowledge Judge Yaffe violated the law and ordered Fine to the LA County Jail, and knowing that the incarceration was false and penal from the outset, under CCP § 1218, Fine should have been released on March 9, 2009, having served only five days of penal incarceration, which itself was false.

4

5

6

7

8

9

incarceration. The second contempt conviction was for "practicing law while not an active member of the bar". However, at page 9, line 18, page 10, line 3, Judge Yaffe did not find any court order that ordered Fine inactive or took his license away. It should be noted that the disbarment order did not become effective until March 25, 2008, which was after the March 4, 2008 hearing, and the California Supreme Court never ordered Fine "inactive."

Further, the Order to Show Cause contained a criminal charge of practicing law while not an active member of the bar, under CCP § 6126, but Fine never received a jury trial, and the charge was never dismissed. Thus Fine's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury was violated. Additionally, the conviction of

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

-7-

In. Proposed orders.

2

practicing law without being an active member of the bar is inconsistent with the "not guilty" judgment on the charge of "lying about the status with state bar in pleadings filed in this court and oral arguments made before this court" in which Fine at all times represented and argued that the California Supreme Court had not ordered him inactive. There was never an issue of a disbarment order from the California Supreme Court, as such did not become effective until after the contempt proceedings were over. In this regard, the attention of the Court is respectfully invited to the case of Fine v. State Bar of CalifOrnia. et al, USDC case no. CV -10-0048 JFW (CW), which charges the State Bar and others with fraud on the Court in seeking and obtaining the disbarment of Fine. The lawsuit seeks an order voiding and annulling such disbarment.

The transcript of the March 4, 2008 hearing was attached as Exhibit "D" to the "Declaration of Kevin M. McCormick in Support of the Response of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, et al, to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, etc." Judge Yaffe has a copy in that Kevin McCormick is his attorney in that matter.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Given the admissions in the Answering Brief and the March 4, 2009 transcript that:

1. the issue is "whether the trial judge [Judge Yaffe] should have recused himself';

2. that the convictions were civil and criminal; and

3. that no orders were violated to justify practicing law without being an active member of the State Bar;

and given that Judge Yaffe knew that Fine would not answer any questions and

would not be coerced to answer any questions, that questions about Fine's assets

did not have any relationship or relevance to the issue of Judge Yaffe's recusal

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

which was the issue of the case, and given that Judge Yaffe knew and was bound to know the holding of In Re Farr, demand is made that Judge Yaffe:

1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

Immediately order the LA County Sheriff to release Fine forthwith; Void and annul the March 4, 2009 Order of Contempt against Fine; Void and annul all orders and judgments against Fine in the Marina Strand case;

Enter an order awarding attorney's fees and costs to Fine against LA County and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture, Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, their local partners the Epstein Family Trust and Jerry B. Epstein and Pat T. Epstein, trustees, and their attorneys Armbruster and Goldsmith, R.J. Comer and Joshua L. Rosen;

Void and annul the May 15, 2007 LA County approval of the Del Rey Shores EIR based upon fraud upon the Court by LA County and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, their local partners the Epstein family Trust and Jerry B. Epstein and Pat T. Epstein, trustees, and their attorneys Armbruster and Goldstein, R.J. Comer and Joshua L. Rosen for not disclosing the illegality of the LA Board of Supervisors 4-0 vote on the EIR due to contributions given by the Epsteins and Jerry Epstein's chief of staff, David D. Levine, of $500 or more by each of them,

-8-

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

-9-

individually or through the Epstein Family Trust, within twelve

3

months of the vote, to LA County Supervisors Antonovich and

4

Knabe, thereby leaving only two lawful affirmative votes when three

5

were needed, and because the EIR did not show an economic benefit

6

7

to LA County from the project; or alternatively, Judge Yaffe:

8

a)

immediately order the LA County Sheriff to release Fine

9

forthwith; and

b)

recuse himself retroactively from the Marina Strand case as

of June 14, 2007 (the date that the case was filed), void and

annul all orders made in the case including the contempt

proceedings, and transfer the case to a judge who does not

receive payments from LA County or any other County.

IV. Judge Yaffe knew he was violating the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

Since the illegality of the May 15. 2007 vote did not become known until Fine exposed it during the contempt trial by showing the contributions of the Epsteins and Levine and their proximity in time to the vote, the refusal of Judge Yaffe to adopt either of the alternatives will further reinforce the fact that the LA criminal payments to the LA Superior Court judges were bribes. As criminal payments under SBX2-11, the LA County payments fall into three categories:

1. misappropriation of funds;

2. obstruction of justice; and

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

-10-

3. bribes.

3

In Judge Yaffe's situation, the LA County payments were clearly bribes.

He testified on October 22, 2008 that he could not remember any case in the last three years that he decided against LA County other than concerning the dirt in the Marina Strand case. However, when he became aware of the illegal May 15, 2007 vote on the EIR and the non-benefit to LA County, he did nothing to void the EIR.

Judge Yaffe was bound under U.S. Supreme Court precedent to recuse himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case. In Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), the Court stated "a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice." The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice" in Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960), citing Offutt, supra. Clearly, by not voiding the EIR when he became aware of its illegality, Judge Yaffe had succumbed to the bribe from LA County, ifhe had not already done so. At such time his recusal was doubly mandated.

Further, by presiding over the contempt proceeding where he was judging his own actions of taking payments from LA County and making orders in favor of LA County against Fine, Judge Yaffe violated both the common law and the Supreme Court precedent of In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), which stated the general rule that "no man can be a judge in his own case", adding that "no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome", cited in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.! Inc., 566 U.S. _ (2009), Slip Opinion page 10.

4

5

6

7

8

9

Even without the LA County payments being criminal, Judge Yaffe violated due process by accepting payments of $46,433 per year, which were equal to 27% of his $178,800 state salary for each of the two years that he presided over the Marina Strand case, or $92,932. This "significant and

10

11

14

16

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

-11-

3

disproportionate influence - coupled with the temporal relationship ... [with] the pending case" "'" "offer a possible temptation to the average ... judge to ... lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true." Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion at page 16, citing to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825 (1986), quoting Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60 (1972), in tum quoting Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510,532 (1927).

Under Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, state judges must follow the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States. By taking the LA County payments while LA County was a party before him, Judger Yaffe violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

If Judge Yaffe were a federal judge, his conduct would be cause for impeachment under Article III, Clause 1, which states that: "The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their officers during good behavior ... ". In 1965, Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court, upon being selected as Chief Justice, when it was discovered that he was receiving an annual retainer from the Wolfson Foundation to provide business advice and attend an annual meeting. The Wolfson Foundation and Louis Wolfson and his companies did not have any cases before the Supreme Court. The resignation was made because of the possibility that a Supreme Court decision might affect the Wolfson business.

Using the standard, Judge Yaffe's conduct of taking money from a party in a case over which he is presiding clearly qualifies as a lack of good behavior and would engender his impeachment or result in his resignation, if he were a federal judge.

But for the retroactive immunity from disciplinary action provided by Senate Bill SBX2-11, the same result should occur under California law, if the Commission on Judicial Performance were to perform their Constitutional function.

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

13

15

17

18

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

-12-

Mr. Fine knew that all judges of this court receive compensation from the County of Los Angeles on June 14, 2007, when he filed the underlying case BS 109420 on behalf of petitioner Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association.

3

Absent a resignation, Judge Yaffe's fate will be decided at his next election, as will that of all the other judges who took LA County payments and who will be seeking re-election.

At all times, Judge Yaffe knew that he should have recused himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case due to the LA County payments. He displayed this knowledge at page 13, lines 13-23, of the Judgment and Order of Contempt where he rejected his recusal and disqualification, which was based upon his March 20, 2008 admission of receiving LA County payments. Judge Yaffe argued that Fine's CCP § 170.3 objection should have been filed at the outset of the case, before Judge Yaffe made his March 20, 2008 admission. He stated at page 13, lines 18-21:

4

5

6

7

8

9

The argument was false. Judge Yaffe knew that he violated the California Code of Judicial Ethics, which prohibited him from taking the payments, required their disclosure and mandated his self-recusal. Instead, he did not disclose such in his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, did not disclose such at the outset of the case, did not self-recuse, and refused to obey the Code of Judicial Ethics. Under CCP § 170, the obligation was on him, not on Fine.

Under the California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canons 3E(I) and (2), Judge Yaffe was bound to disclose the LA County payments and disqualify himself. Such canon states as follows:

(1) A judge will disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.

(2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

-13-

disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.

3

Under Canons 4D(1)(a) and (b), Judge Yaffe was prohibited from accepting any "compensation" or payments from LA County. Such canon states:

(1) A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that

(a) May reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge's judicial position, or

(b) Involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuous business relationships with lawyers, or persons likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves.

4

5

6

7

8

9

The Advisory Committee Commentary makes the prohibition clear. It states in relevant part:

Participation by a judge in fmancial and business dealings is subject to the general prohibition in Canon 4A against activities that tend to reflect adversely on impartiality, demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. Such participation is also subject to the general prohibition in Canon 2 against activities involving impropriety or the appearance of impropriety and the prohibition in Canon 2B against the misuse of the prestige of judicial office.

In addition, a judge must maintain high standards of conduct in all of the judges activities, as set forth in Canon 1.

Canon 6(A) requires all judges to comply with the Code of Judicial Ethics.

Conclusion

Judge Yaffe knew that "coercive incarceration" was a sham. He knew that there was no relationship between ordering Fine to answer questions about his assets and the issue of the case which was "whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself."

Judge Yaffe knew that, under the Parr case, Fine has to be set free. First, the "coercive incarceration" was false imprisonment from the outset as Judge

10

II

L2

13

101 I

15

5

BY: ~ RICHARD 1. FINE, In Pro Per

Yaffe knew it would not succeed. Second, it immediately became penal due to

2 i its inability to succ ~ and the five-day limitation der CCP § 121S has long

7

since passed.

AU of Judge Yaffe's actions have been a fraud and a sham as they violated due process, federal Jaw and California law, in particular the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

Judge Yaffe was mandated to recuse himself from the ,\larina Strand case I at the outset of the case, on June 14,2007.

Now, two and a half years later, demand is made that he free Fine, void and annul his March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt, recuse himself from the proceeding and tbeMarina Strand case nunc pro tunc as of June 14~ 2007~ transfer the case to a judge who does not receive payments from LA County or any other county .. and award attorney's fees to Fine.

ie. Dated this Z7 day of January, 2010 l1

Respectfully submitted,

zo

21

23

25

26

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA~ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108:> Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220,

On January XL 2010, I served the foregoing document described as DEJ\.IAND FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM LA COUNTY JAIL AND OTHER RELIEF; MEMORANDUM OF POlN'TS AND AUTHORITIES on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof! which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

Kevin) M. Mcf.ormick

Benton. Orr, Duval & Buckingham

39 N. Cahfornia Street '

P,o. Box 1178

Ventura, CA 93002

Elaine M. Lemke

Principal Deputy County Counsel

LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OFf. 500 West Temple Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713

Joshua Lee Rosen

Joshua L Rosen law Offices 5905 Sherbourne Drive

los Angeles ~ CA 90056

RJ. Comer

Armbruster & Goldsmith. LLP 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024

Rose M. Zoia

50 OJd Courthouse Square, Ste.40) Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Judge David P. Yaffe (courtesy copy)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR CT 111 Nonh H.iU Street, Dept 86

Los Angeles, C A 90012

i certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct,

Executed on this ? 7 day of January, 20 I 0, at Rancho Dominguez,

California.

FRED SOTTILE

\ iaDflBJlil' B

"

+-', •

, ·.t·.si~i:._..:,..."·~/-::

Attorney in Civil Contempt Case Marks One Year in Solitary 'Coercive Confinement' in ... Page 1 of 2

lliESACRA1\lEl\1'f() BEE sucbee.corn

Attorney in Civil Contempt Case Marks One Year in Solitary 'Coercive Confinement' in L.A. County Jail

By Full Disclosure Network

Published: Tuesday. Mar. 2. 2010 - 3:10 am

WASHINGTON, March 2 - Full Disclosure Network(R) Reports

WASHINGTON, March 2/PRNewswire-USNewswire/- On March 4,2010, Richard I Fine will mark one year in the L.A. County Jail. He accused Superior Court Judge David Yaffe of corruption for taking illegal payments from L.A. County in a case involving the County. Full Disclosure Network is releasing a seven minute video news report http://tiny.cclaclu12 featuring court appointed ACLUjail monitors relating attempts made to get the Los Angeles County Sheriff to respond to Fine's inmate complaints. Fine has been held in solitary "coercive confinement" and since January 5, 2010 without dentures, preventing his ability to chew.

Richard.Fine was ordered taken into custody by Superior Court Judge Yaffe who failed to disqualify himself from the contempt case where Fine had alleged the Judge had a conflict. Fine is a 70 year old anti-trust attorney, who holds a Ph.D in International Law. Having never been convicted of a crime, he is being held without a jury trial, without bailor hearing date and circumstances that violate U.S. Supreme Court precedent In Re Farr (1974), that ruled a five-day limit in "coercive confinement" for civil contempt of court.

The ACLU previously informed Mr. Fine's family and Full Disclosure they were unable to assist him. But when his upper dental plate broke on January 5, 2010 tie complained to his jailers of difficulty eating, he realized he desperately needed help.

Full Disclosure notified Actor Ed Asner, long known as a humanitarian and who was recently honored by the ACLU for his support of Civil Liberties. Mr. Asner unhesitatingly offered to call Ramona Ripston executive director of the ACLU and wife of Ninth Circuit Court Justice Steven Reinhardt, to request help. For years the ACLU has served as the court appointed monitors of LA. County jails to prevent inmate abuse and assure the Sheriffs response to inmate complaints.

Watch 7 minute video news update featuring:

Richard I. Fine by collect telephone call from his jail cell

Mary Tiedeman ACLU Jail Project Coordinator

Peter Eliasberg ACLU Managing Attorney

Related Links & Video:

Ed Asner, Requests Medical Updates On Richard Fine http://tiny.cc/Asner

L A Sheriff Denies Full Disclosure Interview of Richard Fine

Attorney in Civil Contempt Case Marks One Year in Solitary 'Coercive Confinement' in ... Page 2 of 2

http://tiny.cc/Sheriff

Inmate Complaint Claims Sheriff Guilty of Unlawful Imprisonment http://tiny.cc/Complaint15

Contact: Leslie Dutton 310-822-4449, Idutton@fulldisclosure.net

SOURCE Full Disclosure Network

About Comments

Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.

More comments on this story:

Divorce ~ttotney in Sacramento, CA Family legal help?

vinceward.com

900% Gain on Penny Stocks

Join today to receive our free newsletter, alerts,

www.StockPickTrading.com

!,!eeQ_ To G.et Qut Of Jail

call Omar's Bail Bonds. Federal & State. 24/7 Se Habla

Omars.localplacement.com

Ads by Yahoo!

Complaint Form to the Human Rights Committee - How To Complain About Human Rig... Page 1 of 6

Complaint Form to the Human Rights Committee

Date: 15 March 2010

submitted for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Information concerning the author of the communication

Name: JOHN II First name(s): LAWRENCE LEE

Nationality: United States Citizen Profession: Teamster

Date and place of birth: 16 MAY 1963, PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA, USA

Present address:

2225 E. PUMALO ST. #41

SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404

Address for exchange of confidential correspondence (if other than present address)

Submitting the communication as:

(a) Victim of the violation(s) (set forth below) , or

(b) Appointed representative/legal counsel of the alleged victim(s) ,

or

( c) Other Close Friend and Acquaintance of Mr. Richard Fine

If box (c) is marked, the author should explain:

In what capacity she or he is acting on behalf of the victim( s) (e.g. family relationship or other personal links with the alleged victim):

Close Friend and Acquaintance of Mr. Richard Fine

, Why the victim(s) is (are) unable to submit the communication her or himself (themselves):

Mr. Fine is being held in a 0 Coercive Confmement 0 status in the Central Jail of the Los

file://C:\Documents and Settings\HP _Administrator\My Documents\ittee-HowToComplai... 3124/2010

Complaint Form to the Human Rights Committee - How To Complain About Human Rig.. Page 2 of 6

Angeles County Jail.

Which is located in the Los Angeles County, of California, in the United States of America.

While being held in this type of Dconfmement, 0 Mr. Fine is not allowed access to communicate via written form.

Note: An unrelated third party having no link to the victimts) cannot submit a communication on her or his (their) behalf

II. Information eoncerning the alleged victim(s) (if other than autbor)

Name: FINE First name(s): RICHARD ISSACS

Nationality: UNITED STATES CITIZEN Profession: ATTORNEY

Date and place of birth: 22 January 1940., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Present address or whereabouts:

441 Bauchet Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 974-4962

lll. State concerned/articles violated/domestic remedies

Name of the state party (country) to the International Covenant and the Optional Protocol against which the communication is directed:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERCIA, THE JUDICIARY BODY OF THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT ELECTED THEREIN: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE JUDICIARY BODY OF THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT ELECTED THEREIN.

Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allegedly violated:

Article 2 (1) (duty to take effective measures to prevent acts of

torture);

Article 4 (failure to criminalize torture);

Article 5 (failure to establish jurisdiction over acts of torture); Article 6 (failure to take the alleged torture into custody or take

other legal measures to ensure his presence); Arti.cle 7 (failure to prosecute);

Article 12 (failure to investigate);

Article 13 (right to complain);

Article 14 (right to obtain redress);

Article 16 (duty to take effective measures to prevent acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment);

file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\HP _Administrator\My Documents\ittee-HowToComplai... 3/24/2010

Complaint Form to the Human Rights Committee- How To Complain About Human Rig.; Page 3 of6

These events have occurred, beginning in March of 2009 with the inca.rceration of Mr. Richard Fine. These events remain ongoing, and seemingly have no set end date. It is believed the end for the oCoercive Confinement 0 is established and meant to end with the passing of Mr. Fine us life. Or when the complete and total financial ruin is recognized as a reality, occurring to Mr. Richard Fine.

The following conditions set forth in the listed definition of torture have been meet in their entirety.

Under article 1, the definition of torture contains three elements:

Tortu.re is an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person;

The pain or suffering must have been inflicted by or at the instigation or with' the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity;

The pain or suffering must have been inflicted for one of the purposes stated in article 1 of the Convention, which include obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion, or discrimination.

Infliction by a public official ~ The requirement that the acts complained of were inflicted by, at the instigation, or with the consent of a public official or person acting in an official capacity is sufficiently flexible to encompass a regime having effective control or control in fact, even if that regime has not been formally recognized as the legitimate governmental authority.

Steps taken by or on behalf of the alleged victim(s) to exhaust domestic remedies-recourse to the courts or other public authorities, when and with what results (if possible, enclose copies of all relevant judicial or administrative decisions):

Complaint Filed: 26 May 2009 No. CV 09-1914 JFW(CW) United States District Court ~ Habeas - Dkt 32 0 Woehrle's Order Striking 5~26~09 Supplemental Petition

Complaint Filed: 12 June 2009 No~ CV 09-1914 .JFW(CW)

United States District Court - Habeas - Dkt 26 - Woehrle's Report & Recommendation Denying Habeas Petition

Complaint Filed: 29 June 2009 No. CV 09-1914 JFW(CW)

United States District Court ~ Habeas ~ Dkt 30 - Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Complaint Filed: 16 July 2009 No. CV 09-1914 JFW(CW)

United States District Court - Habeas - Dkt 41 - Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Woehrle

Complaint Filed: 16 July 2009 No. CV 09-1914 JFW(CW)

United States District Court- Habeas - Dkt 40 - Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Walter

file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\HP _Administrator\My Documents\ittee-HowToComplai... 3/24/2010

Complaint F onn to the Human Rights Committee - How To Complain About Human Rig... Page 4 of 6

Complaint Filed: 21 July 2009 No. CV 09-1914 JFW(CW)

United States District Court - Habeas - Dkt 44 - Order Denying Certificate of Appealabilit

Complaint Filed: 21 July 2009 No. CV 09-1914 JFW(CW)

United States District Court - Habeas - Dkt 46 - Order Striking Fine's Filed Documents Complaint Filed: 21 July 2009 No. CV 09-1914 JFW(CW)

9th Circuit Appeal-: Dkt 5 - United States District Court - Order Denying Certificate of Appealability

Complaint Filed: 12 August 2009 No. CV 09-1914 JFW(CW)

9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 13 - Order Denying Release - SchroederlKleinfeld

Complaint Filed: 15 September 2009 No. CV 09-1914 JFW(CW)

9th Circuit Appeal- Dkt 21 - Order Denying Emergency Motion for Immediate Release - TasbimalNRSmith

Complaint Filed: 30 October 2009 No. CV09-07943 United States District Court - Habeas II - Dkt 1 0 Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Complaint Filed: 30 October 2009 No.. CV09 0 7943 JFW (CW) United States District Court - Habeas II - Dkt2 0 Assignment to Magistrate

Complaint Filed: United States District Court - Habeas II - Dkt 3 0 Order Dismissing Petition

Complaint Filed: United States District Court - Habeas II 0 Ex Parte Application for Immediate Release

Complaint Filed: United States District Court - Habeas II 0 Motion to Recuse Walter

Complaint Filed: United States District Court - Habeas II 0 Motion to Recuse Woehrle

Complaint Filed: United States District Court -Habeas II - Notice of Non-Consent to Magistrate Judge (Previous Writ Petition Resulted in a Denial of Due Process and the Filing of This Petition)

Complaint Filed: 15 December 2009 No. 09-56073 0 9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 58 0

Order Denying Reconsideration of Clerk's Denial of Judicial Notice.

Complaint Filed: 16 December 2009 No. 09-56703 0

9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 59 - Memorandum Denying Appeal

file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator\My Documents\ittee-HowToComplai... 3/24/2010

Complaint Form to the Human Rights Committee - How To Complain About Human Rig... Page 5 of 6

Complaint Filed: 05 January 2010 No. CVIO-00048 0

United States District Court 0 Fine v State 'Bar - Dkt 1 - Complaint

Complaint Filed: 17 December 2009 No. 90-56073-

9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt61 - Petition for Rehearing En Bane

Complaint Filed: 21 December 2009 No. 90-56073-

9th Circuit Appeal. - Dkt '63 - Combined Petition for Rehearing En Bane Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus

Complaint Filed: 9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 64 - Combined Petition II for Rehearing En Bane Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus

Complaint Filed: 10 February 2010 No. 90-56073-

9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 66 - Order Denying En Bane IRehearing

Complaint Filed: 12 February 2010 No. 90-56073-

9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 68 - Denial of Disqualification Motion re Reinhardt Trott & Wardlaw

If domestic remedies have not been exhausted, explain why:

IV. Other international procedures

Has the same matter ever been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement (e.g. the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the European Commission on Human Rights)? If so, when and with what results?

None to date.

V. Facts of the claim

Detailed description of the facts of the alleged violation or violations (including relevant dates). Add as many pages as needed/or this description.

The supporting documentation will clearly show the unprecedented level of fraud. Perpetrated upon every voting citizens of the State of California, in the United States of America. And it will also demonstrate with absolute clarity a level of corruption that has never before been seen in the history of the United States of America.

Because this corruption was exposed, the Judiciary body of Government in California utilized DMidnight Legislation 0 to pass a bill SBX2-11 which for the first time in the history of the United States Judiciary provided for 0 Retro Active Judicial Immunity 0 which in essence provided immunity for what has been calculated to be over ten million felony violations of law in the United States.

file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\HP _Administrator\My Documents\ittee-HowToComplai... 3/24/2010

Complaint Form to the Human Rights Committee - How To Complain About Human Rig... Page 6 of 6

These facts have been maliciously hidden from the law abiding and tax paying people in the State of California.

This is an egregious, and clearly orchestrated cover up of a complicit and unconditionally corrupted Judicial body of American Government. To include County Courts Systems, State Court Systems, Federal Court Systems and the United States Supreme Court. It is on a scale and magnitude never before seen in the United States.

Author's signature: .

file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\HP _ Administrator\My Documents\ittee-HowToComplai... 3/24/2010

Victoria Fine: My Dad Tried to Right a Wrong, Now He's Behind Bars Unjustly

Page 1 of3

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 8CAUSECASr March 24, 2010

HUFFPOST POLITICS Viagra, Gay Marriage And Acorn

MORE IN POLITICS Oems To GOP: 1~1':!.2ffJil Hands Off ..• Wyden: Lawsuits Are Moot ... States •••

Victoria Fine

This is the print preview: Back to normal view »

Editor, Huff Post Impact

Posted: January 12,. 2010 12:44 PM

My Dad Tried to Right a Wrong, Now He's Behind Bars Unjustly

As an editor at Huffington Post Impact, I have the honor of reporting daily the generous acts of others and the devastating issues that our communities have yet to address sufficiently to make this world a safe and healthy place for everyone.

I empathize with the subjects of our articles on a very personal level. My own parents are uninsured, facing foreclosure of their house, and my father is unjustly in jail. All because of his compulsion to help others.

Many of you may be familiar with California's budget mess. Around the state, parks are being closed, tuition hiked and state workers laid off in an attempt to salvage a very bad financial situation, one that is rife with misuse of funds and, in some cases, corruption. My father is a respected lawyer and has, for the last decade, dedicated his career to retrieving as much of these wrongly funneled funds back to taxpayers like you and me.

He is 69 years old, (he turns 70 on the Friday after next) and is known for his dapper bow ties and for seeing the world in strict terms of right and wrong, And since March, he has been taken a political prisoner of the L.A. County Jail System.

In a country that prides itself on its adherence to the rule of law, my father has been in solitary confinement for more than nine months, deprived initially of paper, pen and telephone, without any legal charges being filed or indication of length of his incarceration. His crime? His betlef that $300 million dollars in taxpayer money should be legally spent. And suggesting that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe had violated state law by accepting bribes from a party before him in court - namely, Los Angeles County .. My father is being held in contempt of court by the judge he has embarrassed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victoria-fine/my -dad-tried-to-right -a- w _ b _3983 22.html ?vi... 3/24/2010

Victoria Fine: My Dad Tried to Right a Wrong, Now He's Behind Bars Unjustly

Page 2 of3

Every day, an uncountable number of people are unjustly held in prison for crimes they have not committed. Most of these people are too poor or too ill-connected to find advocates for their cause. They suffer in silence,and their families are tom apart in the aftermath of their incarceration. But my father is a first-generation American who, from sheer hard work, rose to found the first municipal antitrust division in the United States in Los Angeles and has served as a diplomat for Norway for the last 14 years. I never believed that a man like my dad could be :in the same situation. And yet, here we are, my mother and me, sorting foreclosure papers while my dad waits in his Jail cell tor someone to recognize the ridiculousness of this affair.

What could have led a respected 69-year-old antitrust lawyer to nine months of solitary

confinement? .

On March 4, my father was arguing a case on behalf of a group of homeowners in Marina Del Rey. The case piggybacked on another case of his that was gaining some attention by local media, in which my father was representing a group of environmentalists who wanted to stop further development in the neighborhood of Playa Vista in Los Angeles. The city had allowed new homes to be built on methane gas deposits with allegedly faulty safety monitoring systems. In several of these cases, my father alleged that the county was selling taxpayer-owned land for rock-bottom prices in return for campaign donations.

These are the kinds of cases most lawyers don't want to take on. But my father believed that justice would be served to normal people who wanted houses that were safe to live in and their tax money to go toward sound investments.

His cases kept getting dismissed for nonsensical and strange reasons and it wasn't surprising to find out that the judges my dad was going up against had a very good reason to shoot down his arguments on behalf of homeowners and taxpayers. They were being paid off.

On that day in court, my father brought forth the argument that Judge Yaffe couldn't give an impartial ruling on his case against the county of Los Angeles because, like other L.A. Superior Court judges, Yaffe had drawn his salary not only from the state of California but also from Los Angeles County. Judges receive $46,436 in annual bonuses from the county, on top of a handsome salary of $178,789 from the state. The total compensation of $225,225 a year exceeds the pay of even Chief Justice John Roberts, who earns $217, 000 a year.

The payments, my father maintained, were illegal under a 1997 state law that held that the state was solely responsible for paying the salaries of trial court judges. Just last year,. California's Court of Appeals ruled the practice of double-dipping unconstitutional. In addition, my father noted that Judge Yaffe, like others, had failed to report this extra income in state financial disclosure statements, which also is a violation of law. How, my father asked, could a judge receiving an illegal annual bonus from the county render an objective judgment in a case involving the county?

Remember, this is $300 million we're talking about here. California's school bus system or more currently, California's colleges could have used some of the more than $300 million that Los Angeles County taxpayers have spent footing the costs of these illegal bonuses to judges.

But just as much of an issue for my father as the taxpayers' loss is the conflict of interest created by double-dipping. In a brief to the court, my father painted out that in all cases brought over a three-year period by citizens against Los Angeles County, judges ruled against the citizens. It could reasonably be expected that the county would prevail most of the time, but it is a stretch to assume that a court should find that government is right all the time.

To be clear, many judges in the United States are paid by their county without suspicion of bias. What differentiates this circumstance is that Los Angeles judges do not publicly disclose that

http://www.huffingtonpost.comlvictoria- fine/my -dad-tried-to-right -a- w _ b _3983 22.html ?vi... 3/24/2010

Victoria Fine: My Dad Tried to Right a Wrong, Now He's Behind Bars Unjustly

Page 3 of3

they receive two paychecks in state-mandated statements. Our city residents have no way of protecting themselves against judicial bias if they bring a case against L.A. county in front of these judges.

My father's incarceration appears indefinite. Judge Yaffe has said he would be freed if he signs a personal financial statement (so that the judge could order a fine) and accept disbarment without further options for recourse. This would leave my father, already financially ruined from this debacle, without hope of further employment in his career choice of 40 years for the remainder of his life.

Why would my father jeopardize his career and livelihood over a mere pay issue? It is not in his nature to close his eyes to what he regards as injustice. He believes that justice should prevail over insider polities. To him, the taxpayers are a bunch of Davids, facing a government Goliath who was supposed to protect them. He feels obligated to seek a hearing for his clients before a court without a conflict of interest.

In the face of this, Judge Yaffe is using coercive detention to stifle his dissent.

My father, my mother and me, Christmas 2006

In the meantime, the whole affair has ruined my family. My parents have been left with nothing, their house foreclosed on, their health insurance, due to age and stress, revoked. Their pleas ignored.

The only thing that hasn't been ignored, in a strange ironic twist, is the pay issue itself. As of late November, L.A. County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich revoked these illegal judicial benefits for new judges and has retroactively made the bonuses already paid out to judges legal. (That means that until November 23 of this year, the payments were officially recognized as illegal.)

Despite this, my father remains in jail. His request for release is "under consideration" but there's no deadline for courts to make a decision on his case. My father may very well have to face his birthday in a jail cell while he, and we, await the scrutiny and resolution that his situation deserves.

Every day at Impact, I work in the hopes that injustices will be given the attention they're entitled to. I hope that today, as my father faces a biased and unsympathetic court, you will keep this small injustice in mind and share his story with the people you know so that he can one day return to championing the causes of others.

You can learn more about my father's situation and how you can help on his supporters' site.

Follow Victoria Fine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/vfine

http://www.huffingtonpost.comlvictoria-fine/my-dad-tried-to-right-a-w_b_398322.htm1?vi.. 3/24/2010

I

RICHARD I. FINE

c/o Men's Central Jail 11441 Bauchet St. Los Angeles, CA 90012

IE (213) 974-4962 Inmate Booking Number 1824367

March 20, 2010

Mr. William K. Suter

Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court Office of the Clerk

Supreme Court of the United States 1 1st Street Northeast

Washington, DC 20543

Re: Application for Stay of Execution of Sentence - Dkt. No. 09 A 827

Dear Mr. Suter:

Please immediately transmit the application for Stay of Execution of Sentence, docket number 09 A 827 to Justice Ginsburg with the attached letter for her immed_iate consideration and action.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. For your information, a formal complaint seeking release has also been filed with the United Nations Council on Human Rights charging the United States with violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the United States ratified in 1992.

Pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the oovenant is part of the U.S, Law and all state Judges are bound to follow it.

Sincerely,

~~~._.r'f'""":o.:~t:~,'~~-"'-";T·'l~·J'i'::C-;~~!f~~ "~--:'~-'''''''~.-:.~-:-~:-t''''":"~'::'7''''!i'"' ~"'1

·~'U.&·Postal Service r;" ' .. , ';, ' .'. ': _. >;-1}

.: - • ~ • • ~. ~ - • - I

CERTIFIED ;MAILT,.·RECEIP.r : .

(Doffl"estic Mail Only;" No In;urince Coverage PrO~ided) . J

Rfch~rd I_ Fine

IrU /T'I /T'I LlJ

r::J Ir- 0- /T'I

CMlfiedFee

co: Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham

.....=I

C Return Receipt Fee

C (Endorsement ReqUired)

o r---------~.

Restricted "Delivery Fee $ - 00

o (Endorsement Required) U.

LlJ r---------~

.....=I Total Postage & Fees $ $6.32

o ~--------~

. - -

PS Form 3800. August 2006 '. . . See Reverse f~r Insir~ctions .

RICHARD I. FINE

c/o Men's Central Jail. 441 Bauchet St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 • (213) 974-4962 • Inmate Booking Number 1824367

March 20,2010

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court of the United States 1 1 st Street Northeast

Washington, DC 20543

Re: Application for Stay of Execution of Sentence of "Coercive Confinement" Pending Final Resolution of Habeas Corpus Case - Supreme Court Dkt. No 09 A 827

Dear Justice Ginsburg:

This Application is submitted to you after Justice Kennedy denied such on 3/12/10. Justice Kennedy's denial manifested the Federal Judiciaries complicity in allowing bribes and illegal payments to State Court Judges by Parties appearing before them. In the present case, the party making the payment (L.A. County) appeared through its "In House Lawyer", the Los Angeles County Counsel.

Ironically, on 3/11/10, the day before Justice Kennedy's denial of the Applications, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach New Orleans U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Porteous. Judge Porteous received money from lawyers who appeared before him while he was a State Court Judge. He did not disclose this activity in his senate nomination proceedings.

In the present case, California State Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe received bribes and illegal payments from L.A. County who appeared before him through its "in house L.A. County Counsel". The Party and the Lawyer giving the bribes and illegal payments to Judge Yaffe and appearing before him were "one in the same".

While the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to impeach Judge Porteous for this conduct, the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, the Ninth Circuit and Justice Kennedy have approved of this conduct by not finding any violation of due process.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg March 20, 2010 Page Two

In further contrast to the U.S. House of Representatives impeachment action the California Legislature and Governor not only acknowledged that the county payments to the Judges were criminal and illegal, but enacted on 2120109, Senate Bill SBX 211, made effective 5/21/09. Senate BHI sax 211 gave retroactive immunity to the Judges who received the County payments and to the Governmental Entities, Government Officials and Employees who made the payments. It also aHowed the county payments which had been held to violate the California Constitution to resume after 5/21/09 without immunity.

The retroactive immunity encompassed criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action. The retroactive immunity however, did not extend to the actions of Judges who received the bribes or illegal payments sitting in Judgment on cases where a county who paid them the bribe or illegal payments was a Party before the Judge.

The present case and Senate Bill SBX 211 represent the largest Judicial Corruption and bribery schemes in American history. In Los Angeles County alone, approximately $300 hundred million dollars has been illegally paid to State Court Judges over the past 23 plus years, since the late 1980's when he scheme began.

The State Judges in 55 of California's 58 counties have received the bribes and illegal payments. Many of them became Court of Appeal Justices, accounting for approximately 90% of the Court of Appeal Justices and 5 of the 7 California Supreme Court Justices, including Chief Justice Ronald M. George. All of them have been given retroactive immunity under Senate Bill S8X 211. The scheme encompassed 10 million plus felonies.

Unlike the U.S. House of Representatives, the California Legislature did not impeach any of the State Judges or Justices, despite their acknowledged criminal actions by having received retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution under California Senate Bill sax 211. This refusal to impeach, while granting retroactive immunity for bribery and illegal payments has left California with a State Judiciary comprised of "criminals in Judicial robes." Needless to say, none of the State Judges or Justices resigned and the retroactive immunity of Senate Bill SBX 211 did not require a Judge or Justice's resignation to obtain the immunity.

As the immunity did not encompass a Judge presiding over a case in which a Party to the case bribed or made illegal payments or any payments to the Judge, Judge Yaffe was required to recuse himself under California and Federal law.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg March 20, 2010 Page Three

Under California Code of Civil Procedures §170.1 (a) (3) (a) (6) (a) (iii) - A Judge shall be disqualified if "A person made aware of all the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the Judge would be impartial." Under the California Code of Judicial Ethics which bind all Judges and Justices. "A Judge shall not eng'age in financial dealings that include the Judge in frequent transactions or business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to appear before the Judge or the Court upon which the Judge serves; CANON 4 0 (1)..

A Judge shall disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1 even if the Judge believes there is no basis for disqualification; CANON 3 E (2). A Judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law; CANON 3E (1), and a Judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the Judge's activities; CANON 2. The due process clause of the California Constitution also requires recusa!.

Under Article VI, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, State Court Judges are bound by the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the Unites States and the treaties made under the authority of the United States. This includes the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, the intangible right of honest services, 18, U .. S.C. § 1346 which has been applied to Judges receiving bribes and illegal payments, and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the United States in 1992.

The violations of the U.S. Constitutional due process are clear. In Offutt v.

United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), the Court stated "A Judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearances of Justice". The Court has ruled and reaffirmed the principal that "Justice must satisfy the appearance of Justice" in Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960).

Recently in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., 566 U.S. _. (2009), the Court has reviewed the due process criteria for recusal. The Court reaffirmed the principal at said opinion page 10, that "No Man can be a Judge in his own Case" and "No Judge is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome." Citing to In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133,136 (1955).

The Court also reaffirmed the controlling principal set forth in Tumey v Ohio 273 U.S., 510 (1927) at 532, at Caperton, supra, at slip Opinion, page 7 that:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg March 20, 2010 Page Four

"Every Procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a Judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the Defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law."

The Caperton Court stated at said opinion pages 7-8 "The Court was thus concerned with more than the traditional common-law prohibition on direct pecuniary interest. It was also concerned with a more general concept of interests that tempts adjudicators to disregard neutrality."

The Court in Caperton held that Don Blankenship's who was the chairman and principal officer of A.T. Massey was a "significant and disproportionate influencecoupled with the election and the pending case [to] 1 Offer a possible temptation to the average ... Judge to lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true." Caperton, said opinion page 16. Blankenship had made a $3 million dollar contribution to the election campaign committee of Justice Benjamin.

In the present case, Judge Yaffe received $46,466.00 per year or 27 % of his state salary in additional illegal payments and bribes annually from L.A. County. He also presided over a contempt proceeding where he testified to the payments, his failure to discuss such and his deciding cases in favor of the L.A. County for the previous three years.

It was in such a contempt proceeding that Judge Yaffe ordered "Fine" into "coercive confinement" in the L.A. County Jail to force "Fine" to answer questions about his assets to enforce an illegal order for attorney fees that Judge Yaffe had entered in favor of L.A. County and its co applicant for an Environmental Impact Report. "Fine had been the Attorney for the Petitioner challenging the EIR.

The Order of "Coercive Confinement" was both unlawful and a denial of due process. Judge Yaffe should have recused himself from the case and the contempt proceeding because he accepted bribes and illegal payments from L.A. County and he "judged his own actions" by presiding over the contempt proceedings.

The Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition would have been granted at the District Court level in a normal case. The Sheriff of L.A. County did not oppose the Petition, however, the District Court, upon the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, did not decide the issue of Judge Yaffe "judging his own actions" and held that the bribes and illegal payments did not violate due process without citing to any precedent.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg March 20, 2010 Page Five

The Magistrate Judge and the District Court had been specifical1ly shown the Caperton case, but ignored it.

More strangely, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a "not for publication" "not precedent" "memorandum", The "memorandum" falsely stated that the District Court had decided the issue of Judge Yaffe "judging hi'S own actions" and wrongly used a test of "direct personal interest" instead of the test set forth in Caperton above to determine a denial of due process. The Ninth Circuit avoided the "criminal payments" by proving that the recommencement of the payments after 5/21109 "belied the criminality of the payments previous thereto. The Ninth Circuit also mis cited the case of Sturgeon v, County of L.A., 84, Cal. Rept. 3d 242 (2008) by omitting to state that such case held that the L.A. County payments to the State Judge violated Article VI, § 19 of the California Constitution and the Ninth Circuit did not address the issue that the Judges did not receive any immunity for the conflict of interest of presiding over cases where they had received criminal payments or any payments from a party in the case.

- -

The three Justices of the Ninth Circuit who released the "memorandum" were under a 28 U.S.C. Section 455 (a) Motion to Disqualify at the time they decided the "memorandum". They subsequently "judged their own actions" and denied the Motion to disqualify themselves.

Justice Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston who is the Executive Director of the ACLU Southern California. The ACLU Southern California monitors the L.A. County Jail under a Federal Court decree and receives money from L.A. County for doing such.

Justice Trott is a former member of the L.A. County District Attorney's Office where he served for 15 years. He is presently receiving over $12,000.00 per year from L.A. County as shown by his financial disclosure report.

Justice Wardlaw is married to William "Bill" Wardlaw, a partner in the investment firm of Freeman, Spogli which invests funds for Government Pension Funds amongst other things. He is also a "political player" in Los Angeles. In 2004, according to his own admission, he attempted to convince L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yarolavsky to run for L.A. City Mayor. Yarolavsky is a family friend of the Wardlaw's. In 2006, Bill Wardlaw contributed to Yarolavsky's election campaign as shown by campaign contribution reports. Yarolavsky received retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for the L.A. County payments to state Judges including Judge Yaffee under Senate Bill SBX 211.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg March 20, 2010 Page Six

Neither Justices Reinhardt, Trott nor Wardlaw disclosed their relationships with the L.A. County or the L.A. County Supervisors in this case.

Knowing of the Motion to Disqualify, Justices Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw denied a Petition for Rehearing. No active Judge on the Ninth Circuit voted for an En Banc Hearing.

Further, Justices Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw "judged their own actions" by denying the Motion to disqualify themselves. A Petition for an En Banc hearing was filed, but not circulated.

The result of all the decisions and actions by the District Court, the Ninth Circuit and Justice Kennedy is that Bribes and Illegal payments to Judges by Parties appearing before them is acceptable conduct and the attorneys who challenge such conduct and seek to stop it may be indefinitely imprisoned.

Abhorrent as this result appears, it was foreshadowed by the Supreme Court's denial of Certiorari in the case of Richard I. Fine v. State of California, et al., Docket No. 08-1573. In this case, the California State Bar disbarred "Fine" for bringing a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit charging that the L.A. County payments to State Judges violated Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments and filing other truthful documents in courts.

The Petition for Certiorari discussed the criminal and illegal L.A. County payments, the denial of due process, Caperton, supra, Sturgeon, supra, Senate Bill SBX 211 and the violation of the First Amendment by restricting the filing of truthful documents in courts. By denying the Petition, the Supreme Court showed that First Amendment protection for Attorneys no longer existed and that bribery and illegal payments to Judges by Parties appearing before them would be acceptable.

As a matter of note, in the now pending fraud upon the court case to void and annul the disbarment, Fine v. State Bar of California et ai, USDC Case No. CV-10- 0048 JFW (CW) (USDC Central District of California), The California State Bar and the State Bar Parties have defaulted and not timely responded to the complaint after personal service by the Sheriff.

This Default may be taken as an indication that the Disbarment was a sham and a retaliation by the California Judiciary for the exposure of the bribery schemes and the State Bar could not defend their actions, irrespective of the denial of Certiorari.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg March 20, 2010 Page Seven

The Supreme Court will now have an opportunity to uphold due process, strike against bribery and illegal payments to Judges by Parties appearing before them and restore the integrity of the judicial system. A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari has been prepared and either has been filed or will be filed within days of your receiving the Application for Stay of Execution of Sentence and this letter. Hopefully, this time the Court will grant this Petition and grant the Writ. This will preserve due process, remove corruption and discourage future bribery schemes and retroactive immunity statutes.

Additionally, for your information, a formal complaint has been filed with the UN Council on Human Rights for violations of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (convention) which the U.S. ratified in 1992. The complaint encompasses the unlawful imprisonment based upon the challenges to the corrupt judicial system which has denied due process to the citizenry.

As you are aware, since the convention was signed under the authority of the U.S., it is U.S. 'Law. "Fine" is a "Political Prisoner" under the terms of the convention as he is fighting for the "political rights" of the citizens to be free from tyranny of a corrupt judiciary. Attached hereto is a copy of an article from The Sacramento Bee referring to "Fine" as a "Political Prisoner".

Thank you for your consideration and immediate attention to this urgent matter.

The precedent for the release as shown in the Application is the action of Justice Douglas releasing LA. Hearold Examiner Reporter WiUiam T. Farr in 1974 from "Coercive Confinement" while his Writ of Habeas Corpus was pending. He was being held until he discussed the names of all Attorneys' who violated a "Gag Order" in the Charles Manson case and disclosed information to him. Justices Douglas ordered Farr released. Even though Farr was ultimately held in Contempt by the State Court, he never released the names.

Farr served 46 days before Justice Douglas ordered him released from "Coercive Confinement". The penalty for "penal" contempt is 5 days under Calif. Code of Civil Procedure § 1218. "Fine" has been in "Coercive Incarceration" for approximately thirteen months since 3/4/09. If "Fine" had been guilty of Penal Contempt, which he was not, the penalty would have been 5 days ..

As you may determine, the "Coercive Incarceration" was a retaliation by a Judge who took a bribe and got caught by "fine" as being part of the largest Judicial bribery scheme in American history. The complicity of the District Court and the Ninth Circuit in the scheme with the resultant denial of due process has now deprived Americans of their most fundamental constitutional rights.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg March 20, 2010 Page Eight

Further, the actions of the Courts have violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, placed the United States in the backwater of Nations who protect the rights of their citizens and subjected the United States to the unmitigated criticism and umbrage of world opinion as being a Nation that "talks Human Rights and Political Freedom while its Judicial system does not enforce such".

You and your colleagues can change this deteriorated situation by granting the application to Stay Execution of Sentence and ordering the granting of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. By doing such, you will demonstrate to the world that the United States is dedicated and bound by the "Rule of law" and is not institutionally corrupt

beyond repair. '

Sincerely,

~

Richard I. Fine

cc: Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham Chief Justice Roberts

Senate Judiciary Committee House Judiciary Committee

Attachment

Dan '1."rters: Lawyer Richard Fine held in solitary for politics - Sacramento Politics - Cal...

I

I

'Il-IEs-'I\CRi\;."IE..1\'TO BEE sucbee.com i

Page 1 ofS

Dan Walters: Lawyer Richard Fine held in

I

solitary for politics

i i

By Dan Walters

dwalte~@sacbee.com

Published: Wednesday, Mar. 10, 2010-12:00am I Page 3A

I

I

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca released hundreds of jail inmates last week before their terms were up, citi$g county budget problems.

Howev~r, 70-year-old Richard Fine was not among them. Instead,last week he marked the one-year annive~ary of being clapped into a small and windowless solitary confinement cell for what a local judge declared to be contempt of court.

Fine is an antitrust attorney who has been a persistent critic of Los Angeles County's practice of giving judges 'nearly $50,000 a year in extra pay over their state-paid salaries. He's alleged that when the county Igovernment is a party to a lawsuit, it's a conflict of interest for judges to hear the case - and a conflict! for them to hear any cases involving him because of his criticism.

I

In 2008,. a state appeals court ruled - in a case brought by another party - that. giving judges extra

paymehts violated the state constitution. A year ago, however, the Legislature attached to its budget package a bill authorizing the extra payments, including those already made.

I .

A few days after the legislation was enacted, Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, who had refused to recuseihimself from a Fine case, sentenced him to jail indefinitely for contempt, citing a refusal to provide personal financial information in a dispute over attorney fees.

I

Fine has continued to battle from behind bars,. but the State Bar has moved to strip him of his legal

license!, alleging moral turpitude. The 9th U.S. District Court of Appeal has denied his petition for release, and the Supreme Court has refused to :intervene.

I

I

"Fine holds the key to his jail cell;' Kevin McCormick, an attorney for the Los Angeles court, said in a

brief fil~d with the federal appellate court. "By simply agreeing to answer the questions and produce documents concerning his assets, that he has a legal obligation to provide, his coercive confinement will end."

I

While judges have apparently decided to make Fine an example, he's become a cause celebre for

groupslthat contend judges at all levels have become arrogant and insular.

I

His supporters have conducted demonstrations outside the jail and pelted Journalists with information

about the case, portraying. Fine as a victim of gulag-like punishment. They say that his health has deteriorated markedly behind bars because he's been denied medical attention.

Clearly Fine has been a thorn in the judges' side, but just as clearly, he's being punished largely because he's been a thorn.

I

With h~ndreds of real criminals being released because of budgetary concerns - the county's projected Savingt from early prisoner releases are roughly what it costs to give judges those extra benefits, by

http://v}ww.sacbee.coml201 0/0311 O/2595492/dan-walters-Iawyer-richard-fine.html 3/20/2010

Dan Walters: Lawyer Richard Fine held in solitary for politics - Sacramento Politics - Cal... Page 2 of 8

the way - it's ludicrous that this 70-year-old attorney should remain locked in solitary.

If Fine was not a prisoner of political conscience a year ago, he certainly has become one.

>www.sacbee.com/walters.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights mserved.

---- .. - -~ .. __ . ---

Call The Bee's Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, .

About Comments

Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenlties.bate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.

thesactofly wrote on 0311212010 03:07:55 PM:

Having read my local elected reps legs work I discovered SBX2- 12.SBX2-11 and it was thru following these actions that i found out about the reality of this

brave attoney being held and contacted Leslie Dutton at "full disclosure"to hear the real story of RICHARD FINE AND THE CORRUPT judicial branch in California that has now shown why judges wear black robes.IT HIDES THE DIRT!!!!!!!!

Recommend (1)

Report abuse

Savannah_Winslow wrote on 031121201012:58:21 PM: .Replying to rbraden (0311212010 10:47:09 AM):

"First and foremost, why is the SacBee wasting perfectly good bandwidth to bemoan an unjust jailing of an activist attorney? The level of public concern and empathy for attomeys is lower that for meth dealers or terrorists. Mr. Fine got himself into a mess by daring to cross swords with Superior Court judges. Superior Courts are now overseen in California by the State Legislature. In picking a fight with judges over allegations of being overpaid (as if judges are the only state officials ... ":

These judges aren't only "overpaid," they STOLE the money from taxpayers. It was illegal to be paid by the county of LA. The monies became BRIBES when the judges started to always rule in the county's favor when it was sued. CRIMES were committed, ten million of them.

Recommend (1)

Report abuse

http://www.sacbee.c(;Hnl2010/03/10/2595492/dan-walters-lawyer-richard-fine.html

3/20/2010

Cert~led Fee

M Cl Cl Cl

Cl LI"l r-'!l Cl

Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)

Reslricted Delivery Fee I----~-j-\~ (Endorsemenl Required) r-----------~~

<:[l Cl Cl r-

. Certified Fee Certified Fee $2.130
M r'l
Cl Return Receipt Fee· eI Return Receipt Fee ~2.30
Cl (Endorsement RequilOl(J) Cl (Endorsement Required)
Cl Restl'lcted Delivery Fee Cl Reslricted Delivery Fee $0.00
(Endorsement Required) CJ (Endorsement Required)
LI"l $ $6.32
~ Total Postage & Fees
CJ ~[.YJ!£~'a.~-S;"--t~_Ziehf"-:~-.~~-----.- -". - .---

Street,Apt. N0';l );C~/ _j.. /.,,_-rl'1.

or PO Box No. ~J --en 0 i'f'.J n

.. --_ -- -- -- --_._ -_._-_ --_._"' -_._._ ---_ _---_ .. - ..

Clly. Srate, ZIP"4LAJ~WJI"z. -/r;"'1 a. ZOr;;lf"3

PS Fa,m 3800. l>.ug1.l5,2006· :' ; 'see_~.!_~e,se 10' Instructo~ns:

~.'~ .'-"

News Editor Reflects on Los Angeles Political Prisoner Attorney Richard I. Fine Case -- ...

:: :~

.. .,

" '",,"'.

PRNewswlre

Urufr'dRwI~~~

Send a release Member sign in Become a member For journalists Global sites

Products & Services

Knowledge Center

Browse News Releases

See more news releases in: Entertainment, Television, Domestic Policy

News Editor Reflects on Los Angeles Political Prisoner Attorney Richard I. Fine Case

WASHINGTON, March 24IPRNewswire-USNewswirel- The Full Disclosure Network® presents a unique cable television interview wilh Ron Kaye, former los Angeles Daily News Editor from 1984 to 200B. The program is part of an on-going cable series covering the criminal persecution of attorney Richard l, Fine who has been in solitary "coercive confinement" in the los Angeles County Central Men's Jail since March 4. 2009. The inlerview is to be shown on cable TV channels in major cities across the country during the month of April and on the Full Disclosure website indefinitely.

NINE MINUTE VIDEO PREVIEW HERE (hl1p:/ltiny.ccIKaye).

Full Disclosure's® exclusive (9 min) video preview of the one-hour interview with Ron Kaye is featured here. In this interview Roo Kaye shares his observations regarding the treatment of Richard Fine and the political circumstances in City and County of Los Angeles that have fostered abuse of the justice system and individual civil rights.

POLITICAL FORCES RESPONSIBLE

Kaye describes the individuals and power forces that control los Angeles politics. He comments on the major players involved in the appointment and selection of judges in California. He laments the erosion at the Rule 01 law that prevents citizen participation in community and government decisions.

ACTIVATING THE COMMUNITY

Following retirement in 2008, the veteran newsman and editor Ron Kaye became a community activist. helping to found the Saving LA Project He writes a popular blog on los Angeles City issues and is a frequent speaker at community groups On the need to get infonned and involved in the effort to make LA a city of great schools and neighhorhnnds. a city with a healthy business climate and good jobs, a city wtnere the people are respected and have a seat at the table of power. His

website Ourla.org is a clearinghouse for community activist journalists to share intormetlon and promote gaV8rnmel1~ accountability. Ron's persona! btDg site is www.RonKayeLA.com.

Related video and Ii Ilks to backgro und:

The Evil Triangle of L.A_ Corruption: Video

Video: Why Can't The AClU Help Richard Fine?

Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee Syndicated Column On Politics of Fine Case 3·11·10

WHAT IS THE FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK®?

Contact: Leslie Dutton

Full Disclosure Network 3111-822-4449 or tdutton@fulldisclosure_net

SOURCE Full Disclosure Network Back to top

RELATED LINKS http://www.fulldisc!osure.net

Page 1 of 1

Search

Advanced Search

(" Products. s Servlces r News Releases

Contact PR Newswire

RSS Feeds

Prtnt

Email

Share it v

Blog it •

Blog Search ¥"

Other News Releases in Entertainment

Graundbreaklng Reality Show Reproduces Doomsday Scenario

BET Networks a nd CENTRIC Spnn~ Into a Fresh Season with Relurnlng Fan Favorites and a Brand New Original Series

Finalists Announced in 1 st Quarter of the 2010 L Ron Hubbard International Contest far Illustrators

Other News Releases in Domestic Policy

Statement From Caryl M. Stem, President and CEO. U.S. Fund for UNICE F on Appointment of Anthony Lake as Executi"e Director of UNICEF

Wh1te House Is Right to Be Embarrassed by Executive Order

AAHSA Testimony Urges Senate Panel to Speed Pain Relief for Nursing Home Residents

Journalists and Blnggers

Visit PR Newswrre for .Inumallsts for releases. photos. Prof Net experts, and customized feeds Just for Media.

View and download arc hived video content distributed by MullNu on The Diqital Center.

About PR Newswire I Contact PR Newswire I PR Newswire's Terms of Use Apply I Careers I Privacy I Site Map I RSS Feeds Copyright © 1996-2010 PR Newswire Association llC. All Rights Reserved.

A United Business Media company.

http://www.pmewswrre.comlnews-releases/news-editor-reflects-on-los-angeles- political-pr... 3/2412010

Forbes.com - Magazine Article

http://www.forbes.comlfeeds/prnewswire/20 1 0/03/24/prnewswire20 I 0 ..

Press Release

News Ed itor Reflects on Los Angeles Politica I Prisoner Attorney Richard I. Fine Case

03.24.10,6:16 AM ET

WASHINGTON, March 24 IPRNewswire-USNewswirel -- The Full Disclosure Network(R) presents a unique cable television interview with Ron Kaye, former Los Angeles Daily News Editor from 1984 to 2008. The program is part of an on-going cable series covering the criminal persecution of attorney Richard I. Fine who has been in solitary "coercive confinement" in the Los Angeles County Central Men's Jail since March 4, 2009. The interview is to be shown on cable TV channels in major cities across the country during the month of April and on the Full Disclosure website indefinitely.

NINE MINUTE VIDEO PREVIEW HERE (http://tiny.cclKaye).

Full Disclosure's(R) exclusive (9 min) video preview of the one-hour interview with Ron Kaye is featured here. In this interview Ron Kaye shares his observations regarding the treatment of Richard Fine and the political circumstances in City and County of Los Angeles that have fostered abuse of the justice system and individual civil rights.

POLITICAL FORCES RESPONSIBLE

Kaye describes the individuals and power forces that control Los Angeles politics. He comments on the major players involved in the appointment and selection of judges in California. He laments the erosion of the Rule of Law that prevents citizen participation in community and government decisions.

ACT/VA T/NG THE COMMUNITY

Following retirement in 2008, the veteran newsman and editor Ron Kaye became a community activist, helping to found the Saving LA Project. He writes a popular blog on Los Angeles City issues and is a frequent speaker at community groups on the need to get informed and involved in the effort to make LA a city of great schools and neighborhoods, a city with a healthy business climate and good jobs, a city where the people are respected and have a seat at the table of power. His website OurLa.org is a clearinghouse for community activist journalists to share information and promote government accountability. Ron's personal blog site is www.RonKayeLA.com.

Related video and links to background:

The Evil Triangle of L.A. Corruption: Video

Video: Why Can't The ACLU Help Richard Fine?

Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee Syndicated Column On Politics of Fine Case 3-11-10

WHAT IS THE FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK(R)?

Contact: Leslie Dutton

Full Disclosure Network 310-822-4449 or Idutton@fufldisclosure.net

SOURCE Full Disclosure .Network

10f2

3/251201010:04 All

News Editor Reflects on Los Angeles Political Prisoner Attorney Richard ...

http://humanrights.einnews .. comiarticle.php?nid=5646

THIS IS A SERVICE OF @ A DIGITAL NEWS PROVIDER

.. ~~ .. ~. . .... ~~~~

Home News by Topic

Editor's Picks

til

PR. Newswire

Public Interest Services

~n&lhon'W;l$lpo)ky,=w:&~~

News Editor Reflects on Los Angeles Political Prisoner Attorney Richard I. Fine Case

PR Newswire

WASHINGTON, March 24

WASHINGT ON, March 24 IPRNewswire-USNewswirel - The Full Disclosure Nelwork® presents a unique cable television interview with Ron Kaye, former Los Allgeles Daily News Editor from 1984 to 2008. The program is part of an oo-golng cable series covering the criminal perseculion of attorney Richard I. Fine who has been in solitary "coercive confinement" in the Los IVlgeles County Central Men's Jail since March 4, 2009. The interview is to be shown on cable TV channels in major cities across the country during the month of April and on the Full Disclosure webslteindefinitely.

NINE MINUTE VIDEO PREVIEW HERE (http://finY.cc/Kayel

Full Disclosu.e·S@ exclusive (9 min) video preview of the one-hour interview wilh Ron Kaye is

featu red here, In this interview Ran Kaye shares his observations regarding. the treatment of Richard Fine and the political circumstances in City and County of Los AIlgeles that have fostered abuse of the justice system and individual civ~ rights

POLITICAL FORCES RESPONSIBLE

Kaye describes the individuals and power forces that control Los IVlgeles politics. He comments on the major players involved in the appointment and selection of judges in california. He laments the erosion of the Rule of Law that prevents citizen participation in community and government decisions.

ACTIVAnNG THE COMMUNITY

Following retirement in 2008, the veteran newsman and editor Ron Kaye became a community activist, helping to found the Saving LA Pruject. He wlltes a popular blO9 on Los IVlgeles City issues and is a frequent speaker at community gruups on the need to get infom-ed and involved in the effort to make LA a city of great sch Dais and neighborhoods, a city with a healthy business climate and good jobs, a city where the people are respected and have a seat at the table of power His website OurLa.org is a clearinghouse for eomm.mity activist journal isis to share information and promote government accountability, Ron's personal blog site is lWNI.RonKayetAcom.

Related video and links to background:

The Evil Triangle of L.A. Corruption: Video

Video: Why Can't The .ACLU Help Richard Fine?

Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee Syndicated Column On Politics of Fine Case 3-11·10

WHAT IS THE FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK®?

Contact: Leslie Dutton

Full Disclosure Network 31D·822-4449 or Idutton@fulldisclosure.net

SOURCE Full Disclosure Network

Come And Vis~

EtNNEWS

Helmut Koti News Bo[ogna News

Marketing & Advertising News· MARKETING & ADVERTISING INDUSTRY TODAY Internet Mar\<eting News

Chemical News· CHEMICAL INDUSTRY TODAY

American Chemical Society Ns-ws loorganic Chemicals News

Environmental News - ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS TODAY

Endangered Animals News Endangered Species Act News En::langered Whales News

Toyota Daily· TOVOTADAIL Y REPORT

Toyota Camry News Toyota Yaris News Toveta RAV4 News

Video Games Induslrv .. VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY NEWS

10f3

Ads by Googte

Pictures mtlle ll1!y theslarcom:

Quebec Niqab Bill MallesWomen

, Unveil to Get Public Services Canada Human Rights News

Masters in Diplomacy

Eam a Masters Degree in Diplomacy Online at Norwich University. _cNor.o!dlEd..-oiplomacy

2550%+ Penny Stock Gains?

Our last pick exploded 2550% 100% free and accurate newsletter www.Perl1\.StIlCksE>cpertcom

netau:

Ellans Urges Afghan Focus 10 Stop .Asvlum

Seekers Afghanistan Human Rights News

Artery Clearing Se cret

Hugh Downs reports on breaKthrough arte!), dearingsecrel. WNtN.bottom~nesecrets"com

Mast.ers in Public Policy

Earn a Masters in Public Policy Online at New England College. MAPP~OiineNEC~com

guardian.co.uk:

Zimbabwe, Police Return Piclu res of Human Rights Violations to

Gallery

7irnn~nl.u,,", 5-I"~,,,!'1 Ri.n;l->t'" ",I"'u.ro:,

1.1 PRESSWIRE

SEND PRESS RELEASE

Press Release Distribution Service

Paris Texas Disabled man fears retaliation afler mold complaint [24 Mar 2010]

Immigration Overhaul Calis far Capturing Biometric Data of .All US Citizens [19 Mar 20t 0]

US Opens Self Up to Human Rights Scrutiny [18 Mar2010]

7 Critical Factors Parents Should Consider Before They PutT heir Child in MY Daycare Center [t8 MeJ 201 0]

Richmond, \,I1rainia's Sheltering Arms and Lucy CorrViliageTeam Up [17 Mar 2010]

see all hum an ri9'hts press r_e lease s »

see aLi press releases }~

@ NEWS PUBLICATIONS

GET FRE~ 11\IAL

Agriculture Industry Today Airline Industry Today Automotive Ind ustry Today Banking Industry Today Beverage Industry Today Biofuellndustry Today

Get Free Trial I Sign Up Get Free Trial I Sign Up Get Free Trial I SIgn Up Get Free Trial I fu9DJ!Il Get Free Trial I Sign Up Get Free Trial I Sign Up

see alt publications"

EIN News Columnists

FORMATS:RSS

iii For Health Care and Poli~cs Maybe This Isn't 1994 Mer.Ali Or 1984, Either (Joe Rothstein's Commentary! [24 Mar 2010 ·17:17]

ID Good Morning, /vnericans, Today You Have A Right To Health Care (Joe Rothstein's Commentary) [22 Mar2010· 04:55]

3125/2010 9:42 Al\

http://www.reuters.comlarticle/idUS90621 + 24-Mar-20 1 0+PRN20 10032·

News Editor Reflects on Los Angeles Political Prisoner Attorney Richard ...

20f3

A line of CDs and High-Yield Savings Accounts.

No minimums, No monthly fees.

PERSONAl SAVINGS fmm American Express

_""'''''''''I:'I~~~toI; IXpMo Inll. iU_~i!R)~

MOST POPULAR

MOST SHARED

1. Osama bin Laden, In tape, threatens to kill Americans

8:03am EDT

2. Passi ble new human ancestor found In Siberia 24 Mar 2010

3. Bin Laden threatens Americans wah execution t2:28pm EOT

4. Sex toy startup has some big backers 17 Mar 2010

5. Marijuan a lega I lzatlon will be on California ballot 6:5tam EOT

Logi n or register

Latest.from My Topics

News Editor Reflects on Los Angeles Political Prisoner Attorney Richard L Fine Case

WASHINGTON, March 24 IPRNewswire-USNewswirel -- The Full Disclosure Network

presents a unique cable television Lnt e rv Lew wi'th Ron Kaye, former Los Angeles Daily News Editor from 1984 to 2008. The progralll is part of an on-go,inq cable series covering the criminal persecution of attorney Richard I~ Fine 'Who has been in solitary "coercive confinement" in the Los Angeles County Central Men'ls Jail since March 4, 2009. The interview is to be shown on cable TV channels in major cities across the country during the month of April and on the Full Disclosure website indefinitely.

NINE MINUTE VIDEO PREVIEW .HERE

(http;lltiny.cc/Kaye) .

Full Disclosu.re's exclusive (9 min) video preview of ~ith Ron Kaye is featured here~ In this interview observations ,regarding the treatment of Richard Fine circumstances in City and County of Los Angeles that the justice system and individual civil rights.

the one-hour interview Ron Kaye shares his and the political

have fostered abuse of

POLITICAL FORCES RESPONSIBLE

Kaye describes the individuals and power forces that control Los Angeles politics. He comments on the major players involved in the appointment and

se l.ect i.on of judges in CalLfornia. He laments the erosion of the Rule of Law that prevents citizen part,icipation in community and government decisions.

ACTIVATING THE COMMUNITY

Following ret,irement in 2008, the veteran newsman and editor Ron Kaye became a community activist, helping to found the Saving 'LA P:r:oject. He writes a popular blog on Los Angeles city issues and is a frequent speaker at

communi ty groups on the need to get informed and involved in 'the effort to make LA a city of great schools and neignborhoods, a city with a bealthy business climate and good jobs, a city where the people are respected and have a seat at the table of power. His. web!'!ite OurLa.org is a clearinghouse for community activist journalists to share information and promote government account abili ty ,. Ron I a personal blog s L te is www.RanKayeLA.com .

Related video and links to background,

The Evil Triangle of L .. A. Corruption, Videa

Video: Wby Can't The AGLU Help Richard Fine?

Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee Syndicated Column On Politics of Fine Case 3-11-10

WHAT IS THE fULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK

Contact: Leslie Dutton

Full Disclosure Network 310-822-~4~9 or Idutton@fulldisclosure.net

SOURCE Full Disclosure Network

Leslie Dutton of Full Disclosure Network, +1-310-822-4449, Idutton@fulldisclosure.net

Ads by Mar~hex

Analyte Any Stock FREE.!

Our Reports Detail What a Slack is Really Worth, How Safe, & Wheiher to Purchase WI'IW.VeclorVest.com

Free Forex PracUce Account

Free Training. Free Practice Account. Try GFT Risk-Free. GFlforex.com

[;Jq)loding Cheap Penny Stocks Newsletter

Cheap Penny Stacks ThaI Explode! Blazing Rerurns ... O.er 100% Gains WI'IW.PannyStockPickReportcom

Low Cost Life Insurance

Online quotes from o",r 100+ companies for policies from $50,000 to $5,000,000 WI'IW.GreatRateUfelnsurance.com

O Saved

Hems

3/25/2010 9:47 AI

News Editor Reflects on Los Angeles Political Prisoner Attorney Richard ...

http://www.cnbc.conv'idJ36013884/print/lIdisplaymode/l098

I~CNBc.com

News Editor Reflects on Los Angeles Political Prisoner Attorney Richard I. Fine Case

PR Newswlrel24 Mar 2010 I 00:10AM ET

WASHINGTON, March 24, 2010 /PRNewswire via CDr-nExt ~- The Full Disclosure Network(R) presents a unique cable television interview with Ron Kaye, former Los Angeles Daily News Editor from 1984 to 2008. The program is part of an on-going cable series covering the criminal persecution of attorney Richard 1.

Fine who has been in solitary "coercive confinement" in the Los Angeles County Central Men's Jail since March 4, 2009. The interview is to be shown on cable TV channels in major cities across the country during the month of April and on the Full Disclosure website indefinitely.

NINE MINUTE VIDEO PREVIEW HERE (http://tiny.cc/Kaye).

Full Disciosure's(R) exclusive (9 min) video preview of the one-hour interview with Ron Kaye is featured here. In this interview Ron Kaye shares his observations regarding the treatment of Richard Fine and the political circumstances in City and County of Los Angeles that have fostered abuse of the Justice system and individual civil rights.

POLITICAL FORCES RESPONSIBLE Kaye describes the individuals and power forces that control Los Angeles politics. He comments on the major players involved in the appointment and selection of judges in California. He laments the erosion of the Rule of Law that prevents citizen participation in community and government decisions.

ACTIVATING THE COMMUNITY Following retirement in 2008, the veteran newsman and editor Ron Kaye became a community activist, helping to found the Saving LA Project. He writes a popular blog on Los Angeles City issues and is a frequent speaker at community groups on the need to get informed and involved in the effort to make LA a city of great schools and neighborhoods, a city with a healthy business climate and good jobs, a City where the people are respected and have a seat at the table of power. His website OurLa.org is a clearinghouse for community activist journalists to share Information and promote government accountability. Ron's personal blog site is www.RonKayeLA.com.

Related video and links to background: The Evil Triangle of L.A. Corruption: Video Video: Why Can't The ACLU Help Richard Fine? Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee Syndicated Column On Politics of Fine Case 3-11-10 WHAT IS THE FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK(R) ? Contact: Leslie Dutton Full Disclosure Network 310-822-4449 or Idutton@fulldisc1osure.net SOURCE Full Disclosure Network www.prnewswire.com Copyright (C) 2010 PR Newswire. All rights reserved -0- KEYWORD: District of Columbia INDUSTRY KEYWORD: TVN

ENT SUBJECT CODE: POL

URL; http://www.cnbc.com/id/360I3884/

© 2010 CNBC.com

1 of 1

3/25/20109:38 AN

..

Page 10f9

Leslie Dutton

From:

To: 'Sent:

Attach:

"Leslie Dutton" <ldulton@lulidlsclosure.net> <LondonBritches@aol.com>

Wednesday, March 24, 20105:16 PM

An01 045.gll; A n01 046.jpg; AnD 1 047.jpg; A no 1048.jpg; A n01 049. gil; A rtoi OSO.jpg; An01052.jpg; An01053.jpg; A n01 054.jpg; A n01 OSS.jpg; A n01 056.jpg; A rroi OS7.jpg; An01 058 jpg; An01059.jpg; ATT01060.jpg; ATT01D61 Ipg; ATT01D62.jpg; ATT01D63.jpg; ATT01D64.jpg; ATT01065.jpg; ATT01066.jpg; ATT01 067. gil

ReleaseWatch Report Irom PR Newswire - 215 links

SubJect:

PER YOUR REQUEST HERE IS A COPY OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF OUR RELEASE TODAY:

(I)

PRNewswlre

1,.Ir-!fnrl>;ai'"=ll1oEGl

ReleaseWatch™

Your Releasewateh Report from I'R Newswlre

News Editor Reflects on Los Angeles Political Prisoner Attorney Richard 1. Fine Case DC7S838

dear time: Q31241201 0 06: 1.0

A~._R~P'!hM

htlp:/~pmc1'IYWi:n::.oomkgs-a!cI!ADric>.pl1ACcr-AZCAU_51al)''!:sTORy-n.. ... "WiJ1ar}'IIJl-14-20101000m'2Q2&f.DATr:: ..

JO,OQOV;:o;:ik1-r

AIl!!lt~ IluRm:'~ (lor.lJfl~dr

Jurp;llaa.lIlPlII.bi7Joumllll:a.comhJllIInulpl'!1eWlWircJprtS!. _,dca8C:IIllllioil.l'l1lllirukl. _ oI_ CoIumbiai2ll I O .. 03f201JDC7:5SJ I!I

IOO,OoJOVi.siLol

1:LtildJlI~~~d_ Joomal b_t1p-Jiba..l1i1ll0J1c.biziouHlI1.i;.coru~altimO'rt"lprIKll'!'s·wira"pra:lII_~tiDllDlIOislrid_Qf_CoIllmbW201~103J241OC1S33II

I BusJNESSiOURNALI

e. biz,'Qurngls'

~ ~i:IIIIIIIIIIM;aMio:c'I-w.

!!im:!..!.n~lIm !lSlsh~rM .loom.1

h~~llbitTIiil1sMm_bi_:rj.wn'lr.l~_(jOnt1bin'nin&llIlm!pm~i"""p"",,,, _ H:1""'_"",.{".!iQll~.lIOi:'!lT;"'I_-c;d" _ Col~m!,j.u2ilIIJ.jf)J},N-IDC7.5ng

100,000 Visi1c

100.000 Vi~ilc

BuCliti Ru~lnt1l1 .lnUnJ;I]

hllp:/Jbq;;lW.biJ:joo.,....I'!.,D;I~~oolP'1!' ........ ...,f1'I'PI'"":._""I""~lu"tiQru,IIDi.¢!i<;l_o[_Colum"i~IOttilllAIOC7"iBJ8

too,oro VlsiloC

Ou~ Fi~ .. I 1~I'f.lllo

I'rttp:itbufrali:l.bilj'oom<loIll.-oomJb.il,ffiLldpnoCWl'W'irclpreu _ n:I~atiw:sJIDiJIrict ~o( _Co:iumbi~OI0l0}l24iDC7S838

100,000 Vi~iw

lla";nmf:l,",lor~ lrt,p:liod~mbu"l;Ogj~m.-I'I,o;:ergltd!!!I'Ihu"~~_fd-rmoo="l!mioolll}[Jj...m..t_or_CoIumbj.n<l~oJOlf.l:.vrx:1S&l1

IUSlNESS FJRST

Ilu.'li-nra Flnt(Jr I.oul:l-~·illr

hnp:IJIoo_iwil~e_~f'M1sJXill'lIlOlikrillclpmo'>-;nvin:lp:rcss:_rdeaf,CS.hJ.; .. iiIlll1ll1Di:aricI_of~Colilmbi:i.l2OL!MJ3J2.mJC1SU8-

!OO,OOO vlslrc

Bu..!Iiftf"D Journal (lor Gr'nI~!_MiI",,, .. kCl!O

hLt¥"nril ""1I,IIk«.bizjoYmah:.onmImil'R-':l.gkoclpm-cwswitdpra:51: _ rdc:u:s!!mrioa.l(Discricl_ of _CalumbiaJ20 11W3r'2Ailx::T5gJS

Biisiness lournal

1111111 UUIUJ'fllI.'iiUU

~"!''''.!oum:d~ 'lIIp:lfplKx:Qi:r..hi:qoamllls.o;arntpbCJal.ixlpru~"'='Pn::I"_rl."k.uc!ifaltlOll;~_of_Coh.mbAt20lo.'I!l3Q..VD('J.58J&

Uulinrti ,f.-.unlll or Iht Grt!.~.t!'J'Ji'lUn'.! h!11';'/Iri;lIlbU;jQIJ~.llO!!!llrmdJpmo;m"i";~jl"I"'!i~_~!~,.~A1IDi~ric1._or_CDlumlllll'2OlarOJ.lMIDC1:'iEJ8

Ikl.'lin.rs:I Rof'I'itl'f(AlbKlV]

tilltl~llrul:.a.nyLb:izjoomal!l.com.lrul:tnylpm~itcipn:ss _ rcl~e.:II1on.:ilI!'Dia:ria _ of_ Calumbi:a.l2o!OMlf2.liDC158JS

IOO.DCXlVi~;tc

Cl!jIod.[)~!'i!ln"iJnun11l1

hIlF:/kb.mQuc1:lizfoomsb .. eomkb:arlclko]rrncwr.".i='fa't:n_rclC3.3CSl'njiliouallDislr.ia_Qr_Coiumb~JQ.I03:241OC'15~!I

3/25/2010

Page 2 of9

I~~'~'~I

lias BasllBSs Joor al

ntJdna.,!i llus.inHS Cou~r bUp:llciaciD~.hi7,jrnrn~.b.comlcim::innlltUpm~in:lpml!u'C·ea:nln.baclLlIDi'!lb:ict_"r_Catumbi.r.rolOiliJl24IDC7:;'K38

100,000 V'n:itc

]bUM Quoin"" JOLIm.!

hLEp:lldllJlu..ili7_joumcJ;,cOOlJol.al1.ailfpmel\'n.;~_ rcIc1lll'~S"'1IIjMnli1)i§lriGl_ (]C CQIum"iV20IQIOJn~!DC7:5:1i113

100,000- Vifilc

,AYJ!III

BUSINfSSJDURNAl

]00,000 Yl¥ilc

JlHInor..D!lJ!!n~JOlIm'l

h11p:Jldw\'tt.bi.zjwIil~.WmldcnTc.t!pmn.""'·inirr- _ ~,,1iooa1lDiEio;t _ of_ CcllllIJoiM.X'lIOlOlnAIOC7S&lS

100,000 Vi$itc

t:,qUI".BucinlC:ll1·~

hltp::/Icot51h:l.)'.bbjoo:m:U~.«JIIIJI:.HIbIy~"Bi,el'prt=!tlI- _ rdQUCll/natimaliDiatkr _ M_ Ctim.rnbiAllOIOmJJ24lllCUIlB

100,000 Vidt.c

220.000 VjJ'ilc

II000unQJkui!!£y'~

l!upJ/hom;Ion-hi~maI~~~"n""'l<win:fP"" _",I~1iQII.d.'I)HIrio,;I_..,.(_cm.umb;"'OO lo.'Olf14lDC158J3

Ilum'"-ll BidLt .. _I .. d"':r 1dtp:/Jhumllmigbl.l.cU,l.Il_.,.ctQ1aniclc:.php1nid.-5646I

l..t 1~~Q!;_r~~.9..L .1 , •. Tnterest!

"') ALERT

[1I00:LRij!lQ!

hi tp:/fM;o,'W .iDboxl'lOboU;Qm/utltlo'SBobab ~ ~CJ.n26dt'6b703'JcS6906:n9aIDcb If

Jnlr_~~ALtJi'{r http://mll:rcukrl.romI~324OOOl.aaOO66b.pmllik:ia.ICAlLfORN/c.alifomiu.m1

Jnlr ...... liun..J nu..w_TItni"il

bllp:l/u,;y."W.ibtil:ll~.eom/pr.larticlnf49.sanI10JOOJ24~i\Q{-n:j}rd_-~ ... gd",,--pQlirK;.I.,.ruutI~·MW'ItI'Ier-richardfino-enK.hfln

4,OOOVisilOBr

Inn"torC~I,' hnp:I/_.in\·~.comf~lcascalpr-nc" .. n .. in;l7id-6lIOfi2

BusillessJournal

.1:loC'k!llOIII'ille UWilll'!i.' ,rnumll

KArl r\OC-J(J{)II~t,nrr_!1AR] hltp'Jtwww.k&hhomJGlobalJaory.up1S-L21940la

KI_Cl!yIJu"''_.J9'.lJ:''~ Jmp;IJt:ill~ily.bizP.tmllls.oom/lbJsucily!pm~;:rdpn:s:l_~llioallllD~<JI_Qr_(2.QIu_mltial2OIO~lI2-41DC7S&38

100,000 Visilc

1V\7.L1~1l-' lPIoOrtli-tfl~t!.A~ bttp;/"'"WW.I!-.w.~'[I __ lClblmll"IQI)'.tl.'$p?S--11194010

kca I .co .~. 9

KCAU· TV ~b5'

10. ,"U)olCIII.-, u.

-----------------------

.KGt&QA.!l£;.t.~U

hLlp:II"" • .-w_~tT.«JmIG'Joob:UlSl<ory·Uft?S"'1219-4010

"(,Il·\.n'mX-3;5CStiil"",,~ btlJrl/MI.",'_k<;bd_COtIIJ(jlobaIJatwy~?S~12l94010

NEWSCHANNtl at,

CLlH,c:r." 'fhl cn ello., 01'

"enn NBC II (L.ubboc:~ btlp;/~w-',;ebd.ecm/Glob:aI/Rtlry .• t<p?s"1219<40 10

IO,OOQVi!lilOr

...;cor CBS ... 12 CS~tll j\hll\1I CAl h~fTj'WW1Io'_kmy_(;QMlGloIW!a.-wy_HflIS'" 121901010

3/25/2010

Page 30f9

"';!;:.SQ !\BC..J Q'alm Jlrwrt CAl hllpJfw-oI-,.,.,"kc:sq.comJ(j!OO:!lImry..asp1SPi2194010

_KffiA_(;FL5-JO (J\ltIliriilr.. n.)

hlip-/rn..-wi'<-.DO,,"'Khmll d iQ.!C(Jm/GJobIll/':!kxy .1Up1S-121940 ~ (J

KYJX·TV EOX.14 WiIb:bul'T KSJ illtp:/lvmrw.foxJ4tv_00f0J(]loMlh:lrny.m-p?S-ll1~OlC!

~~C'II{Jrli'-"'-5(II .... ol. • .dLl.JJ1) 1rttp;/,Iw.."Il'."-5Ih~.t>IIIIIIOIobiIIIkiDry.33p?s-12L'J.;IO]O

~f.-"'S cas ... l2 iYJls Giurdu",. lIolOl 1mp:l1wlli.'W.tfuI i2_;:.orn!'(jkiWl..u.y~q>'tS"1219MllO

Km.J.!'tl_j\_~_~9___fTh_~,."._A~ hltp:!""-ww,quD51.IXICDJtilo1:Jal1l1tcq- .up'/S<"12194010

4.000Vi~IOfs,.

"',,"INlaV N IW·!tn!oof.l!ulu..l!!)

h11p;llwww . ...-~1lii!lCl_!lw.0ClIll!(l100aiJswry.a:ip.lS-JZ]94()10

12,OOOVi:A\oI'

KIl~~~""'no, \,~ hitp:/lwwwJ:hq,l:(Im.IIJIabri.II:d:i:1I)'.I&II!I'I3-J21940 IfJ

1:;11!1:IY. ... \IW-S<!!:bb~-!. lit) h!tp:'!w-.,,,,,,,,~~~....,s.oom1(jkJb;WI~.1Up·JS-i21~IO

KJm; CD.~_dal.ill.l.o:.....CA)

hi tp:/fwww.lr:iOll.riabb1·cw.[Q]J;I(l~ ob.dfd-ary.:up1S-12 ~ 9",,0 1 ~

h:I1'I·T\i t\n~Jlw~ Mtp;lj_.ki:vitv.J;liHlIlO~),{flIKy~S-12l9;:l-QJO

fo'.l~_l!Jlc.....Ji:_l_C1,l:""d.hmn!:irm £.9) 1l1~p:liwww.kjd!.crmj(}lol:lldi5Iory..up~S-!219;1QIIi

K't;1IX rux·n (SldJjl ....... ri.~

hlljTltwww_myr~! l_mm!(ilub.!il'i<li;Jf)'_~-t2 L9401(l.

KI F\, C~!s-IO a ... r .. y~ltt- f.A1 hltp:/fwwIoi'..klry.0JrJ.lJGIob&ll:!t!:lIy.cspn;~1219..:JO[O

IT.OOO\li&iltlt

~F;:' ItC-IIOJnc-oIn-.l!ID bI!"JIjlww",!Jm~~r'G~IJlnL':dory_"_.pi'S"'lll940!O

"'LTV A8('"·1 O\lrr IX}

hltp:/r.www.tl.l. ..... wmt(ilnba.ll;ikllJ..UJI1S~ 121.941) i u

20.000 V,":1Qr

Jo..w£'~ Cll£:U (Slom: un· 1,\) bUp.:!I_.k:rne,8-OOt'l1!GIub:JiJIior)'.up?S=12l!L:IOIO

J.QoJIR ;·mc....(; CPl:lm.!lgrrt CAl J.lIjl'-/lwww_hnfr6_oom/G:bohl,llmry.asp"rS=12194010

KMI'U-lll.n)X..z6 cFr"':'Ulf;>_._C!'\l

hllp,'~ ..... ,J:mph.O!'m1IGkIlxoU .. ~ItW)',a.¥7.9rIJlNOID

lo.-yrVrTV CIL~ IOm.h. .. NE) hlqdlw'llo-w.imtv.comlGiobiil~QIf)f.ap·1S-1219-J.i)IO

.5,OClOYis:iIOfar

KNDO-TY NBC-3IY-."~:o.LJ~A} !tu:r:lIWl''W.kndo..comIGlcGlIlIlitol)'.lIi"p'lS''12194010

I<j\·DU TV NnC(h:C'n.n~1

blIp:'J/w<>. ... ·.Wdu.romJ(i~QfY.1I:>J'18 .. 121!NOIO

Kl'fO~·-rv CBS-Ii (1\ll!In"I;~ .. _LJl) bttp:/iw"'K-w.bmc.eomfGlobIIIistQ}'.3:ip?5--12I0:J40.IO

KQ,V.I.Dr CRS:.-7 m~_KID 1ILLIl~lhvww.l'OOOlLv.carn/filoblJI:sI0lJ'.IlSp?8"-1219401(J

"'QJ D CR"i-U CIuoun M~.J.

hll",lIt •• "IIIWJ;ald,-"ilatWlMOry.ap1S-12i94oO"1O

.'i,OOOVisitoriSf

3/2512010

Page 4 of9

J..:OT,\ ,\0("·) (H~@.£~ hnp:11wv.-...,_I";lI.atv_~.QlobI!l!,:r0J)' ... ~1S-l2J94(lIO

K~I"JS.6(ruJ'L"QbJ

hl1j1:lhiI __ _"__6_<lC.'I'II'II(l\~ .. ~1S"'1219otOIO

'(PI NI • t .. b OauJ8.l.JIfl):l!ht....LA} hllp:lI...__!;:pctv_o;q~lobalI:IIOI')'mp1S'-L2194010

5,000 VisilOf1i..'

Kl''HI-TV tUX~ Oh.l.:om PugH" SI)) bnp:}Iw'A.'W_kpdL..cam.'(:;klJoIlDoty.Mp1S""12L940IO

I(["n .. 1- TV FOX---I2 «(>nuoh.. _r."Kl htlp:lIwww.Ii:ptm.comI(jiob:dl5lory.851 .. ~S-121 i).IO LO

h.'"pVI~TV b'FtG-fi (f'qplrU.-..._U}j hup:JIwww.kpvi.roml'(jI-l'.lbrll/smty_up?S-llllJ.iOlCl

cocw CW.J2WI crllll .. Olil brrp:llwww_C!.\'12-19_oomlGlolM1J:u~.aIf'l'IS"121940 10

KRl}O...T\.'ARC-lJ.(C"'~~pfi .. "",(..·()) !mp:/1www.bdorv.comiGlobal/5lOl)'.asp?S'"'1 2 I'J..IO 10

t.."Rl-ln~_A!W-40 (!Irrl~,.r:t:-;tlIoIiOfi":r.,'\) hltpi/w-a'W..b0;40.oomi(l!obuURoI)'.aP?S-121940iO

KSC\V_T\' ('W~ (Wkl!~_)o;.EI 1m(V"1w_.~.wmKjlobal/llDrY.Mp·IS"121'J.4010

t.:SWO--T\' ,\ IK...:::uhll:w~ O.J...) http;/Iwww~xwnlGiobilliilory''''J)?S''J2J!I4{l11l

~T_T\, CIl.~13 O'rum~, 1\7.)

bUp::/Iwww.k:I .... 1.cumiGloo:ll.h.t~~·.S-12l?401Cl

.. rr ':'101 NHC-'.fl"-i_..JX) btlp.1lwww.bat,comlGlolWtaory .. up1S-12 1940 ICI

Jo..TI,\1 NQC-J (Si,"u .... O~y .. It\) brrp;f,'w,.,"W_L"ti¥LOm!G~I)IJ'.asp7S-121940IO

h.-ri"V-D' AIICU (1-*'1 V~_t{YJ bllp;!'''_...kmYLamJ(ifDbQlJ~DfY..D{l't.!l'''1.21')W 10

k.-TR}~ r\OC:'(!,ul'kill 1:X) IHtp"J~.,.,-_~,.oom.Ki1oba.1(5lOfy.np'l'5""!:2!940LO

.... lk~'_lV r~-n tJ"~~JID bltp;J"'"Wl\-_IOJI:I2D~.cmnfOlabalfsS:ary~?S"I.2J9-WIO

kTfC i''UC-IIlRnd!(''II.r ~IN)

~p;(""" ...... kUo::.UJrrllGlob.ll'ao.y.Hp?S-121~10

6,OOOVisilonl

h.--n' jvro ... ~JK..ii!'\."_n-J.ln: ... CK!:!..",~ 'D Inrp"JIwww.Ib:A!7.lvJGlabillJaory.a5;P15-1219-W!O

J.."TVN_nr Cns-:z (Rmu. N\f)

btlp;lIwv. -w. n ..... ..,.- .... fGI oMlltIrnty .a:tp'.""'12.I9-40 ~O

KQ·:I .... 1VND~l~QID

Jmrtl/www.kI .. ~.can!Glabm~.up7S-1219-40 !O

S.f)QQVi!iiIcrt'J-'

J..VIA ARC-Hr.! roo. Th]

hUp;!J...-u __ It:\-~!M.ao!f.!:lOlJ~?S""12I!MOI0

4,OOOVhil~

"'"\\TII-TV CBS-12 @'idI~lI._J\S) hUp:.1h.'WW.h\d..oom.'GIobHIs:tocy.-p'S--UI94010

6.000 VisilOf'Sl

K\\'FS-TV i'riRC--, (l'oiidbrn4..JXJ 1ntp:/fwww.Dewswnt9~aIIsory..ap1S--1:2194010

J.:W~~~:l hllp;Jj_<w.n~.lylGlobaI{:StIH1'.a&ilI1S"1211J4010

3/25/2010

!ij~~~t4l1~gt:Uit1,~.r~

· •. I,nte,est!

"'1 ALERT

·~O·Inte,est! "'l ALERT

BusiNESS' JoiffiNAL

Montana's News Station 1:-:.·'_'~COI"""

NaslNiI~ Bw iness Joumal

U'SiNESSWEEKLY

Iliiine

all

PI\CIFIC OUSINE5'S NEWS

BusiNBSSJOURNAL

Page 5 of9

""WQC !"Onc~ lD.''ftI~_____.jA} httJX/Iw-.'W.~'qC.romlGIoJho!~.=op?S-1219401<t

Kn-~(ou""lIn::IIllr!tL....lliQ

hn,-.:f""'- ....... ne'.;~ __ Ki~_.M(J'tS""[2194I)IO

... ""·WI T" "nC-T_o.\~

hltp;f/wv. b,.,.,i.ooufGkPlImry~?s-12194010

b::\Ll' t'OX~7 ~~r l.~ ~hI."""W..I1Iyr.n47~iaI:q'..up?S"'121940010

KX_"o-n'CW·l~ ~ btlp;/Iwv.'W.w-o.<:«ZlI'G~--p?S"'I2I~IO

.a."!\""\'_I\_\\'.~ http:,~"W.tx:u.eomJ(ikib3l/:dary .:ap"/S"12I ""0 10

~_CflJ.!.r...Th] hnp:fl'wlllow.:hs19Jli'r'(jktbsVsmty--asp'lS'"llt94010

1..,... "'nlL~'~~.q..,1"'"'I rr~IJ--'thio;Ju.rn~l" bUp:/Jklungc:labr.qlJClmaJ$..camlJtI!i:IIll!dc.,~_""n:/p;n:Jis_n:k:uclr'nruim,.aIJ)i.ricl_or_COIumbia!20W1DJ.I241JX'753J8

100.000 Visilorsl.Jay '.

l\1!Ikrl\\'llth

btlp:/""_.m.uBr,.. .. lI:h.oowf".i!.Of'j/D~-,.-Wi.Jor-rdlc:ctroo-lo5-Gu~~iti"'I-pri_"'~IIC)'.ridmnJ--i..fioo...c:ai1O-20li>-OJ.2-i

170,000 Vi~honlMy '.

Mrdl. bulu110'Toc.IJIf

http;//InQdi • .o:inncft~.c:oml.nicll:. pbp1nid· 669])

9.000 VisilorsfdlY ..

'",,-. N! ...... ~-uo"k, £nlrrt:llianonnd hUp:I(Ulltn.:lIIJIJert.mmfllloryJ\l:l240000Il:laOO694.pm!mntiC'lllcn.irlmrnV'ENTRTJ\lN/a:lIo:r1l.irlnl'-"Dtl:bnl

~1.-c.-ro;rtul'·f-N'Of"k: 1..rI_"!!

bllp:I{KI~ak:rt-a;Hllf~fO]UOOO2MltOO66b_prI'I!_ ... ITI/LE(iAU..AW".I_lftd

'\~pbl\j_ka"~

l!1tp:JJmcmphis.tizjoumI15J:0111/manphi!IJpnlC1'in'>ifl:lpn::l.l_ n:'lealaln:alimlllfDistricl_ of _ cotumbilJlOlfl'03J2.t1DC7}3l11

100.000 Vi~lQn!d .. )'·

~[""i .. LSl_LJ·aul Buunnll.r ..... m.1 hlqd/hl~ncitiC.5·bizicumlil.s.comltwidcitialp~~_tdountn.timal!Di~_of_CQ1a~I(I.I03r'l.oIIDC75&3g

'\IIM!!"T1.j;i\~-,.SI.tlOiJ(JIlIrrt-l\rn hlttrJIwww.mml:Ul~lioo.-lGlobrJ.:iklI)..GSfI?S-121940~O

~'_~1\ ill .. 11u~U5.' .JourD.1 hltp-JIDabv~fUII.h_<Dl!'In~"illtlfd_'_'1~_~na~lIDi!ilric1_or_Cdvmbial2OI0I03f.MJDC751J1

lOOJlOOVisilorsldtl)'·

i'/f''I'r __ Mnk? DurLnI'''''' Wuk!}' htl,..jlmbuq.x:rque.bi:gI)l1n:Ws..~lIlbuqJcnp:lprc-.'fto;n:I.-sI_~NI~.IIDi:Hri«_q(_ CdIlII!I::MnO IMl3/2.(}OC75I]R

100,000 Vniknfd:ay •

~$r",jrY_ 1!.11p~!:rJ.o:ws:o.rubcrriccjllfoll~rCXI-5t)'lcrenllc:ri!lin_DlCIII'.'ll.Imafld-cvi:rionl28822.h!lm1

100,000 Visi~day •

P!ri(ic Hu~M--1

l.lptl/pa;:ific..bi%_jaun;llIls.lX!tII!pKificlpmewswireJpn:ss _l'deuesfuti<.JoaJlDi:;lricl_of_ CoIlJmbi.rxllO/OJfl~1DC1_5R]R

fhll!.c!c"_phhl ~'''''lIr5IIJ ... rnill hltp:llphibddphin..bizjoo.rrnLllI.oomlphiladdphiW[JI"Qo:::u."",ti~"_n:leaJJaloaliortalfDistricl_of_CoIllIJIb~ID.IQJJ24lDC1!i!3g

P'iIlS'..,rW ~eu Timet:

hltp"jIpitCliOI.IJl!,h..biljw-.;n'l.h_~piLtib<Jrg"&JP'd~>lH:fpn:P _.K':~~!\riorol!;lfI)i.drid _ af_ CDlumbi.:aJWIOJOJ:24/DL..'7:5K38

!OO,OOO Vi,jIORldll)'·

3/25/2010

BusiNESS JOURNAl

IBu8tD-as JO~ I !~::.) REUTERS I

I Bus~JQtLRNAL I

Busl~ JOURNAL

, .... 'HI"JlAL IUS''''H IVOL

1.""1,,,1<1 1Ju.'C[II~J!Hlrn.l ltUp:iiportiand.biz~m"s.comfponl-:mcVpDlC"TM!eI~_oeI~"n4!iooallT1i~ud._lJr_Cnlum"im'.l:OI0f0312~iDC7583S

I'H:t'Irrr'<WJr!'

hI~p:.Iwww.pmewswin::.c:omJDnw-ldca3C!.ITI~-aliIOl.~n::nc:a!MJll4~.(!Ck- .. poIilica ... prison«.IlT.OrMy-ritMtd..*-:!iiH!-cue-S89951]1.hlml

l''''cPr Sound nll..v~'II."JIlm~ hl~p-j'-Ilk:.bK-j~~a;oqv'~Ik~;wJIrI."W_rdcucsIaatiaMltDiwid_of_CobmbiIll1010JiJlt.WDC75131

SIiIu:aml'nln flu.unK'II .IOlI..!ItY

1lI,!p:/lsa.;;ou:n"",!o.bi4jQUrrod"_()(}""'~TIIm~ll;>l'pr1Il! ... _;n:Jpr-es5_~ltiQll,alJDiRrict_OJf~Cd!ll!lbial2oIM)}l1,4JDC1.sS38

Soulb Bond, Ua:dJtrsol.Jol.lm:1II 1I11J1:lIlIOUlhnoni:b.bi1Jwm.b.oorn/500lhl1oritWpmt:wmfrclpn:;iiJl_:l'lCIe:p;:;~lui0fl3IJDi.miCl_of_Columbi,III2OIO.t>1tlMDC1Sm

l:!I.LP!i.jhJ-.iu_",",r."m,.1 hllp:lIstkmiLbi7,jool'1l.l.h'.QJmfII]CXlD.ipmcwswirdpn:s1l_rd~natiuul1lDi~tritt_(lr_Collimmaf20IMlJ2.1!DC'J583S

Scrn.I~ "tyJ""'W"I'.~.~C"o~~+I..w+J\a~tiraI~'Rict.f1HL+F~66036.tdml

Sl S-CON i\lrdil hup'JIw9r."N.sys-oon.comfrtndo'll]~45-1

T .. .m~_n._y l~.~_.~iml

hltp:fIt4llml:Mbooy_l]i_ljOll,IT!;d;._~p;m:ty/ftn .. .,wn.itdpu:u _ ~lo')II_'l1l11:iflllO,lJDistrict _ of_ CorurubW2010I{lli24llX:1.'lDB

·11~...sII"ffLronl h1tp:rh.·_jl"d;I1tc{_.::ol'I'~·/I0709:!1WIIf'1i!MI~IClt-«fl~-Ic::I8-oogda:.t-polil.bI-primna:r-:cJOIltey-ricb:tfd-i-fi~hlml

nl"1ir:r TH'bnnl~ bllFL:/"";\o,.,..tiUa-1teb_camlcgU?II=lIc"i'l4lick'-'Fll4~OlOO320IOO3240610PR_NEWS_USP'R_DC'5!)I

Iri!..nm Bu;dn~ JnurlJll hllp:/Itri:ua81c.bbtllUmals.com.liri.:mslclpmcwn.'n:fpRi3_rcl~nationlillDistricl_Df_Calllmbial2OIMJJJ241OC75838

Wif.,.H]a TVI.IIy http://u,spotitic:s.cinll.e..':I.comfart:icle.p!rp?nld~834114

W.MY~.J\Il_f'.,3L Cilunl;.-rul<' AL I

hUp:f,_" .... 'U)tv."'um!OkOAJhloory.up1S~12-19oIIJIO

\'t!U1SCn.5-'([lIll1nU:OURt 4H .bup:lJv,._.",:aib<etll.lIlGlobaliswry~'S"'12I'l14\1JO

\ \n·"I'\OC~(!'l!,!~::.-iI_k._A_L) 1mp;/'''_'wy,·.wdT~I~ .... sp1S=Ul94010

W L!! NnC~IO "\Ihan GAl bllp:/horww."''8.1b.oomIGl~hI~.~'1S~121940~Qo

Page 6 of9

100,000 Vil'ilDn!day·

255.000 VilitoB!'day •

100.000 Vi~i~d.iay"

IOO,OClO Vi~ilorsld~ •

100.000 Vigitwsldsy •

100,000 VisitoBldlly·

1,000 Vi.kIOBldBy·

4.000 Visitor~dny ..

100,000 Vi~IO!'l11day •

9,000 VisiiorstdllY"

6,.000 VisiIO'l'Y'ci:ly •

14,000 ViliilOBI'cby·

19.000 Visiklrst'ihy ..

3/25/2010

BDs'iNESSJOURNAL

WBoc~6

WDAM-YV'-,

LAUlt' .loLIInlll.UflJ .... ~

Page 7 of9

'\·/~n·T\· NnC·17 (!_)~ml"'.l!J

hnp:!"'_""". Q= ell ... ..c:.omlGlolWktory"-""'p1 S" 1.21!),1;O LO

Wi\OW·TV AllC,'L\1,,\,_QW.n: n\'~___r.\'all<ql w bllJT.l'-ow.u.1IOW.a-KiIobalfsIOly.2$p1S-1219401D

\\':a:!lhln .. t~n Uu'llnH!l Journal

hnp:/lwMhitl8loo.bi~mIIi.!.oXHII."wHki~knr'prn<lW$l.l,"rclp __ t(:~IlDM.a1J'I)iwit1_of_ColumbiaJ20I0J(JJI24JJJC1S.!l3B

100,000 VititonJdlY •

~"E..t<olnC..3(Lo~ .... iUr J.;'D ht1pd""'._.'Il'~·t:3.ClQlJtlQIWdIII0JY.np?S-12l94OlO

23.DOOViAIONlday·

JY.MY.A1K::lJGrNn 8:1)" WI) hr'P:llw""w"\l.bay,oomfGJOO.o.!r'Mry.upjlS-I,2~-g.jOIO

7,000 Visilorslday·

w SH·T' U~~·I.t1_l'l~FI.J brqdlwww.nbc:-2comf(ibblllfstory..up?S"12194010

wncu-rv ('W_21 (\·0I!:!!D'..l!m:.....n..1lli1

brtp;I ......... _. ,.,iK-'b.lylGlobulht.;ry -""1"8" 1219-10 I 0

W.BO('{'n.~I'_I1' .. !~ ht!p.JIwww.~.comI(jJoo.1IlkII). .•• 1S-12J9-IOIO

43,000 VilliloW"uy'"

WAAr·TV 1'0, '...(; ~ yEGI: Jliirmjnrham iUj'nnlnrl.!.!!!L....ALl htlp".llww""+myIcd.wwIGlobrJj~.&:rp?S-121940l(l

14.000 Vi:sllcrw'~y •

WPTV Cll-~.J (OlllrluUI'.l"CJ bl1p:/h.'WW.",blv.caulGlnb:dlidmy.up'IS'"'12J9.wIO

14,000 VisilOU/day •

~~IL"--l (Buriin:Joo_. \'"0 bllp:ll_,wc.L~~.II!IJ1tS"121~OIO

9,000 Visitorlldu.y "

W('Sf"nL ..... ~(_("harl~ hnp;I!w'...,.,.Ii~'C5nC\llS.ooMlGlobillaory.Mp7S"121940\O

wC\\'C-TV ('W-~llCJnn~~LNO ,·.IIp-JhrI.I'W.l\·cwg20 ,ODIIl/GlabaVsiIIry ...!I:IJl'IS- L21940 10

W\:\1 NJ~C-7(!I:IIn'P!!bllrr-J..a!.l~.l..M.,.\) btlp:l,.,..,...·"'. " .. d:! m.COI'II o'OlobaI/slOry .. up'l'S-121!UO 1.0

wnw CB.'EJ C'U..,.nvi<c V..N i;U~/!WWW.""dbj7.l)OOllGlob~lIstnry..lUp·/S-l219401O

WHRHFO~I (I.<)O.i ... ·iU .. ....KY>

~1www.tOx .. l.eomIOloba.Ifn.>t)·.Dp.lS·121901010

WFCT ~1J(;.t. rn·I~n"..l{g

httJl-:llww ........... ....::Lootn/(;lob4I/!i1ory.aspi'S .. 12 194tJIO

6,000 Visilartfdny +

WFlff-'fV A IlC"l." fEnm"llk I;Y)

b1tp:JIw ....... ncv.'t25.Jl.slGlot .. JI~lOry~up?S,.,121940 10

wf}'F-l'V FOX""" (CoZ,:t,Hltr '~D

hnp:/",", ... "r.~x44 .. n.cVOioblli/~..Ilif''IS''12l9.:IClJO

\\'101'" ~fl('-U_(t:wn'illf' 11';)

bHp;11 __ 14 .... -.fio.oomIGkJbaIfsiJJfy.up? 121940IO

wnx t'O.\:-2' (W~ p~",,__a..~___.__EL) bttp-JI_=""ib: .. onmlGlobalIsmry.:t5p?S-12J'J.4010

1,000 Vi!:iloNlday •

\\'E&JJ-.Dr '1l("'-1I_{)'·~£l'i..Lmm...Qlll k!tp"Jfwww.wrmj"eomIGkIbotr':ol~'_~1S=12(94010

wsrx- ,.. "X-4 tC.p.or_C~l F1)

hnp:/t..."' ..... '.lOx4now.comfGlooll/story • .,p?S-l2J9oKlIO

~.1:fX_(i--TV ... O;b~"\.u.,..~ hUJTJfw'IVW.",U:s.eomIGlol»I/:;;I~..-p1S-1219--1910

3125/2010

Page 8 of9

WGI\j\ .NJ1.C-l_Ii (Grrrn fa ... WII hllp;llwl\w.nbc26.a::III1~:i101:W1'siDry~1S-J2194010

WG."I-TvNnC_IO ~ huplw_.~ . .-BiGk.o.lf:Mty-*"P'lS-12194010

12,000 Vis:ilOr~d:Jy"

WGGB-nt.fO;\:-6~(S~I~,_j'IA.l bltp:II",v;",.""IIl:!b,wm!OIub!IIV-!i!(>ry.'Iillij1?S-J21~OlO

3,000 Vi~iloi)!~d.y •

\VHfit' CJ~ (RlX'k hlmd.JtJ bUp;/IW1\'W.,,'bb[c€ImI'Glm:dfstDl)'.lISp1S=12I9WIO

'\'idol •• Du'ih .. ·., •• ~r.yrn:!J

bnpj,.....,k:billl,bii'jwmaJ.J;..,l1lJ].!..~clDbJ'pmI:W:o ... irai ... lI$5_n:h::iis.:,.,inaLi .... lJI)j,;lnt:l_-l,r_Columlrial2:OlOIOOnMDCT5838

"'lSD' SIK:.1.~

brtp:flww ... ,wiSlv.oom/GlobaIIs1ocy..up?S""1219-WIO

WKrrt_TV CUS-tc{,lt!_('r .... ':!to. WI.)

htrp:'''''''''''1'I. ""thl.l:rmJ(J.IQ1nll~IX)'.mp1 S.-12 J 9-1-0 I 0

\\I)\ow-n:.AII(:,,)~ tsltp:1lwww.w!tO.AOC ... lDOmKHoblll:ao.y.Mp.S-121904010

4,000 Vi~lon/dlly •

\\~j\IJ:C...tLN~:i!k....IID bJlp:llwww.""t:m.«mr'OkJb&o'Rory'U:'p?S-121901010

17,000 VisilOrWday·

,~.~ b1lp:1~"W"1i'lbu::oml(jl~.up'S-12IY40ID

l,OQ(JVisSlMlIo'da},·

WI :....'i.t ('n.~6 (J .. rrdn~_'\J1)

h1tp;f~ ....... ~·In .. canu'OlobIIIlllltuy.up1S-121940JO

4.000Visilor$ld~y •

~()X IIr-IJ~i...JllfiI

hltp;/f.,"NW • ."il>X.C(nIGIch.JI:ilUt)'_tip'tS-l219<I010

1,000 ViSil(Kl"dIY·

wr.,m...:..,' IW.;n iMynk Ikull S(.) bl:1p;/Iwww,"'mbfIlC'l\.~.COOl!'GIOOaV!llory.up'S"'121940 10

W1I. <FtC-5f'h:mpl!h._]]\_)

bup;JI-w_' ...... mct"XQln!G)OO,JIWJJy ..... ip?S<-12194010

WQl.AOC,W"HII.,., r.,lni~

bllp;lIw ... iW .... vi-II' _o:om/GlaMloonry JllIi\I1S"121.9-;lO m

\\'010 cus,rs iQryriln4, QU) h1.1p:'Iww\t,'.I9acliaancWi.l:~lobalfaoty.ap1S-I2I!iUOIO

4.000 VillilOlsldll)' '"

World &"0;-;-0, ~· ..... k"'l

hLIp::/AlIVi!W."'0C"Idbu.siJlcubltJllda:>t_rom!Nev. .. ~~~:5390S~

WR.1I.mbll'"hl &; Co. hl!p::/lstydio-j..finl!m:iak:ao.lenLoomIhtmbn::.::bllX:~lD=J191.t.GUlD-1242n~McdiaVi",'er

3,000 VillilOrYciay"

wile ~TV 'UC-J ICbililllnoo .. Tl\) hUI':tf"''_'.,,"!'Cbrvo.:omIGJoOOaU&COry_1lIJl7· 1219-4010

6,000 Vi:>ilor,:,Jay "

\\'R~JVJillC~13 (Rod •. faro:! ILl

hll;r;{' .. .",~.wrT:xOJdl.t1JlobalIswty.w;p?S"'12194-DIO

14,000 Visi1llr5ilby·

WSto-.\ NHC-ll (It.run11fPl1l1T,' AI')

btlp:/tw.w ..... ,(.>o;:QfJJj(JI,;'O'Ilr'~...iI.?S .. 12194(J1.D

wsrx:nr FOX-26 OVilminl!(II! ~O hHI':/Jwww. wIDc.COO}fGJOO3l/~ory.#Xp1S-l2 1940 10

3/2512010

Page 90f9

WS:_1\'-TV F"Q&!II_{,_'t«itfi Utftd lli) bttp;f/w_Jin28.oomIGlob&Il5:kHy.asp1S-12l94GIO

WS\'1\!.T\,mX-J7(1, .. .rnflz...!ID

h'tp:lfwwwJOx47n ... -w.s..camlGlab:Ulslory .mp7S-121940iU

~"~.i'I~IP"., .......... -, WIEN MIC_lO <A1b.1))'Jrr)

ltIrp:flwww.llo.IaI.ca:nJGlobai/aory ... p7S ... 2194IJIO

"'Tim j\BC-JJ UDdiS,UPUUl, 1'\)

hll(d/'oNww. ,,1b r.oonllGkIbal/Sloty .asp"S"121 ~o I 0

11 ,000 VisitoB'dzy •

'-lVjl_w.~1nzfIJX43.~,I(Hobll)lllory"'5p?s-1219JOIO

.""'9!"I!II"~-----' WIOC cn.'i-l1 ISI\'mnah _Qj_~l

hnp:lIY."I!IIY.I'.1JXl'O',wm{(jlobnll.!11Of"j1'.alj:l'/S-121940 10

~.OOOVi5iI( rr tJd:i.)'''

\\''f\·F·n·('fL .... S(N~,ill~ TN) htrp:/Iw1'.'W.nC1!''''ich.nndS.oomiGkI&llll.kwy.a:sp1S~1l19WIO

4UlOO VisilOnlday •

wrvxr tK'-;lC~GA) bllp:/,Iw\\'W.WlVtfI_-comlG1OOaIlnrny •• ISl;mi-""2194010

'vtlrv-n' ~(Ashbnl.L VAl hUp:l/www.cvmchmw_d.J"J(llobWfs""ry~p'l5"1"2 i94010

~~lCh",dIlJ1I"1"vlll .... \'Al h1tp:llwww..nDcl9.CQfIIK;labal/m;ry.lUp.lS .. 12I!14OIO

WVI\'\-:rv 1~:n_{nlldl"Rr. '1)

btlp-JIu.'Y. ... -iK2l.~kMlI"IQry.-p1S"'121.940ID

~i\ NFlC-6l~qcfiN~W\Q:

Mlp:JI_'\1'_WVY.!LCO.mlGloba.l.l:nory.up1S<-12194010

WWfIT i'i'RC-IZ fRiduliOllld V,\)

bttp:l"...,... ...... nbc12.wmIGk*-U~II;IJ)I~'1S-lll940 10

WWSljAIlC~7'Saruv", FLI I!ltp:'hn\w.",'I'o'5b,lCOmJGk1b:av.,ry_up?S~12I~LO

WX1X FO,"·I uno;-inll .. li ..... OID

bi'tp:jl w "'w.roJ(19_oomlCiloh\l!'aot'y.Df"1S ... 12~~HlIO

U.OCIOVisiIuT.:!ld.llY·

\\?'"TX:.Dr__lUXM (Guldmbu"J1:\J

htlp:/""-w. wxtx.«IIJIJO:klb~ht"')' .O'ep'fS.ooI2 t940 10

WXVT·TV Cas-I!' (Gm'n.-illt I~ hrrp'j/la.'1\'W.WJM.camJGlotWhlory..:ap? 1219-1010

3/25/2010