Category: Dr. Richard I. Fine

No comments

September 6 2023 A Day of Infamy for Justice in America

  By , , , , , , ,

A bold headline! What does it mean? September 6, 2023, is the last day that the California Legislature can amend pending California Assembly Judicial Committee Bill AB 1756, “Omnibus Judicial Legislation” to end thirty-seven (37) years of judicial corruption depriving California citizens and residents due process and an honest judicial system. The judiciary illegally accepted approximately $1-1.1 billion from California counties and courts, in violation of the California Penal Code’s “bribe” and related sections, and the federal criminal law 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 – “The Intangible Right to Honest Services” under which “Bribery” is an element to prove. The California Legislature has refused to stop the corruption for thirty-seven (37) years: (1) since 1985 when the “illegal payments” began; (2) 2000 when Richard I. Fine “discovered” the hidden illegal payments and exposed them in court documents; (3) 2008 when the California Court of Appeal held the payments violated the California Constitution; (4) immediately followed by 2009 when the California Judicial Council, the courts and the judges prevailed upon Darryl Steinberg, President pro Tempore of the California State Senate to falsely claim an Emergency Session of the State Legislature and pass… Read More

No comments

PODCAST RICHARD FINE Judicial Reform August 27, 2023

  By , , , , , , , , , , ,

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION SOLUTION WHY IS THIS LEGISLATION NEEDED: This is a response to the systemic emergency judicial crisis in California existing since 1985 when individual counties and courts commenced paying State Superior Court judges sitting on State Superior Courts for their counties “supplemental or local judicial benefits” in addition to the State compensation (salary and benefits) paid to the judges by the State causing disparity in judges judicial salary and benefits, double taxation for citizens and residents in the “paying counties”, “unconstitutional (unlawful) ‘supplemental local judicial benefit payments’” to the judges resulting in 90% of California’s Superior Court judges receiving “bribes” under California and federal criminal laws; WHO CAN APPLY FOR THE COURT VICTIM ABUSE SUPPORT, OR WHOSE ELIGIBLE? Court Victims from cases since 1985 Civil, Criminal, Family, Juvenile, Probate, Appellate and Supreme Courts What states are eligible, this bill needs to be initially in one state, after which it can be passed in all states WHAT DO COURT VICTIMS RECEIVE? Read the Legislation HERE victims get compensated starting at $1-10 million and cumulating, the judge who committed the misconduct is reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance who must… Read More

Judge David P. Yaffe — Perched on a Throne in ‘Wonderland’

  By , , , , , , ,

Judge David P. Yaffe — Perched on a Throne in ‘Wonderland’ By ROGER M. GRACE I’m not exactly objective when it comes to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe. I can’t stand him. I’ve appeared before him in three cases. (The Daily Journal Corporation sought to wrest a City of Los Angeles contract from the Metropolitan News Company, and lost; MNC pushed for rescission of two County of Los Angeles contracts awarded to DJC, and lost.) Too, I’ve viewed Yaffe’s handling of numerous other cases with which I’ve been unconnected. I commented in a column on Sept. 15 on one proceeding I viewed while waiting for a matter to be called; Yaffe imposed a $200 sanction on a plaintiff’s lawyer for not giving notice of a status conference to lawyers for the other parties. The problem was that there were no other attorneys of record in the case. And Yaffe imposed that sanction on Aug. 24 notwithstanding that one day after he issued an OSC re sanction on July 26, the Court of Appeal, in a published opinion, invalidated a sanction meted out under identical circumstances. From what… Read More

RIGHT TRUMPS MIGHT Los Angeles Times Continues Silence On Subject of Corruption

  By , , , , , , ,

Los Angeles Times Continues Silence On Subject of Corruption Savannah Winslow shares her latest email to Los Angeles Times writer George Skelton: “[California Senate President] Darrell Steinberg. Fearless proponent? Or lapdog.” “Steinberg co-authored Senate Bill SBX2-11, the ‘smoking gun’ proof of judicial corruption in Los Angeles County. SBX2-11, you’ll recall, forgave the commission of (literally) ten million felonies committed by Superior Court Judges and County Supervisors under a scheme specifically forbidden by the Constitution. The scheme involved counties illegally giving judges (who are well-paid state employees) monies under the table, hidden from the public for at least twenty years. ‘Smoking gun proof’ in the sense that there was no need to retroactively immunize an act unless a crime had been committed.” “By the end of this month, at least eight judges will have been sued, as individuals not judicial officers (meaning no immunity), as a result of their having received County monies while ruling in cases in which the County has an interest, a clear denial of due process and an obstruction of justice. Thousands of such cases will be filed before this is over. (The geniuses who crafted SBX2-11,… Read More

77th Installment. The Richard Fine Story: An Objective Analysis

  By , , , , , , ,

77th Installment. The Richard Fine Story: An Objective Analysis The wrongly decided Fine v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 651 (continued) Commissioner Bruce Mitchell’s findings of fact need not detain us. By refusing to release his death grip on Fine’s case and finding Richard Fine guilty of criminal contempt, Commissioner Mitchell deliberately acted without jurisdiction, proving his bias. Another way Commissioner Mitchell expressed his lawless subjectivity was soliciting defense counsel to respond to Fine’s appeal. (Ibid.) Mitchell’s hubris led to greater openness than wisdom would have prescribed, but the Court of Appeal’s bias in his favor outweighed the commissioner’s foolhardiness. Although the Court of Appeal admitted this was Fine’s most serious charge, the court responded with an unsupported legal conclusion: Commissioner Mitchell, when advised that Fine had appealed from the “order” purportedly made on December 1, 2000, properly suggested that a response to the appeal would be in order and that the party responding could be entitled to attorney fees. (Ibid.) How could the Court of Appeal miss the impropriety when a judicial officer exploits courtroom command to gain unfair advantage? How could it miss the commissioner’s deliberate misstatement of… Read More