Category: SBX211

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

US Supreme Court agrees to hear the case of attorney Richard Fine, a 70 Year Old lawyer languishing in “coercive confinement” after accusing the courts of throwing cases in favor of the county “The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to consider the case of a 70-year-old taxpayer advocate … While the main issue before the high court is whether a person can be held in coercive confinement for such a long time,” “For the last quarter of 2005, not one case that was decided by a judge of the LA Superior Court was decided against LA County. For the year 2006 to 2007 not one case decided by an LA County Judge was decided against LA County…. So we know that the cases that have come in have basically been thrown” Attorney Richard Fine, telling it like it is REDDIT Attorney Richard Fine, telling it like it is. Richard Fine is still talking about these lieing ass judges and others. MAKING THE DEFINITION OF “FINANCIAL INTEREST” THE SAME FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, GOVERNMENT AND AGENCY EMPLOYEES AND JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS AND REQUIRING JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS TO MAKE LEGALLY… Read More

By Alex Alexiev April 27, 2010 8:40 PM On April 23, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for “stay of execution” (of coercive confinement for civil contempt of court) by attorney Richard I. Fine in the case of Richard Fine v. Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-1250). In doing so, the highest court of the land has refused to rectify a clear-cut case of judicial corruption in the state of California. So whose Richard Fine and how did he run afoul of the law? A distinguished attorney with a doctor of law degree from the University of Chicago Law School and a Ph.D. in international law from the London School of Economics, Mr. Fine has practiced law in government service and private practice for 42 years and achieved considerable distinction in both. He has served in the antitrust division of the Justice Department, founded the Anti-Trust Division in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, and was awarded the prestigious “Lawyer of the Decades” award in 2006. He has also won numerous cases on behalf of California taxpayers in state courts, including a 2003… Read More

Read More