Full Disclosure Network®: Ninth Circuit Court STAYS Richard I Fine Disbarment Case Linking It To Judicial Bias Case

Share Article

A Ninth Circuit Court Stay Order in a disbarment case provides a new twist in a ten-year legal battle for the beleaguered Anti-Trust attorney Richard I Fine who has been held in solitary confinement in the L.A. County Central Mens Jail since March 4, 2009. Fine was sentenced indefinitely, without bail or hearing date, for civil contempt of court, by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe for refusing to comply with a court order. At his March 4, 2009 Superior Court sentencing hearing, (No. 109420) Mr. Fine attempted to disqualify Judge David Yaffe from sitting the case noting he had been receiving payments from L. A. County, an interested party in the case (Marina Strand Colony Homeowners Assn. vs. County of L.A.) A transcript of Mr. Fine's court testimony, under oath is available at this URL: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/FineContemptTranscript3-4-09.pdf. Mr. Fine also cited the October 10, 2008 Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling in Sturgeon vs County of L.A. (No. D050802) that held the payments by the County to the Judge were illegal. A copy of the ruling is available here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/sturgeon-v-losangeles-ruling.pdf.

a significant overlap between the discipline case and the issues raised by respondent's pending habeas petition Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (No. 09-56073)

On Wednesday, September 2, 2009 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Commissioner Peter L. Shaw issued a Stay Order regarding the Disbarment case of Richard I Fine vs California Supreme Court (No. 09-80130) pending his appeal of the U. S. District Court denial of his petition for a Writ a Habeas Corpus. The Order cited "a significant overlap between the discipline case and the issues raised by respondent's pending habeas petition Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (No. 09-56073)". Complete details, links to court documents and developments leading up to the Stay Order can be found on the Full Disclosure Network® News site at

URL:http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/09/9th-circuit-orders-stay-in-disbarment.html

JUDGE FAILS TO RECUSE FROM SITTING ON CASE
At his March 4, 2009 Superior Court sentencing hearing, (No. 109420) Mr. Fine attempted to disqualify Judge David Yaffe from sitting on the case, noting he had been receiving payments from L. A. County, an interested party in the case (Marina Strand Colony Homeowners Assn. vs. County of L.A.). A transcript of Mr. Fine's court testimony, under oath is available at this URL: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/FineContemptTranscript3-4-09.pdf. Mr. Fine also cited the October 10, 2008 Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling in Sturgeon vs County of L.A. (No. D050802) that held the payments by the County to the Judge were illegal. A copy of the ruling is available here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/sturgeon-v-losangeles-ruling.pdf.

NINTH CIRCUIT STAY LINKS DISBARMENT TO JUDICIAL BIAS ISSUE:
Following U S District Court Judge John F. Walter's order denying Richard Fine a Certificate of Appealablity "with prejudice" on August 12, 2009, Ninth Circuit Court Justice Andrew J. Kleinfeld restored his rights to appeal "on the issue of whether or not the Trial Court (Judge David Yaffe) should have recused himself." Read Judge Kleinfeld's Order here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18502225/9thCircuitCOAGranted081209.

RICHARD FINE'S REACTION TO JUDICIAL BIAS LINK & NINTH CIRCUIT STAY ORDER

  • "This is highly significant because the issues in the disbarment and the issues in the Writ are identical. The California Supreme Court disbarred me because I brought federal civil rights cases against the judges because they were taking illegal, criminal and unconstitutional payments from the county."
  • "The underlying issue is whether the Judges were denying people due process because they were taking money from the county. And, we know that the money they were taking from the county was unconstitutional under the Sturgeon case and it was criminal under Senate Bill SBX2 11 and we know those actions were a denial of due process of under the various U S Supreme court cases from 1927 through 2009."
  • "So in the end when the 9th Circuit will decide that it was a denial of due process for Judge Yaffe to have received illegal, criminal and unconstitutional payments from the county, a party to the case. This decision will control the disbarment proceeding."
  • "There is further significance because four of the six California Supreme Court Justices who refused to review the Disbarment case and thereby caused the disbarment also had received illegal, criminal and unconstitutional payments from the counties and the other two Supreme Court Justice are members of Judicial Council who wrote the Senate Bill SBX2 11. (Retroactive Judicial Immunity from Criminal and Liability Prosecution) "These justices should have recused themselves from the disbarment case and by not doing so denied me due process under the US Supreme Court's cases."

The Full Disclosure Network® hosted by Producer Leslie Dutton and Producer T. J. Johnston will soon release the latest video news blog reports and cable television programs on the Richard I Fine case covering the Court procedures and document handling in the Federal Courts.

# # #

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

LESLIE DUTTON
Visit website