It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
His imprisonment is "the latest encounter in the 10-year campaign by Fine to restore due process in the California judicial system," the attorney, who has been representing himself, wrote in his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Fine is the only attorney, of the approximately 208,000 California attorneys, with the courage to challenge the California judiciary," he wrote.
"I'm in fighting condition," he said. "They haven't broken me down and they won't break me down."
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court just reviewed attorney Richard Fine's habeas corpus case and gave it a pass. Poor sweet attorney Fine has been held in the slammer on a bogus contempt-of-court charge for over a year now. Further, he's being held in the Los Angeles County Central Men's Jail, one of the most violent and overcrowded jails in the country. This man is 70 years old, in failing health and has never committed a crime in his life. What's wrong with this picture?
Originally posted by theability
Sorry for jumping in late in the day: but how did the release hearing for fine go?
Is he out, or still a Patriot in lock-up?
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.
I have witnessed his outbursts. They are frequent. But they are directed selectively. An attorney with graying hair who’s a member of a top-notch firm is not going to be the object of his wrath; a pro per or a young sole practitioner is. Conduct so innocuous as speaking the words, "Your honor may I interject?" may trigger a quickie tantrum, depending on the status of the person doing the interrupting.
And I’ve observed Yaffe’s quirks. Chief among the quirks is that he indulges in a fantasy of infallibility. He decides cases on bases not advanced by the parties, but conjured up by himself, and does not permit an opportunity to brief the propositions he’s interjected. After all, a proposition spawned by David P. Yaffe could not possibly be wrong.
My negative perception of this jurist, I have found, is shared by others. If I bring up the topic of David Yaffe in conversations, I hear comments such as "he’s crazy" and "he’s a contrarian son of a bitch." (Each of the persons so labeling Yaffe is a leading practitioner.) A Superior Court judge told me he avoided talking with Yaffe at a judges’ event, saying, "I would have puked all over him."
Judge Yaffe in equivocal terms told the Planning Commission its practice on CEQA issues is "unlawful and is to be discontinued" and that it must provide the public with the same "clarity, particularity and detail" it provides on other issues before it.
During his tenure on the bench in LA, Judge David Yaffe found it acceptable to consistently violate the California Constitution by accepting nearly $50,000 a year in County benefits when in fact the State of California was paying the same exact benefits on his behalf.
In the early 1990s, California unified its court system and assumed the financial responsibility of paying the wages and benefits for all of California’s nearly 2,000 judges. A California Court of Appeals recently ruled it was unconstitutional (illegal) for Judge Yaffe and his cohorts (at least 500 of them) to accept dual benefits (aka, double-dipping)
It would be absurd for Judge Yaffe to assert that he was ignorant of the fact it was illegal to collect nearly $50,000 a year from LA County for the same benefits he received from the State. I suppose Yaffe will argue that he was ignorant of the law. As we all know, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense; however, in many instances it is a stepping stone to higher office.
"Richard Fine worked to force the County of Los Angeles government to pay out $14 million in child support payments that they collected from parents paying it to the county as required by law. These child support payments that were supposed to go to families were being held by the County of Los Angeles and not being distributed. Amazingly, even though this is illegal, the county courts approved the action. Later, it was discovered that Judge James Chalfant who approved this illegal hoarding of funds was being illegally paid under the table by the County of Los Angeles."
In his Tuesday ruling in a Ballestero's lawsuit against the city, Yaffe said he could find "no substantial evidence" that the officer used excessive force in arresting Steve Rivers and Michael Zinzun during a violent confrontation in 1986 with residents of the Community Arms apartment complex.
Yaffe said "abundant evidence" exists that excessive force was used against Zinzun, who was blinded in one eye, but the evidence did not prove that Ballestero was the one officer among many at the scene who harmed Zinzun.
The Supreme Court of the United States declined to consider the matter. So as things appear to stand now Fine is indefinately detained pending his cooperation in the contempt of court matter.
LASD Sgt. Richard Valdemar was the supervising Sergeant during the custody of newspaper reporter William T. Farr during the Charles Manson case who worked for both the Los Angeles Times and Herald Examiner during the trial. He was held in "coercive confinement" for civil contempt of court for 47 days and won a 1974 U S Supreme Court Decision held that no person could be held over 5 days in "Coercive Confinement" for civil contempt of court."
This two-part series reveals the contrasting jail policies and conditions that existed when William T. Farr was jailed versus those of Richard I. Fine who has been held illegally for fourteen months and details how the elected officials and judges can abuse their power to selectively punish political prisoners.
The complaint filed was made public by Richard I. Fine on March 25, 2010 in his Los Angeles Superior Court “Demand for an Immediate ‘Farr Hearing’”. He included the United Nations Human Rights complaint, his declaration describing how the California and United States Courts have intentionally violated Court Rules, due process and his basic civil and human rights.
You know what happens
when capitalism gets ****ed up?
The communists come back.
They come out of the bushes.
Don't kid yourself.
They're waiting in there.
But maybe that's not so bad.
Because you know what happens
when the commies take over?
The first thing they do
is shoot all the lawyers!
Originally posted by g146541
Bigger kid basically has little kid in a headlock, as soon as lil guy says UNCLE! He gets released and big guy walks away.