It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ex-lawyer jailed 14 months, but not charged with a crime

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

U.S. Supreme Court won't hear jailed L.A. lawyer's contempt of court case

Richard Fine, 70, has been in solitary confinement since March 2009, taking his case all the way to the top court. He says he will continue to fight.

Veteran antitrust and taxpayer advocate attorney Richard Fine received an indefinite sentence for contempt of court in March 2009 and has been in solitary confinement in Men's Central Jail ever since. (Francine Orr, Los Angeles Times / January 21, 2009)


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."

this Richard Fine a non violent contempt in jail with felons in Solitary Confinement ! this is when Justice has gone wrong ! Political prisoner is exactly what it is ! The Judges are making him as a Example to other lawyers from doing the same thing ! this is Completely Unconstitutional ! a NON Violent Contempt in Solitary! looks like some judge wants to keep him from talking , reporting to other lawyers ! or inmates! a sort of a shawshank redemption keeping him shut up and locked away there is no other reason for him being in solitary from the interviews i saw CNN aka Time -Warner has a lot of Pull! ?

McCain's Enemy Belligerent Detention Act: Is SCOTUS keeping Richard Fine in jail for a reason?

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?

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by Wolfenz

This is sad news, I was just checking the LA Times web site a half an hour ago to see if I could find News of this.

Thanks for finding it and posting it.

I am at a loss as to what he can legally do next in keeping within the system.

Personally I would be looking at evoking the 4th and 5th clause of the Treaty of Paris long about now and declaring myself an injured party as a result of the Revolutionary War.

This would in essence give Fine back is freedom and one year to settle all debts and collect all debts before leaving the United States as a Persona Non Grata. (Person without a Country)

Though this is dicey since Fine does not live within the confines of the Original 13 colonies, or east of the Mississippi.

Further the U.S. Government claims that only Article 10 of the Treaty is still in full force today.

Though full force and in force are two seperate things.

The LA County Jail is no place really fit for anyone, up to 20,000 inmates are brought in and discharged daily, with most of the facility horridly over crowded.

I am not sure if it exists today, but years ago they had an annex in the old Hall of Justice Building they referred to as the "Softie Tank" were they would keep they young and old and others who requested it, and could display they weren't violent in nature, as well as the confidential informants being segregated in on going criminal cases, and the mentally impaired, and transvestites.

It's possible they do have him there already in solitary there, it used to be you could tell a prisoner's status by the color of their jumpsuits. Blue was general population, Orange was segregated, Red was confidential informants and light blue (powder) were for transvestites.

CNN pictured him in an Orange Jumpsuit the other day, so they still may be using that color code system since he is segregated from the General Population.

The poor man and is family are paying a huge price for his convictions.

Thanks for posting.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:55 PM
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?

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What I mean by 'blind trust' is this.

"A blind trust is a trust in which the fiduciaries, namely the trustees or those who have been given power of attorney, have full discretion over the assets, and the trust beneficiaries have no knowledge of the holdings of the trust and no right to intervene in their handling. Blind trusts are generally used when a settlor (sometimes called a trustor or donor) wishes to keep the beneficiary unaware of the specific assets in the trust, such as to avoid conflict of interest between the beneficiary and the investments. Politicians or others in sensitive positions often place their personal assets (including investment income) into blind trusts, to avoid public scrutiny and accusations of conflicts of interest when they direct government funds to the private sector."

The last sentence is what I was refering to, quite telling. If the judge was 'technically uninformed' of his investment, ie blind trust, would it make his stance legit, or is it different for "Superior Court Justices"?

So my question is, did Yaffe get this cash funneled directly into his own personal bank account? It would seem that he did, otherwise, why would he use his position of authority to manipulate laws for his own benefit? The obvious reason I think is greed and covering his behind. Even though he sets up an innocent man to accomplish his goal.

I think his involvement is dubious. Its pretty much a mockery of the alleged justice system. It almost goes to show how the rules can be made up along the way, with no regards to justice, but selfpreservation instead.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:21 PM

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?

Actually it doesn't look good for him as far as I/we can tell.

It seems that the hearing of sorts was Monday and not today, and it was a Writ of Habeus Corpus presented to the United States Supreme Court and not a hearing in Los Angeles.

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.

Thanks for checking back in.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:31 PM
It is frustrating to hear the honorable Richard Fine has met yet another hurdle and failed to clear it. When people insist on expanding, the physical universe will do all it can to prevent that. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The reaction of The SCOTUS was sadly predictable. However, this battle is far from over, and the honorable Richard Fine, a modern day St. George, should not be alone in slaying these dragons. While it is necessary that there are those who do what they can to get this noble man freed from this travesty of justice, it is also necessary to keep fighting the dragons. Perhaps, if the law will not stand for the honorable, then it becomes necessary to cut off the head of the beast. In this case, the most clear and present danger of a beast, would be the most Dis-honorable In-Justice David Yaffe.

Here is a bit of background on this horrible excuse of a man. A journalist for The Daily Journal, by the name of Roger M. Grace, has been following the misdeeds of the scoundrel Yaffe as far back as at least 2001. Here is the link to his article; Perched on a throne in Wonderland, written Tuesday, May 22, 2001. Here is the beginning of that article:

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.

Grace speaks to a common trait of judges, and their relationship with lawyers:

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.

Grace speaks to Yaffe's legal reasoning:

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."

I will come back to more quotes from Grace, written specifically about Yaffe, but first allow me to offer a few more sites that have been closely watching this monster; The American Homeowners Resource Center has much to offer. Interestingly enough, another site called Ron Kaye L.A. reports of an entirely different issue involving the scumbag Yaffe, which is titled; Breach in City Hall's 'circle of deceit': Judge demands transparency in agendas, in this article, Kaye quotes Yaffe directly:

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.

Now how ironic is that? Another site called, which is the home to The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials, has an article called; Is Judge David Yaffe a serial scofflaw, greedy, a moron and Il Duce Wannabee?, that gets right to the heart of the matter from the get go:

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)

The next paragraph, defens, may answer your question, at least partially;

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.

Another site, called Courthouse forum is a message board where people can enter their comments about the shenanigans of these monsters of the priest class set. Another page on this forum allows you to vote for the worst judge, and this page here gives you the opportunity to vote for Yaffe as the worst judge ever. When I discovered this site late last night, the vote count was 50, and my vote made it 51, someone else has voted since then bringing the total at this writing to 52. I urge all who read this post to go in and cast your vote for the monster Yaffe as the worst judge ever. Another site, called Rate this judge, offers the same opportunity, thus far, there is one thumbs up for this clown, and with my thumbs down vote it is now 17, please add your thumbs down as well.

This site here is a petition all can sign, that is targeted towards California Attorney General Jerry Brown, and Senator Diane Feinestein, in regards to the excrement known as David Yaffe. This site here offers Definitive Evidence Produced of Wrongdoing by Judge David Yaffe, Los Angeles Superior Court, and where the main stream media is intent on framing the honorable Richard Fine as a kook, this site here offers just one account of this noble mans efforts throughout the years:

"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."

The Supreme Court should mighty proud that they endeavored to protect so many criminal judges in California, by declining to hear Fine's case. An L.A. Times written nearly a decade ago, gives some insight into the legal mind of Yaffe when: Judge Orders Review in Firing of Officer;

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.

There is much more to tell of this horrid creature called Yaffe, but I am out of space and time, and have much research to do in terms of Title 42 lawsuits, judicial immunity, and suing and even arresting criminal judges such as the deviant David Yaffe. I will return later with more.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:52 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

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.

Wow I thought that some good would come to the matter, but yet again, the system has proven truth and convictions irrelevant.

I'll keep looking in to see how this fairs in the times ahead.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by theability

Hey dude, I am in Austin right now

5/25 Hearing

I would cut and paste from this document, but it is at scribed and they will not let you download without a facebook account. It is a hearing that was set on the 25th, yesterday, to release Fine, regardless of the Supreme Court stance. It looks like a document he filed; and, I can find no more information on it. The Supreme Court deal was on the 20th.

I do not know how to find the outcome of this hearing, but since nothing is on the news, probably not much came out of it.

edit to add: They are calling this a Farr Hearing.

from Full Disclosure network

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.

Full Disclosure Network

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.

Torture Complaint Filed with United Nations

[edit on 26-5-2010 by ogbert]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:56 PM
What the hell?

This is total new world order!

You can't lock someone up for 14 months without giving them a trial!

You can't force a lawyer/doctor/psychiatrist/journalist/etc to give up information about their client/source.

Doing things like that is EVIL and goes against the whole spirit of our society.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:07 PM
Yeah, kinda reminds me of an old movie from 1991.

Part of Script from "Other People's Money", starring Danny Devito.

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!

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by ogbert

That was a great movie, have you had any luck digging up what happened in the LA hearing yesterday?

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Nothing yet. The only thing I can garner is that he had his day in court, but nothing on the outcome. There was also a motion filed to the United Nations on the grounds of torture.

I am just too naive. I read that the Supreme Court ruled that no one can be held for longer than 5 days on "coercive confinement". Yet, that is not clear enough for the judicial system in LA. I would love to be on a jury in this matter. To me that seems pretty simple. I also read that the judge was seeking legal counsel on how to handle this.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by ogbert

It is an interesting appeal when you start approaching the Interntional Bodies to intercede.

Ultimately the Judge involved might now have to start weighing whether he has opened himself up to possible criminal charges based on his handling of the matter.

They might have Fine locked up, but his ability as a former lawyer to churn out an endless stream of appeals and motions, to all the possible entities is bound to garner more and more attention.

The fact that social networking sites like ATS are starting to discuss this issue is a good thing too in my humble opinion, as it allows the authorities involved to determine the true public mood, and whether their ability to shape it in acceptable ways in the press is actually being viewed as acceptable.

It would probably be a good idea to keep his plight circulating and a matter of discussion.

After all at the very least the judge eventually has to face reelection.

Thanks for staying on top of all this.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:12 PM
This type of stuff can be such a slippery slope. For example, what if they believe you have something that you do not have? Then they find you in contempt and lock you up until you hand it over...

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by ogbert

I do not know how to find the outcome of this hearing, but since nothing is on the news, probably not much came out of it.

Well keep me updated on current events.

BTW Austin rules.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:49 AM
According to this video it appears that Mr Fine's incarceration was at the behest of some developers that want to build on land that is owned by the county but is leased to the developers. The Marina Del Ray land however is supposed to be natural land protected by the county from development. Presumably any judge that would oversee a dispute over county land use would be a county judge. Currently the LA county judges are in a conflict of interest in deciding county matters given that they are getting bonuses from the county even though the county judges are actually employees of the State of California not the county of Los Angeles. And it is this conflict of interest that Fine was trying to expose before his current incarceration on contempt charges.

It almost seems like we have a real life 'Pelican Brief' going on here!

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:49 AM

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.

Perfect analogy, do you want to live in a bully state?

With the principle of reciprocity in mind does the man in question deserve this punishment, I say no.

With all the powers taken by the state it has been decided to crush this man, while the case the state is claiming to protect and represent is lying in limbo, nothing is being achieved except the state showing its power and wealth and its willingness to use both at whatever cost to achieve its aims.

I found myself wondering as I thought about this case " How would Sweden or Norway handle this case" I don't know but would be willing to bet it would be in a more humane manner".

If all they wanted was the information it could have been found through another route, what the state actually want is the submission and the chance to demonstrate its power.

In taking this course of action in this and other similar cases I wonder what percentage of the US population would support their actions.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Thepreye]

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 09:05 PM
Richard Fine Released!

Wonder what's gonna be up next?

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in