1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Whistleblower Richard I. Fine Ph.D former U.S. Prosecutor.

Discussion in 'The Other Side Of The Hill' started by Michael Stogner, Feb 4, 2015.

  1. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    spent 18 months in Los Angeles County Jail for contempt of court. He reported Judges receiving illegal payments from the County, he also made the Public aware of SBX211 which made retroactive the immunity of criminal acts by Judges.
    SBX2 11 is a California Senate Bill passed in 2009. The bill was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009. The bill reinstated certain supplemental benefits for judges and gave them retroactive immunity for accepting compensation from the county of Los Angeles, which the Constitution clearly states shall be set by the legislature. A story about the bill, and a link to it, can be found at Full Disclosure Network.[1]

    Ronald George is the chairman of the Judicial Council of California which wrote SBX2 11.,[2]

    An organization known as Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the county. In October 2008, a California appellate court decision, Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles declared the payments by the county to the judges were unconstitutional, thus reversing the decision made by a Superior Court of Los Angeles.[3][4]

    In March 2009, attorney Richard Fine, was jailed in retaliation for exposing the corruption, now involving all branches of California government. More information can be found in the story by Full Disclosure Network. From his jail cell, Fine filed various motions and petitions, including a certiorari petition in Supreme Court of the United States. The question before the court was whether or not Judge Yaffe should have ruled in a case which Fine represented plaintiffs in, against the county of Los Angeles, which has been paying Yaffe and other judges the supplemental benefits for years. According to the U.S. Supreme Court docket information on Attorney Fine's petition the justices were set to discuss the case on September 29, 2009 and denied the petition on October 5, 2009.[5]

    Ron Branson encountered the same type of bias by judges in 1982 while helping a friend with a case against the county. He wrote Judicial Accountability Initiative Law in 1995 after he brought a lawsuit in 1994 against the county and seven police officers for false arrest, false imprisonment and unwarranted strip-search, as well as other charges; and when the City of Los Angeles defaulted, no judgment came, although the Constitution mandates one be rendered within ninety days of default. Branson’s biography, as well as the amendment to a state or federal Constitution, known as J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law), can be found at: JAIL 4 Judges.





     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2015
  2. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    This is what happens to Whistleblowers.
    ATTORNEY SEARCH


    Richard Isaac Fine - #55259
    Current Status: Disbarred

    This member is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.

    See below for more details.

    Profile Information
    The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.

    Bar Number: 55259
    Address: Richard Fine & Associates
    468 N Camden Dr #200
    Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone Number: (310) 277-5833
    Fax Number: (310) 277-1543
    e-mail: rifinelaw@earthlink.net
    County: Los Angeles Undergraduate School: Univ of Wisconsin; Madison WI
    District: District 2
    Sections: None Law School: Univ of Chicago Law School; Chicago IL
    Status History
    Effective Date Status Change
    Present Disbarred
    3/13/2009 Disbarred
    10/17/2007 Not Eligible To Practice Law
    5/3/1973 Admitted to The State Bar of California
    Overview of the attorney discipline system.

    3/13/2009 Disbarment 04-O-14366 Disbarred
    10/17/2007 Ordered inactive 04-O-14366 Not Eligible To Practice Law

    Administrative Actions

    This member has no public record of administrative actions.

    Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.

    available upon request. Only Opinions designated for publication in the State Bar Court Reporter may be cited or relied on as precedent in State Bar Court proceedings. For further information about a case that is displayed here, please refer to the State Bar Court's online docket, which can be found at:http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx

    DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only allegations of professional misconduct. The attorney is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until the charges have been proven.

    Effective Date Case Number Description
    3/13/2009 04-O-14366 Opinion [PDF]
    California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries
    Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.

    March 13, 2009

    RICHARD I. FINE [#55259], 69, of Beverly Hills was disbarred March 13, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.



    The State Bar Court’s review department upheld a hearing judge’s recommendation that Fine be disbarred because he committed 16 acts of moral turpitude in numerous civil proceedings. Although the appellate panel reversed some of the lower court’s culpability findings, it found that the judge’s disbarment recommendation was appropriate in light of Fine’s “repeated abuse of the judicial process.”


    Fine raised several procedural and constitutional claims for the first time on review, and they were rejected. Fine also attacked the sufficiency of the culpability findings, but the review department upheld those for the most part, finding that the hearing judge “fairly and fully reviewed” the evidence.


    Fine repeatedly sued both state and federal judges, challenging their qualifications. His misconduct started with a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles in which the commissioners ruled against Fine’s request for attorney fees. Thus began “a pattern of deliberately misusing the process for challenging a judicial official,” wrote review Judge Joann Remke. “Even after (Fine) was repeatedly warned and sanctioned for his abusive behavior in state court, (he) continued his tactics in the federal courts where he repeatedly filed meritless lawsuits against judicial officers.”


    When his case went before the bar court, he filed 27 motions to disqualify various judges: five against the trial judge, five against the supervising judge, three against other judges who were not involved, six motions to disqualify the presiding judge of the review department and eight to disqualify the other review judges.


    Fine has long contended that the charges against him are politically motivated. The cases he filed against judges were not retaliatory, he said, but instead were based on his belief that judges who accept money from a county fund to augment their compensation have a conflict of interest in any matter involving government municipalities.


    Fine was jailed indefinitely in March on contempt of court charges — for refusing to answer a judge’s questions and practicing law without a license. He remained in jail last month.
     
  3. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  4. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  5. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

Share This Page