Commencing in the mid to late 1980s California Counties and State Superior Courts began paying State Superior Court judges (Trial Court judges) payments in addition to their State Compensation. These payments were called “Supplemental or Local Judicial Benefit Payments” (payments). California Constitution, Article VI, Section 19, required Judicial State Compensation could only be set by the California Legislature. The payments were held to violate the California Constitution in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), Review Denied, 2009).
In response, the California Legislature approved and Governor Schwarzenegger signed SBX 2 11 on February 20, 2009, Effective May 20, 2009: (1) allowing the payments to continue in Section 2 and adding such as Section 68220 to the California Government Code; (2) defining the payments to include salary, compensation, benefits 401K and 457K plans in Section 3 and adding such as Section 68221 to the California Government Code; (3) stating nothing in SBX 2 11 requires the Judicial Council to pay for judicial benefits or previous benefits in Section 4 and adding such as Section 68222 to the California Government Code.
At all times, the payments violated both California and federal Criminal laws as “bribes” under California Criminal law and 18 U.S.C. Section 1346- “the intangible right to honest services” under Federal law.
SBX 2 11 addressed the California violations in Section 5 with retroactive immunity as follows:
“Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity, or
officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any
liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of this act on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.” (Emphasis added.)
AB 2960 was an Omnibus Judicial Bill drafted by the California Assembly Judicial Committee, considered and amended by the California Senate Judicial Committee, approved by the California Legislature on September 9, 2022, and signed by Governor Newsom on September 9, 2022 to clarify the workings of the California Judicial Branch.
The Omnibus Judicial Bill encompassed non-controversial matters and did not address any substantive issues.
An Omnibus Judicial Bill comes up every two years for consideration.
How Will the “Fine Legislation” Help You
The “Fine Legislation”:
(1) Amends SBX 2 11 by establishing a California State Citizens Commission (Commission) to oversee the Judicial Branch of the California government by:
(a) Compensating the victims of judicial misconduct and/or judicial abuse of power through monetary payments of $1-10 million for specific categories of damage cumulated for a total dollar damage determined and awarded by the Commission, paid directly to the recipient by the California Controller, who reports the victim identified “judicial officer” to the Commission on Judicial Performance on a monthly and annual basis;
The categories are:
“(aa) $1 million tax free per year for each year from January 1, 1985 onwards for defamation (including libel) caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power which existed or continues to exist;
(bb) $10 million tax free per year for each year from January 1, 1985 onwards for unlawful incarceration caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power which existed or continues to exist;
(cc) $10 million tax free for fraud upon the court caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(dd) $10 million tax free for fraud caused by caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(ee) $10 million tax free for intentional interference with contract caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(ff) $10 million tax free for negligent interference with contract caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(gg) $10 million tax free for intentional interference with prospective business advantage caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(hh) $10 million tax free for negligent interference with prospective business advantage caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(ii) $10 million tax free for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(jj) $10 million tax free for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(kk) $10 million tax free for bias against self-represented litigants from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(ll) $10 million tax free for bias against litigants with physical or mental disabilities from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(mm) $10 million tax free for abuse against litigants over 65 years old (elder abuse) from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(nn) $10 million tax free for any other cause of action not mentioned above caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;
(oo) $10 million tax free for any other unmentioned misconduct or abuse of power by the “Judicial Officer” (Referees, Commissioners, Temporary Judges, Superior Court Judges, Court of Appeal Justices and/or State Supreme Court Justices) from January 1, 1985 onwards; and
(pp) additionally for attorneys who brought cases against counties or the courts of the State of California from January 1, 1985 onwards:
(1) one third (33.33%) of damages alleged or shown in any case prior to trial dismissed by a Superior Court judge who received “supplemental or local judicial benefits” or other unlawful payment;
(2) forty percent (40%) for any case settled or dismissed prior to trial; and
(3) one half (50%) of damages awarded at trial and/or then denied or overturned by the California Supreme Court, any panel of a State Court of Appeal or Appellate Division of a Superior Court upon which a justice or judge who violated or is violating paragraph (2)(a)-(c) above was or is a member;”;
(b) The Commission on Judicial Performance is required to resolve all complaints from any source within six months of the receipt of any report, complaint, or source;
(i) with a written decision containing the reasons for the decision signed by the Commissioners; and
(ii) in the event such investigation is not completed with a signed report within the six-month period of time, the Commission on Judicial Performance shall be deprived of all State Compensation and benefits until such Report is filed and with the Commission on Judicial Performance and served upon the Controller/source/complainant;
(c) The Commission on Judicial Performance is required to make semi annual reports to the California State Auditor; and
(d) The California State Auditor is required to continually audit the Commission on Judicial Performance and to make an annual report to the California State Legislature with recommendations for legislation, if needed; and
(2) Repeals SBX 2 11 Sections 2, 3 and 4 along with Government Code Sections 68220, 68221and 68222;
(3) Amends AB 2960 by:
(a) adding a Section to establish a twenty four (24) year term limit on all Judicial Officers, in particular, the members of the judiciary who received retroactive immunity from civil liability, criminal prosecution and disciplinary action under SBX 2 11, Section 5, thereby allowing any criminal action under 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 to continue unabated with those judicial officers and allowing both state and federal criminal actions to be brought against any subsequently appointed or elected judicial officers receiving “supplemental or local judicial benefits” from counties or courts;
(b) adding a Section precluding any Judicial Officer who received or is currently receiving “supplemental or local judicial benefits from a county or court” from holding a State elective or appointed office; and
(c) adding a Section requiring any State Superior Court Judge seeking re-election in an unopposed general election, be required to be on the General Election Ballot in a Retention Election requiring 50 plus percent of the votes cast be to retain him/her to retain the State Superior Court Judge position.
The “Fine Legislation” also contains a section of “egregious examples” of judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power with payouts under the sections and a section showing the composition of the State Commission with responsibilities, terms and original individuals.
“AB 1756, the 2023 draft of the Omnibus Judicial Legislation which has yet to be enacted by the California Legislature does not contain any of the amendments to SBX 2 11 enacted as Government Code 68220-68222 or to be added to SBX 2 11 or the amendments to be added to AB 2960 in the “Fine Legislation”.
The “Fine Legislation” may be adopted for any State with changes made unique to such State.
What is totally disgusting about this man is how he hides the criminal he really is via the background of high-end legal law schools, awards and assignments, but the truth is, he created SBX 2 11 to help his fellow lawyers and judges to escape any accountability or prosecution for being part of the exposed bribery of over 90% of California Superior court judges. This is common for the most evil, dishonorable, criminal judges or lawyers to hide behind a false image of good or honesty.
California Bar Attorney Profile Ronald Marc George #36837
License Status: Active
Address: 1333 Jones St #706, San Francisco, CA 94109
License Status, Disciplinary and Administrative History
All changes of license status due to nondisciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions.
Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action Present Active 1/3/2011 Active
6/7/1965 Admitted to the State Bar of California
PONDERING WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION: THE COLLAPSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA
The California Legislature, Governors, and Attorney Generals are violating California’s laws, protecting crooked judges. There has been a breakdown of “checks and balances” and constitutional government in California. The dominant real rule is “No man/woman is above the law.”, not “Too big to jail.” To read this op-ed with excellent formatting, please go to my campaign Internet site, http://www.petermancus.com.
This document discusses, in detail, what is perhaps the largest, and longest lasting, judicial scandal in the history of the United States. This assertion is rooted in fact. It is not hyperbole.
In or about 2000, California licensed attorney Richard I. Fine discovered that counties in this state were paying illegal extra compensation to hundreds of state judges in violation of California’s Constitution. These payments, as a matter of law, constitute bribery. The offering of these payments, per state and federal law, is a crime. The acceptance of these payments, per state and federal law, is a crime.
The counties made these illegal payments to motivate judges to rule in their favor.
These payments create a conflict of interest for the judges who accept them and raise doubts if a judge who accepts illegal payments is ethical, professional, and worthy of sitting in judgement over others.
When Mr. Fine learned of these illegal payments, he investigated, and he discovered objectively verifiable evidence that the judges who accepted these illegal payments in almost 100% of all cases, ruled in favor of the county who paid them illegal payments.
Per California law, Mr. Fine has an ethical duty to represent his clients competently and zealously. To his credit, he filed formal legal challenges to judges who had accepted illegal payments to disqualify them from sitting on a case that he presented. Mr. Fine did not want to risk his clients’ cases by presenting them before tainted judges.
A compelling argument can be made that Mr. Fine would have had a meaningful exposure to a claim of legal malpractice if he did not file challenges to disqualify judges who took illegal payments.
After Mr. Fine filed these challenges and pressed this conflicts issue, in open court, and outside of court, a growing number of state judges, apparently feeling uncomfortable being in the spotlight Mr. Fine placed on them, abused their power, beginning with verbally pressuring Mr. Fine to stop pressing the conflicts issue arising from them accepting illegal payments.
Mr. Fine, understandably, is jealous of his vital First Amendment Right to Free Speech and Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances. He is also a fearless, conscientious, principled, attorney, with convictions and the courage of his convictions, who refused to be intimidated by any judge.
After Mr. Fine repeatedly pressed these issues, while always remaining 100% factual and truthful, one judge who had accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal payments from LA County, arbitrarily, without prior notice, ordered him to be incarcerated. Mr. Fine, who has never been convicted of a crime, spent 18 months in the LA County jail under “coercive solitary confinement”. While Mr. Fine was incarcerated, the LA County Sheriff released many convicted criminals before they served their sentence due to lack of funds to keep them incarcerated. One reason LA County lacked money to keep convicted criminals incarcerated is because they had paid hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal payments to the 400-430 state judges sitting in LA County, for years.
Dr. Richard I. Fine, to his credit, did not yield to the judge’s oppression, just to get out of jail.
While incarcerated, Mr. Fine filed formal legal challenges to his incarceration, unsuccessfully.
Lawyers for the County of Los Angeles and the developer who were litigating against Mr. Fine’s clients in the case which led to the incarceration and another case, were also members of the Board of Governors and two consecutive presidents of the State Bar of California. They violated the law and committed misdemeanors by not disclosing their conflicts of interests, abused their positions of trust as governors and presidents of the State Bar and motivated the State Bar to collude with these corrupt judges and certain corrupt LA County officials to have Mr. Fine disbarred on trumped up, non-meritorious, alleged “moral turpitude” charges.
Mr. Fine, however, never did anything dishonest or contrary to good moral behavior.
Eventually, the State Bar recommended that Mr. Fine be disbarred, and the California Supreme Court ordered Mr. Fine to be disbarred.
Mr. Fine challenged the disbarment or the unlawful incarceration in various courts, including the California Supreme Court, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Sadly, no judge+state or federal+who was provided an opportunity to uphold his vital constitutional rights, did anything meaningful to provide him with any effective legal remedy. These judges circled the wagons to protect the usurpers, some of which included themselves, and denied Mr. Fine any relief.
After Mr. Fine demonstrated that after 15 months of incarceration he was not going to yield to the judicial tyrant who ordered that he be incarcerated, that tyrant admitted that he made a false order, resigned [retired] midterm from his judicial office and unilaterally ordered that Mr. Fine be released from jail after 18 months of illegal incarceration.
In making that order, that judge could not resist the temptation to smear Mr. Fine. That judge opined that it was pointless to keep Mr. Fine further incarcerated. According to this judge, “Coercive confinement of a contemnor is only effective if the contemnor is capable of making a rational choice between the alternatives available to him. It is now likely that Fine is incapable of doing so.” Apparently, this judge misconstrued Mr. Fine’s convictions and courage as irrational behavior or, in the alternative, simply wanted to smear Mr. Fine.
Shortly thereafter, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, who had been a Superior Court judge in LA County, abruptly resigned [retired] rather than run for re-election, and a few months later an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court resigned [retired] who also had been a Superior Court judge in LA County with approximately 10 years left in his term.
After his release, Mr. Fine sought an order setting aside the void incarceration order. Three judges recused themselves [refused] to hear the motion, a third judge who took illegal payments from LA County denied the motion Mr. Fine submitted, and the court filed a notice that the Order of Contempt and incarceration were void and null based upon extrinsic fraud upon the court.
Mr. Fine also filed a federal civil rights suit against the California State Bar, the State Bar Board of Governors, the State Bar Chief Trial Counsel and the individual justices of the California Supreme Court to enjoin them to set aside the void disbarment based upon extrinsic fraud upon the court and to declare certain laws unconstitutional including Senate Bill SBX 2 11.
The State Bar defendants, to their credit, responded by admitting in court papers that the disbarment was a fraud.
Based upon that admission, Mr. Fine asked the California Supreme Court to set aside its void disbarment order. The State Bar did not oppose the motion. Inexplicably, however, the justices on the California Supreme Court denied the motion, despite a California Rule of Court that states that a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to granting the motion.
The official biographies and the 2009 California Judicial Council Report to the State Legislature demonstrate that five of the California Supreme Court justices who ordered Mr. Fine’s disbarment, and four of the current California Supreme Court justices, when they were Superior Court judges, accepted unlawful payments from counties in violation of California’s Constitution and federal criminal law.
California’s Attorney General, California’s Governor, and the District Attorneys of the various counties in California, all, by force of law, have a law imposed duty to see to it that the laws of this state are properly enforced. Sadly, to date, no State officer and no county prosecutor has done anything to stop these illegal bribes to state judges or to hold anyone who offered these bribes or any judge who accepted these bribes accountable.
Once it became clear that the judiciary was not going to intimidate Mr. Fine to shut up and go along to get along, major components of the California judiciary, including two judges who then sat on the California Supreme Court, drafted a proposed bill to “fix” [e.g., give them pseudo fig leaf protection]. These non-Guardians of Liberty, these Spreaders of a Legal Version of the Bubonic Plague, successfully got the California Legislature to pass, and the California Governor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, to sign into law, a law that purported to give these law violators, hundreds of them, and perhaps more than 1,800 of them, retroactive immunity from criminal punishment for what they did.
By seeking this retroactive immunity, these judges virtually acknowledge they knew that their acceptance of these illegal payments was a crime, committed by them.
An official grant of blanket retroactive immunity to hundreds of judges’s who accepted bribes and to many county officials who unlawfully offered bribes is unprecedented and is an egregious abuse of power.
All three branches of California State government+Judiciary, Executive, and Legislative+have failed to manifest any meaningful “checks and balance” on the other’s usurpations of power or dereliction of duty or both. To exacerbate matters, no District Attorney has elected to file criminal charges against any judge who has accepted a bribe or against any county official who has offered a bribe.
Per these facts, there is only one logical conclusion: There is rampant, on-going, unchecked, widespread, corrosive, corruption in California that undermines confidence in every branch of the California state government.
Per these facts, this is probably the largest and longest lasting judicial scandal in the history of the United States.
Mr. Fine, who manifested outstanding fidelity to the real controlling law, integrity, extreme professionalism under stress, and remarkable sustained personal courage, remains disbarred, with, so far, no effective legal remedy.
The corrupt judges in this state, and the State Bar of California, as a result of their colluding to retaliate against Mr. Fine, have sent a chilling message to all California licensed attorneys: “Don’t mess with the judges! Do that, and you will end up like Mr. Fine+incarcerated and disbarred.”
This message is more than chilling. It is callous and ruthless in the extreme.
This message is a strong disincentive for any attorney to represent a client zealously before a judge, e.g., this message encourages attorneys to not file motions to disqualify judges who have accepted illegal payments.
This message sends these additional messages: The judges are determined to cram their usurpations down anyone who dares to challenge them.
The judges are determined to keep their illegal payments.
The judges are determined to continue to collect these illegal payments.
The judges are determined to refuse to admit any wrongdoing.
The judges are determined to keep their positions even though they are, by force of law, guilty of a felony and unfit to remain a job.
The judges are determined to wink at the law and deem these illegal payments to not be bribes.
The judges are determined to do whatever they need to do to corrupt the other branches of government and to corrupt other state officers, so they can get away with their greed and keep their jobs and their income stream.
The current crop of judges have no strong sense of “right and wrong”, at least when their perceived vital interests are at stake.
These judges are determined to keep themselves above and against the U.S. Constitution, California’s Constitution, the real American Constitutional Rule of Law, and “We the People”.
These judges are determined to prove that they are above the law.
These judges are determined to prove that their gall and their audacity is unlimited.
These judges are determined to prove that they are untouchable.
These judges are determined to prove that, in their hands, “justice” means “Just for us . . . because we say so and we stone wall and we are willing to abuse our power.”
An official government report has stated that there is evidence that approximately 90% of California’s 1,900 judges have accepted illegal payments.
By force of California law and federal criminal law, any judge who has accepted an unlawful payment has committed a felony, is unfit to continue to function as a judge, and is barred for life from holding any State office.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the California Governor, the California Attorney General, the counties’ District Attorneys, the U.S. Attorney General, the FBI, the ACLU, and the State Bar of California all refuse to do anything to stop these illegal payments from continuing to be made, and since, apparently, approximately 90% of California’s 1,900 State judges are accepting these illegal payments, it appears that only a mythical Hercules is powerful enough to clean out the fecal matter piled high in California’s government’s stables.
Algernon Sidney, 1623-1683, was an English politician, patriot, intellectual, and political theorist who authored a classic on law, politics, and government titled Discourses Concerning Government. In section 36, he articulated a simple, effective, reliable test to determine if an official is good or bad. He wrote:
They who know the frailty of human nature, will always distrust their own; and desiring only to do what they ought, with be glad to be restrain’d from that which they ought not to do.
Thus, the best way to determine if an official, including a judge, is good or bad, is this: Just tell him, or her, hey, what you are doing is wrong; here’s why: X, Y, Z. Stop doing what you are doing. It’s wrong. You are abusing your power. Then wait to see if the person continues to do what is wrong.
Richard I. Fine, repeatedly, in an exemplary, ethical, responsible, professional, manner told many judges that what they were doing was wrong. He told them why. He proved he was right. He proved the law and the facts were on his side. He asked them to stop+politely and repeatedly.
The judges did not stop. They persisted. They retaliated+severely,. One ordered him incarcerated and kept him incarcerated for 18 months. They continued to accept illegal bribes. They even went out of their way to seek and to get retroactive immunity for their wrongdoing. They also manifested extreme, ruthless, meanness: They went out of their way to have Mr. Fine disbarred, and they have denied him any remedy.
Along the way, so far, as far as Mr. Fine can determine, each of the following statements, sadly, is 100% true:
No judge who has accepted an illegal payment has returned any money.
No judge who has accepted an illegal payment has declined to accept anymore.
No judge who has accepted an illegal payment has stepped down.
No judge who has accepted an illegal payment has admitted any wrongdoing.
No judge has said a kind word about Mr. Fine.
No judge has offered Mr. Fine+or the real controlling American Constitutional Rule of Law+a saving hand.
No one has shown any inclination to stop these illegal payments.
No one has shown any inclination to prosecute these judges and hold them accountable.
Bottom line: These judges are not good, kind, people who made a mistake. These judges are cunning, calculating, cold, callous, hard, mean, vindictive, petty, arrogant, smug, condescending, drunk with power, entrenched, and corrupt. These judges are not “glad to be restrain’d from that which they ought not to do.”
A Chronology of Material Facts Establishing Wide Spread Corruption in California
The facts stated below are derived from the following sources: A) a verified First Amendment Complaint in Case No. 2:10-CV-00048-JST-CW, Document No. 45, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, which is available from PACER, involving an attorney named Richard I. Fine, B) telephonic conversations I’ve had with Mr. Fine, C) primary and secondary legal materials and scholarly historical materials, and D) my review off the official Internet site for the current incumbent for the California Assembly District 10..
This chronology of material facts is comprehensive. It starts with the world-famous Magna Carta, from 1215 because the facts of that document, and some of its content, are relevant to what has happened in California and where Californians are in 2012, 800 years later. This comprehensive view is necessary to convey the gravity of the stark facts confronting Californians in 2012.
As you read this chronology of facts, be patient. Reading this chronology is analogous to watching a baked product cook and slowly rise. I assure you: If you read this chronology, eventually, the stark significance of what I want to convey to you, what you need to know, will click in your brain, and, when that happens, BAM! That will be similar to an amazing realization, like a thermonuclear bomb, going off in your psyche . . . when you realize how serious and how extensive is the corruption in California . . . and how this corruption, guess what?, has a serious adverse impact on you and your loved ones.
Attorney Richard I. Fine, who has personal knowledge of facts stated in this chronology, below, reviewed this chronology multiple times to ensure its accuracy.
6-15-1215 Armed English Barons, supported by armed peasants, delivered an ultimatum to an English King John, namely, sign the Magna Carta [the great charter of English liberty], or be executed. King John signed. The Magna Carta, historically, is the forerunner of the American July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. King John, by so signing, agreed to 63 itemized rights of Englishmen. A relevant selection of some of these rights are stated below, verbatim.
39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, . . . or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed+nor will we go upon or send upon him+save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
Note: “[B]y the law of the land” is the root of the American phrase “due process of law” as used in the U.S. Constitution.
40. To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.
45. We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.
52. If anyone shall have been . . . removed, without a legal sentence of his peers, from his . . . liberties or lawful right, we shall straightaway restore them to him. . . .
Note: After King John signed the Magna Carta, he later reneged and many English kings, for centuries, refused to comply with the Magna Carta. These rights, during those centuries, were won, lost, won again, lost again, and won again, over and over. Civilization is a history of the struggle to achieve a proper balance between government’s powers and people’s rights.[/sixcol_five_last]
7-4-1776 Many of this nation’s most important Founding Fathers signed the world-famous July 4th, 1776 Declaration of Independence, which set forth their grievances against another English King John. Some of these grievances are stated below, as exact quotes or as paraphrased. It should be noted that some of these grievances are similar to the ones stated in the Magna Carta from 1215.
“He [King John] has . . . subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. . . . .”
Note: “[P]retended legislation” is another way of expressing usurpation, namely an abuse of power under color of law.
“For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments: . . . .”
Note: I selected this grievance from 1776 because Californians in 2012 continue to be plagued with the same damn types of usurpations.
“He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. . . .”
“In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Note: Sadly, there is a contemporary meritorious factual basis for these same grievances.[/sixcol_five_last]
1787-1790 The original ex-British colonies in the New World, which became states, ratified the U.S Constitution.
Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution declares that, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; . . It shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]
Article V of the U.S. Constitution states that amendments to it are part of the Constitution and, thus, part of the supreme law of the land.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 states, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”
Note: This is the only place in the U.S. Constitution where the word “immunities”, or any form of the word “immunity”, is used. In context, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution used the phrase “privileges and immunities” to be an all-inclusive, broad, far ranging, professional expression, which is now somewhat archaic to us, 230 years later, to mean this: A) “rights” and B) a citizen who responsibly exercises a “privilege” [which was, to the Framers, interchangeable with “rights”] is immune from any form of legal punishment or retaliation for responsibly exercising any privilege or right.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 defined “treason against the United States” to include giving enemies of the U.S. “aid and comfort.” Such treason can be proved “on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
Article III, Section 1, Clause 8 barred any “title of nobility” in the U.S.
12-15-1791 The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, the first ten amendments to it, were ratified. By force of Article V, these amendments automatically became part of “the supreme law of the land”.
The First Amendment codified [guaranteed] “freedom of speech” and the right “to petition government for a redress of grievances.”
The Fifth Amendment guaranteed that, “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; . . . .”
Note: 1. This amendment amounts to a mandatory, absolute, binding command on the government and its agents. It is a command, not an aspiration or an option. The government and its agents do not have discretionary or actual authority to dish out only that amount of “process” which they arbitrarily deem a person is “due”. This amendment guarantees a mandatory, unequivocal, unqualified, absolute “due process of law”. The scope of this “of law” includes every right and every command declared in the entire U.S. Constitution.
2. Arbitrariness is the mortal enemy of, and the antithesis of, “due process of law”.
The Eight Amendment makes “cruel and unusual punishments” illegal.
1791-to date American Presidents and Secretary of States, increasingly, asserted, and continue to assert, that the U.S. is entitled to be “the leader of the Free World” because A) the U.S. is the only nation where citizens enjoy an assured, meaningful “due process of law” and B) only in the U.S., is this maxim, allegedly, a reality: “No man is above the law.”
Note: Cynics, with good cause, do not believe that the U.S. delivers assured “due process of law” to its citizens, and cynics also believe that some Americans are “more equal” than others and are “above the law” and enjoy what amounts to pragmatic defacto “titles of nobility”.
12-6-1865 The Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. This amendment distinguished between “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” [which is much broader than “slavery] and made both illegal in the U.S.; however, “involuntary servitude” would be legal if, it is “a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted . . . .”
Note: The key here is this: Until a person has been duly convicted, e.g., in accordance with “due process of law”, no one in this nation can be lawfully reduced to the unenviable state of “involuntary servitude”, namely, without rights.
7-9-1886 The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. This amendment states that, “. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person or life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Note: This is the second time citizens are guaranteed “privileges or immunities” and “due process of law.”
1954 The U.S. Supreme Court in Offutt v. United States (1954) 348 U.S. 11, 14, held that “a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice.”
1960 The U.S. Supreme Court in Levine v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 610 said that, “justice must have the appearance of justice.”
1964 The U.S. Supreme Court, in Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) 379 U.S. 64, held that “the right of a citizen to severely criticize the performance of the government and the courts is beyond cavil.”
Note: Cavil means a frivolous objection.
5-3-1973 Richard I. Fine was admitted to the State Bar of California
1973-2007 Richard I. Fine maintained a squeaky clean record with the State Bar of California. He was a “lawyers’ lawyer”. He has a B.S. from the University of Wisconsin, a Doctor of Law from The Law School, University of Chicago, a PhD in Law (International Law) from the London School of Economics & Political Science, University of London and various certificates and diplomas in public and private international law and comparative law. He was a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division in Washington, D.C., founded the first municipal antitrust division in the U.S. for the City of LA, and was a section chairman in both the State Bar of California and the LA County Bars. He was also a member of the Board of Directors of the American Society of International Law and the Bureau of National Affairs Antitrust Advisory Board in Washington, D.C. Additionally, he was the Consul General for the Kingdom of Norway in Los Angeles, representing Norway in five Southern California counties. He had an extremely successful, rewarding, legal career, handling successfully multiple complex cases involving large dollar amounts in controversy, changing the way government functioned, and became known as a “crusading attorney”, the “taxpayer advocate attorney” and “the private attorney general” for the cases he brought against government abuse, corruption and misuse of funds.
1974 to date Article VI, Section 19 of California’s Constitution states, “The Legislature shall prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record. . . . .”
Note: 1. Article VI, Section 19 has been construed to mean that only the California Legislature can determine how much California state judges are paid and only the State of California can pay these judges.
2. There are excellent public policy reasons for this constitutional limitation on who gets to pay California’s judges and how much. This rule makes it illegal for anyone else to pay judges, which is intended to avoid the payment of bribes and the corruption of judges.
3. Per this rule, the California Legislature cannot lawfully delegate to anyone or any entity lawful power to compensate California state judges and any compensation for California state judges of courts of record that does not come from the State of California, as determined by the California Legislature, is unconstitutional and unlawful.
Article V, Section 14 a of California’s Constitution makes it illegal for any state officer to knowingly receive any salary, wages, commissions, or other similar earned income from any lobbyist. Section 14 b) makes it illegal for any state officer to “accept any honorarium.” Section 14 c) makes it illegal for any state officer to accept a gift “from any source if the acceptance of the gift might create a conflict of interest.”
Article V,Section 1 states, “The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully executed.” [Emphasis added.]
Article V,Section 13 of California’s Constitution states:
Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney . . . . Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of the law of which the superior court shall have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have all the powers of a district attorney. . . [Emphasis added.]
1985-to date LA County Auditor/Controller documents obtained by Attorney Richard Fine showed that LA County officials, in approximately 1985 to 1988, and, perhaps earlier than 1985, started to pay 400-430 California State judges sitting in LA County extra compensation, in violation of Article VI, Section 19 of California’s Constitution.
Note: Based upon these documents, Mr. Fine believes that these initial unlawful payments were probably approximately $30,000, each, per year, per judge and that currently, these extra payments are approximately $57,000 annually for each judge.
11-10-1988 A letter by a LA County Counsel stated that “compensation [referring to Article VI, Section 19 of California’s Constitution] is now commonly used to mean salary and fringe benefits. This LA County Counsel cited two California Attorney General Opinions that concluded that only the State Legislature can prescribe compensation for state judges, citing County of Madera v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 665 as authority. This author also declared “judges are technically state constitutional officers”.
1988 to date Approximately 400-430 California State judges sitting in LA County, each year, have been actively concealing and failing to disclose their acceptance of these unlawful LA County payments to them, and, once Mr. Fine started to publicly object to these payments, many of these judges have actively fought to conceal these payments, while some of them have openly retaliated against him.
1988 to date As far as attorney Richard Fine knows, to date, no California State judge has refused to accept any unlawful extra compensation offered to them, and none has returned any of the unlawful payments.
1990 to date Despite the Catchpole holding, even though attorney Richard Fine has filed many formal legal challenges to the impartiality of State judges sitting in LA County, alleging they illegally accepted bribes and, therefore are unfit to sit as judges and are debilitated by a material conflict of interests, only one judge recused [withdrew] from a case.
1995 The California Supreme Court in Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 866, 904, held that a judge who accepted gifts, financial benefits and favors from a lawyer or a litigant who appeared in the judge’s court must disqualify himself/herself in order to avoid “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.”
Catchpole v. Brannon (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 237, 246 held that if an average person could entertain doubt about a judge’s impartiality, when challenged, the judge must disqualify himself.
1999 U.S. v. Adams (1999) 179 F.3d 793 held that payment by a party and an attorney appearing before a judge amounts to a bribe that violates 18 U.S.C. Section 1346, which guarantees “the intangible right to honest services.”
2000 Upon becoming aware of LA County’s illegal payments to State judges sitting in LA County Mr. Fine began to file formal legal challenges to the correctness of judges presiding over cases where they had received money from LA County when LA County was a litigant in the case. Mr. Fine, an accomplished, successful, active, litigator, then started to file California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.3 objections, to disqualify judges assigned to his cases, based upon these LA County payments to the judges, on the grounds that these payments were illegal bribes that created a conflict of interest or the appearance of same, and he had a duty to represent his clients zealously, which required him to make these challenges, all of which are protected Free Speech per his First Amendment Right to Free Speech and Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances.
2001 Mr. Fine observed that LA County seemed to be winning an extraordinarily high, abnormal, percentage of the civil cases in which it was a party, which aroused his curiosity and motivated him to investigate. Mr. Fine soon discovered that LA County officials had been paying all of the 400-430 California judges sitting in LA County, an extra payment, going as far back to at least 1988, and perhaps as far back as 1985 or earlier. Mr. Fine believed, and still believes, that these LA County payments to California judges in LA County violate Article VI, Section 19 of California’s Constitution. Mr. Fine also believed that LA County gave these judges this extra compensation to influence the judges’ decision to rule in favor of LA County and, therefore, these payments amounted to illegal “bribes” under law. 2001-2009
Once Mr. Fine started to make these formal legal challenges, he also went public, spoke out about this situation. He filed federal civil rights cases challenging the payments as violations of due process and violations of Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution. He filed challenges to judges who accepted such payments. The judges retaliated by secretly instituting charges against him with the State Bar, which filed a complaint against him in 2003, dismissed it in 2004 and again in 2006, but not for filing the cases against the judges over the county payments.
2005 to date
The State Bar of California has had, and continues to have, the following “Mission Statement”:
The purpose of the State Bar of California is to ensure that the people of California are served by the legal profession in a manner consistent with the highest standards of professional competence, care, and ethical conduct; to carry out such additional programs as may be required by law or by rule of court; and to contribute generally to the science of jurisprudence and the administration of justice to the extent and in a manner consistent with the First Amendment rights of its members. [Emphasis added.]
The State Bar of California’s Internet site also says what follows about its “Vision of the State Bar”:
A State Bar with productive working relationships with its stakeholders, including the State Supreme Court, the Judicial Council of California, the Legislature, the Governor, members of the legal profession and the administration of justice in the State of California.
Mr. Fine was attorney of record in complex civil litigation in cases against LA County and developers, were the opposing parties were represented by two successive Presidents of the State Bar of California. These State Bar Presidents did not disclose their conflicts of interest in violation of law and used their influence with the State Bar to disbar Fine for their personal benefit to win the cases in which they, as LA County’s attorneys, LA County, or the developer’s attorneys were opposing Fine and Fine’s clients.
The State Bar of California knowingly filed non-meritorious false charges against attorney Richard I. Fine, accusing him of acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption. The State Bar also engaged in various procedural shenanigans, which denied Mr. Fine “due process of law”. Inexplicably, instead of giving Mr. Fine a meaningful, real, “due process of law”, they callously dished out only that measure of “process” which they arbitrarily deemed he was “due”, all with the calculated purposed of denying him his First Amendment Right to Free Speech, Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances, and his Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments rights to “due process of law”, to retaliate and to punish him for refusing to be silent about corruption among State judges sitting in LA County.
The State Bar of California declared attorney Richard I. Fine to be involuntarily inactive, which is virtually tantamount to disbarment. Mr. Fine removed himself from every case in which he was the attorney.
State judge David Yaffe, sitting in LA County, without prior notice to Mr. Fine, who was no longer the attorney in the case, illegally ordered him to pay attorney fees and costs to an opposing party and to LA County who was also an opposing party.
State Judge David Yaffe claimed to make an order that Mr. Fine did not have the right to challenge Judge Yaffe’s order.
State Judge David Yaffe, sitting in LA County, when questioned by Mr. Fine, admitted that he had taken LA County payments.
Mr. Fine filed and served State Judge Yaffe with a CCP Section 170.3 Disqualification. State Judge Yaffe did not respond and was disqualified under CCP Section 170.3c(4).
State Judge Yaffe refused to obey the law and remove himself from the case and entered an illegal judgment for Mr. Fine to pay attorneys fees to the opposing parties.
The State Bar of California recommended that attorney Richard I. Fine be disbarred. The State Bar Review Department’s Opinion was based solely on documents which Mr. Fine filed in court cases. The State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel admitted in court papers that the State Bar was not prosecuting Fine for any statement he made in a document, any “speech” or any “rhetoric”, all of which were protected by the First Amendment. The State Bar abandoned its case. The recommendation did not become final until November 29, 2008.
Before the State Bar recommendation became final, the California Court of Appeal decided Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 630, Review Denied 12/23/2008. Sturgeon held that Los Angeles County payments to State judges sitting in LA County violated Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution.
The State Bar Review Department refused to file Mr. Fine’s motion for rehearing based upon the Sturgeon Decision.
State Judge Yaffe held a Contempt Trial against Mr. Fine. Mr. Fine challenged Judge Yaffe’s right to be the judge in the case where he is taking illegal money [bribes] from LA County who is a party in the case. Judge Yaffe was the first witness in the case. He was also the judge for that case. This is a violation of due process, as Judge Yaffe is “judging his own actions”. Judge Yaffe, under questioning by Fine in open court, admitted, under oath: A) he received LA County payments; B) he did not report them on his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests; C) he had no employment arrangement for services with LA County; and D) he could not remember any case in the last three years that he decided against LA County.
After the Sturgeon case, the Judicial Council of California, which is part of the Judicial Branch of the California government, the California Judges Association, and the LA Superior Court drafted Senate Bill SBX211. On 2/14-15/2009, the Legislature passed the bill. Section 5 of Senate Bill SBX 2 11 gave those who offered judges illegal bribes and those judges who took bribes retroactive immunity, which is an awful, indefensible breach of the sacred public trust, unworthy of any public official.
Article I, Section 7, Clause (b) of California’s Constitution states, “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.”
It is unprecedented for the State of California to grant any class of citizens, especially judges who accept bribes and persons who offer bribes to judges, “immunity”.
There is no known history of the Legislature granting this kind of retroactive immunity to so many high level state officials, especially judges.
The Legislature certainly did not grant such immunity “on the same terms to all citizens.” Thus, this, in addition to being a violation of multiple laws, also amounts to a violation of “Equal Protection of the Laws” and a denial of “Due Process of Law”.
Article I, Section 9 of California’s Constitution also states, “A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contract may not be passed.” [Emphasis added.] All State judges have a contract of employment with the State, and, per that contract, they are duty bound to limit their compensation to the amount determined by the California Legislature. State judges who accepted bribes violated their contractual obligation to the State and to “We the People”, in violation of the sacred trust that they owe “We the People”. Worse: The Legislature’s retroactive grant of immunity to hundreds of judicial officers guilty of multiple felonies, e.g., accepting illegal payments monthly, smacks of being an impairment of the judges’ “obligation of contracts”.
From this perspective, when these other laws are factored in, it is, arguably, incredible that learned judges earning a legitimate six-figure annual income dared to think that the mere passage of SBX 2 11 was adequate to extricate them from the deep legal and unethical holes they dug for themselves. It is not.
When State judges on the take resorted to SBX 2 11, seeking retroactive immunity for their criminal conduct, they virtually admitted their knowledge of their culpability; otherwise, they would not seek retroactive immunity.
2-20-2009 Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger approved California Senate Bill No. 11, aka SBX 2 11. Section 5 of this bill added to the Government Code Section 6822 the following retroactive grant of immunity, which is quoted, verbatim, below.
Notwithstanding any other law, no government entity, or officer or employee of a government entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to any prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a government entity prior to the effective date of this act on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.
3-4-2009 Judge Yaffe held Mr. Fine in contempt for refusing to disclose his assets in an attempt by Judge Yaffe to enforce an illegal judgment for attorneys fees in the case where Judge Yaffe received illegal payments from LA County. Judge Yaffe illegally ordered Fine jailed under “coercive, solitary incarceration”. Mr. Fine started to serve incarceration in LA County jail pursuant to Judge Yaffe’s order.
Note: Mr. Fine ended up serving 18 months incarceration.
3-25-2009 The California Supreme Court ordered that attorney Richard I. Fine is disbarred.
Note: At that time, three of the then existing California Supreme Court justices [Chief Justice George, Associate Justice Moreno, and Associate Justice Kennard] received illegal payments from LA County when they were Superior Court judges sitting in LA County, two [Associate Justices Chin and Corrigan] received illegal payments from Alameda County when they were Superior Court judges sitting in Alameda County, and two of these justices, [Chief Justice George and Associate Justice Baxter], were among the persons on the California Judicial Council that drafted Senate Bill SBX 2 11, which gave them retroactive immunity for accepting county bribes, according to the information contained in the official biographies and the 2009 Judicial Council Report to the State Legislature.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept Mr. Fine’s petition to take his Habeas Corpus case, despite the clear violations of the U.S. Constitution. In July 2010, the Supreme Court again refused to hear the Habeas Corpus case even after being informed that Judge Yaffe admitted to committing a fraud upon the court by making a false order on 3/18/08 and fraudulently represented that he had made such order to the U.S. District Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
State Judge Yaffe admitted in court papers that his 3/18/08 order stating that Mr. Fine does not have standing to challenge him was a fraud and was never made or entered. This order was the basis for all other orders in the case. Judge Yaffe resigned [retired] mid term effective September, 2010. Within a few days, California Supreme Court Chief Justice George announced his resignation [retirement]. A few months later, California Supreme Court Associate Justice Moreno resigned [retired] with approximately 10 years remaining in his term of office.
8-10-2010 Mr. Fine filed a motion to set aside all void judgments and orders of State Judge Yaffe based upon extrinsic fraud upon the court. The motion was first taken off the calendar by State Judge Yaffe, reset before State Judge Jones who recused herself, reset before State Judge Chalfant who recused himself, reset before State Judge Berle who recused himself and finally set before Retired State Judge O’Brien who had taken approximately $230,000.00 in illegal payments [bribes] from LA County while he was sitting as a Superior Court judge. State Judge O’Brien denied the motion on 1/7/11 and subsequently denied a motion for rehearing on 6/2/11.
Note: Question: Do these facts, so far, want to make you puke?
9-17-2010 LA County Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe issued an order releasing Richard I. Fine from incarceration in the LA County jail and left the bench.
Note: Attorney Fine, at age 69-70, spent 18 months incarcerated, without being duly convicted of any crime.
Mr. Fine, to his credit, manifested convictions and the courage of his convictions. He never yielded to Judge Yaffe’s oppression.
While the LA County Sheriff kept Fine incarcerated, that Sheriff was releasing large numbers of convicted criminals, before their sentences were served, due to lack of space and lack of funds to keep them incarcerated.
One major reason the LA County Sheriff lacked space and funds to keep convicted criminals incarcerated, while maintaining Fine incarcerated, is this: LA County had spent approximately $350 million in taxpayer revenue giving illegal bribes to State judges sitting in LA County, 400-430 of them, for years, to influence them to rule in favor of LA County.
At approximately this time, LA Auditor/Controller documents show that Judge Yaffe has taken approximately $827,000 in illegal bribes from LA County.
The Court of Appeal in the Sturgeon case determined that LA County’s illegal payments to State judges sitting in LA County amounts to approximately 27% of their state salary, which, excluding benefits, is approximately $178,000 per year.
Mr. Fine determined, based on an LA County Counsel Annual Litigation Reports for FY 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, that no person won a case against LA County when a Superior Court judge made the decision, which contrasts with what happened when a jury made the decision.
Mr. Fine determined, based on an LA County Counsel Annual Litigation Reports for FY 2008-2011, that in FY 2008-2009 one person won one case against LA County decided by a State judge sitting in LA County and that from FY 2009-2011, no one won a case against LA County when a State judge sitting in LA County made the decision.
LA County is one of the most frequent civil parties in civil litigation in LA County, with 650-850 cases per year, the most frequent intervener in Family Law Cases, the only party prosecuting criminal felony cases through the LA District Attorney’s Office and sharing prosecution of misdemeanor cases with the LA City Attorney’s Office.
3-16-2011 The Sturgeon holding was affirmed in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, (March 16, 2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 344, 355-356 Review Denied 3/16/11. The court stated at pages 355-356:
“However, on its face SBX 211 is not a permanent response to either the constitutional issues we identified in Sturgeon I or the difficult problem of adopting a compensation scheme that deals with varying economic circumstances in an equitable and efficient manner. Thus, we would be remiss in discharging our duties if we did not state that while the Legislature’s interim response to Sturgeon I defeats the particular challenges asserted by Sturgeon in this litigation, that interim remedy, if not supplanted by the more comprehensive response SBX 211 plainly contemplates, most likely will give rise to further challenges by taxpayers or members of the bench themselves. As we noted at the outset, the issue of judicial compensation is a state, not a county, responsibility. We are confident that the Legislature within a reasonable period of time will act to adopt a uniform statewide system of judicial compensation.”
5-11-2011 Mr. Fine filed a Verified First Amended Federal Civil Rights Complaint in the U.S. District against the California State Bar, the State Bar Board of Governors, the State Bar Chief Trial Counsel and the individual justices of the California Supreme Court to enjoin them to set aside the void disbarment based upon extrinsic fraud upon the court and to declare certain laws unconstitutional including Senate Bill SBX 2 11. On 6/24/11, U.S. District Court Judge Josephine Staton Tucker dismissed the Verified First Amended Complaint and Mr. Fine appealed to the 9th Circuit.
7-22-2011 The Superior Court filed a Notice of Void 1/7/11 and 6/2/11 Orders and Disqualification of Judge Robert H. O’Brien (1) for Having Taken $277,925.64 in Illegal Payments from LA County, a Party to this Case and Not Disclosing Such Payments; (2) under CCP Section 170.3 c)(4) for Having Failed to Respond to the Notice of Change of Place, Date and Time for Notice of Motion and Motion for Renewal of the Motion to Void and Annul All Orders and Judgments Including Those in the Contempt Proceedings in the Case Made by Judge Yaffe Within 10 Days and Unlawfully Striking Such as a Repetitive Motion for Disqualification under CCP Section 170.4 c) (3); (3) for Committing the Federal Crime of Misprision of Felony by Refusing to Report the Criminal Actions of Judge Yaffe of Having Taken $827,612.55 in Illegal Payments from La County; and (4) for Violating Federal and State Criminal Laws in the case in which State Judge Yaffe held Mr. Fine in Contempt of Court and incarcerated him.
8/30/2011 The State Bar admitted in court papers filed in the 9th Circuit in the federal civil rights case that Mr. Fine was disbarred for filing cases against the judges for having taken payments from counties. This admission showed that the State Bar proceeding and California Supreme Court Order of Disbarment was a fraud, as Mr. Fine was never charged by the State Bar with any violation for bringing lawsuits against the judges for taking illegal payments or bribes from counties. Despite this admission, the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Mr. Fine showed that the 9th Circuit justices were biased. Justice Bea received illegal LA County payments when he was a State Superior court judge and was currently receiving LA County payments according to his current financial disclosure report. Justice Graber received income from the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) for having been a state court judge and her spouse received income from the Portland General (retirement income). She had the conflict of deciding the issue of state judges deciding cases when their spouses receive income from a party appearing before the state judge. Justice Graber never disclosed the payments to her or her spouse.
Justice Graber shared the same undisclosed bias in favor of judges receiving unrestricted supplemental payments from counties appearing before them, and a bias against Fine for having challenged and litigated such issue.
Justice Rawlinson received $29,348.95 in income from PERS of Nevada (Pension). She has up to $250,000.00 in “Clark County Deferred Compensation” and up to $250,000.00 in “N Las Vegas Deferred Compensation”. She was a deputy district attorney and chief deputy in the Clark County, Nevada District Attorney’s Office from 1980 – 1998. In Nevada, state judges are elected and paid by the state. Nevada’s Constitution Article 6, Section 15 states that the compensation of the judges shall be fixed by law. It appears that “double-dipping” by county payments may take place in pensions. Justice Rawlinson did not disclose her bias in favor of such county payments and bias against Fine for having challenged and litigated against such county payments.
12/5/2011 Mr. Fine filed a motion with the California Supreme Court “to set aside the void disbarment”. The State Bar did not oppose the motion. California Rule of Court 8.54 c states that the failure to oppose a motion may be deemed to be a consent to the granting of the motion. The justices of the California Supreme Court still retaliated and refused to grant the motion.
Note: At that time, the Chief Justice had received illegal payments from Sacramento County when she was a Superior Court judge sitting in Sacramento County, one of the then existing California Supreme Court judges received illegal payments from LA County when she was a Superior Court judge sitting in LA County, two received illegal payments from Alameda County when they were Superior Court judges sitting in Alameda County, and Justice Baxter was among the persons on the California Judicial Council that drafted Senate Bill SBX 2 11, which gives them retroactive immunity for accepting county bribes, according to the information contained in the official biographies and the 2009 Judicial Council Report to the State Legislature.
2-24-2012 Mr. Fine filed a motion in the U.S. District Court to Immediately Set Aside the Void Judgment of Dismissal of Verified First Amended Complaint Based Upon Extrinsic Fraud Upon the Court. The motion showed the August 30, 2011 admission of the State Bar defendants, the State Bar’s non opposition to the motion to set aside the void disbarment in the California Supreme Court, the illegal taking of monies from counties by California Supreme Court justices and the drafting of Senate Bill SBX 2 11 by California Supreme Court justices. The motion also showed the 2010 financial disclosure statement of Judge Tucker. Such statement disclosed that Judge Tucker received approximately $20,000.00 in illegal payments from Orange County during the year 2010 when she was sitting as a State judge in the Superior Court for Orange County. The motion further contained documents from the 2009 California Judicial Council Report to the State Legislature showing the Orange County and other county payments, and the official biographies of the California Supreme Court justices. The motion further showed that Judge Tucker received approximately $160,000.00 in illegal payments from Orange County during the time that she was a State judge sitting in the Superior Court for Orange County. Judge Tucker did not disclose any of this information. The motion showed that she was disqualified under 28 U.S.C. Section 455 as having a personal interest in the case. Her personal interest was that she would be criminally prosecuted, civilly liable, and disciplined for having taken the illegal payments from Orange County if Senate Bill SBX 2 11 were held unconstitutional. By dismissing the Verified First Amended Complaint, she ensured that she would not be criminally prosecuted. She committed extrinsic fraud upon the court. On 3/5/11, Judge Tucker denied the motion.
3-22-2012 The U.S. District Court filed the Notice of Void June 24, 2011 Judgment and Void March 14, 2012 Order Based Upon Extrinsic Fraud Upon the Court.
2012 No judge, no LA County official, and no State Bar of California official has offered attorney Richard Fine any apology for anything they did against him.
2012 The Democratic Party Platform for California 2012, at page 15-16 states in part:
Democrats will: . . . Recognize the supremacy of the United States Constitution in all matters, and join our representatives in Congress to reaffirm the civil and personal rights in that document and not trade them off . . . . “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”+the price must not be our constitutional rights. . . . California Democrats . . . will fight the culture of corruption, cronyism and incompetence in politics that has inflicted a great cost upon the American people. We demand . . . incontrovertible government accountability to the electorate. . . . To promote honest leadership and open government, California Democrats will: Enhance the democratic process by ensuring an educated citizenry, . . . honest public debate, . . . and robust civic participation; . . . . [Emphasis added.]
2012 California’s current Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris, a Democrat, as far as I know, despite those mighty fine words in the Democratic Party Platform for California 2012, and despite her duty to see to it that the laws in this state are vigorously enforced, has not yet done anything to A) enforce Article VI,
Section 19 of California’s Constitution or B) to uphold attorney Richard I. Fine’s vital rights, including his rights to Free Speech, to Liberty, to Due Process of Law, to be free from unlawful retaliation and oppression under color of law, and to Petition for Redress of Grievances. Ms. Harris, however, is officially pursuing an investigation against former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger arising from charges that Mr. Schwarzenegger improperly used taxpayer funds.
California Penal Code Section 7 defines “corruptly” to import a wrongful design to acquire or cause some pecuniary or other advantage to the person guilty of the act.
California Penal Code Section 7 defines “bribe” to mean anything of value or advantage given or accepted with a corrupt intent to influence, unlawfully, the person to whom it is given, in his or her action, vote, or opinion, in any public or official capacity.
California Penal Code Section 92 declares that anyone who gives or offers to give a bribe to any judicial officer is guilty of a felony punishable with incarceration in state prison for up to four years.
California Penal Code Section 93 declares that every judicial officer who asks, receives, or agrees to receive any bribe is guilty of a felony punishable with incarceration in state prison for up to four years.
California Penal Code Section 96.5 declares that any judicial officer who commits any act that he or she knows perverts or obstructs justice is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year.
California Penal Code Section 98 declares that any state officer convicted of any of these crimes also forfeits his/her office and is forever disqualified from holding any office in this State.
California Penal Code Section 182(a)(5) makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any act injurious to the public morals or to pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws.
California Govt. Code Section 26525 requires county District Attorneys to institute lawsuits to recover full repayment of all illegally paid compensation to judges, plus 20% as damages.
Analysis and Commentary
Per the above facts and laws, certain State judges, the California Supreme Court, certain LA County officials, certain senior office holders of the State Bar of California, and the State Bar of California, joined forces, piled on against attorney Richard I. Fine, and, along the way, manifested egregious, indefensible retaliatory acts against Mr. Fine who merely dared to function as a fearless attorney who represented clients zealously and competently and as a U.S. citizen who dared to exercise his vital rights of Free Speech and Right to Petition and further dared to claim the protection of the laws, which was well within his rights. However, a staggering number of officials egregiously turned on Mr. Fine to encourage him to shut up, to sit down, to tolerate, without protest, the corruption that he discovered.
There is overwhelming objectively verifiable evidence that there exists in California state wide indefensible corruption, at the highest levels, which appears to be on-going, unchecked, rampant, and tolerated by, and even committed by, senior State officers, many State judges [hundreds if not more than a thousand], LA County officials, and the State Bar of California.
By disbarring attorney Richard I. Fine, the State Bar of California and the California Supreme Court, apparently, deliberately intended to send a blunt force, stark, callous as cold steel in the gut, warning to all attorneys: “Don’t mess with the judges! Do that and you will end up like Fine.”
When large sums of money, greed, power, egos, reputations, and the exposure to criminal prosecution and incarceration are involved, wrongdoers tend to play rough, tend to offer no apologies, tend to never make any admission of wrongdoing, and tend to persist with their wrongdoing.
The behavior of many of those who retaliated against Mr. Fine is consistent with how a psychopath acts.
The wrongdoers in this factual situation manifested folly, consistent with a Biblical statement that goes like this, “Like the dog that returns to lick its own vomit, a fool persists with digging the pit into which he shall fall.”
The State Bar misused disciplinary rules against Mr. Fine to punish him for his activity, all of which was, and is, protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Along the way, the State Bar colluded with, and aided and abetted LA County and LA County Superior Court judges, who are guilty of offering and taking, respectively, bribes.
The State Bar prosecuted attorney Fine, and the State judges sitting in LA County who took these bribes, and failed to return any of them, even after they knew that, per Sturgeon, these bribes were illegal, manifested despicable conduct that makes them unfit to sit on the bench and judge others.
There is a simple, effective, reliable way to determine if one is governed by good or bad persons: When you perceive they function improperly, tell them to stop and why, and then wait and see how they respond. If they are good, they will appreciate being admonished and will reform. If they are bad, they will ignore the objection, will persist with their bad conduct, and they will retaliate, under color of law. Per this test, which has merit, Mr. Fine encountered a viper pit of ruthless, unprincipled, arrogant, drunk with power, people, many of whom might be full fledge psychopaths wearing pin striped suits or robes..
At all applicable times, the State Bar also knew that it never had any credible evidence that attorney Richard I. Fine ever did anything contrary to honesty, good morals, or his duty to represent a client zealously and competently.
By sending that egregious message, the State Bar and the California Supreme Court, arrogantly, defiantly, and foolishly, drew a line in the sand and dared anyone, especially licensed California attorneys, to step across that damn line, which amounts to a sobering, unlawful “chilling” of free speech and a strong disincentive to refrain from representing any client zealously, for fear of invoking the wrath of the State Bar, any California judge, and/or the California Supreme Court.
The Start Bar misused against Richard I. Fine the moral turpitude statute and its statutory power to regulate the practice of law to emasculate Mr. Fine’s First Amendment Right to Free Speech and Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances, in violation of his right to “Due Process of Law”.
The State Bar never proved that any allegation that Mr. Fine leveled against any judge for having a conflict of interests which warrants disqualification is, or was, false, yet, the State Bar dared to accuse him of “moral turpitude” when he was “guilty” only of tenaciously zealously representing his clients competently, which is a virtue and a duty required by the State Bar.
All three branches of California government [judiciary, legislature, and governor] have failed to function as a meaningful check and balance on the other’s usurpations, and all three branches, in their own way, have meaningfully contributed to a major, on-going obstruction of justice caused by illegal bribes to judges and other criminal acts, culminating in a gross violation of Mr. Fine’s legitimate and absolute entitlement to a meaningful, real, “due process of law”. This reality smacks of and screams: CORRUPTION!
The judges who held in Sturgeon that these extra payments to judges are illegal, to their credit, upheld the real “Rule of Law”, and their decision strongly supports the position staked out by attorney Fine and myself.
Many California State judges are no longer functioning as Guardians of Liberty. Instead, they are functioning as unrepentant uncharged felons accepting bribes, motivated by greed, drunk with power, which many are willing to abuse in pursuit of more greed and more money.
California’s officials charged with enforcing the law [Attorney General and Governor] have manifested no inclination in this case to do that. Hence, they are abdicating their duty.
The State Bar’s treatment of attorney Richard Fine is appalling and indefensible.
The State Bar has made a mockery of their “Mission Statement”, their “Vision for the State Bar”.
The State Bar has forfeited any claim to the moral or ethical high ground or professional legitimacy.
The State Bar’s senior leadership should forthwith issue Mr. Fine a formal, sincere, written apology and re-admit him to the State Bar forthwith.
Senate Bill SBX 2 11 is lame and ineffective. It is void as an unlawful attempt to create retroactive immunity from civil liability for unlawful payments to judges, in violation of Article VI, Section 19 of California’s Constitution and the Sturgeon case.
Senate Bill SBX 2 11 is also null and void because it purports to amend Article VI, Section 19 of California’s Constitution. It is, however, axiomatic that a mere statute can never amend a constitutional provision, and California’s Constitution can be lawfully amended only with full compliance with the requirements set forth in Article XVIII of that Constitution.
Senate Bill SBX 2 11 is also null and void because there is no official, binding act absent an unbroken logical chain of express actual authority rooted in the actual text of California’s Constitution and nothing in that Constitution authorizes the State Legislature or the State Governor or both to do anything that violates Article VI, Section 19 of California’s Constitution. The Legislature and the Governor both acted in irresponsible, unlawful, reckless, contemptuous disregard of California’s Constitution. Their asserted authority exceeded their actual authority. They flat out usurped power.
If Article VI, Section 19 of California’s Constitution and if California Penal Code Sections 7, 92, 93, 96.5, 98, 182 and Govt Code Section 26525 are to mean anything, be respected, and be obeyed, they must be enforced, damn the consequences or the scope of the problem or both.
Attorney Fine has calculated that several State judges sitting in LA County have received unlawful payments ranging from approximately $200,000 to approximately $825,000, depending on how long they have functioned as judges in LA County, and, from approximately 1988 to date, LA County has paid the state judges in LA County approximately $350 million in taxpayer revenue to bribe these judges, so they will be motivated to rule in favor of LA County.
Attorney Fine has also opined that, based on his sources, it appears that from 1988 to date, LA County in civil cases before judges sitting in LA county has lost only three cases.
Attorney Fine has also learned that Sacramento and Alameda Counties have also been making unlawful payments to State judges sitting in those counties.
It is unknown how many other counties, if any, have been making unlawful payments to State judges.
Judge Yaffe’s order to incarcerate Mr. Fine smacks of retaliation and a violation of Mr. Fine’s federal Eighth Amendment might to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. To this extent, it is literally insufferable that a judge, who is supposed to function as a Guardian of Liberty, would usurp power to the extent of ordering an attorney to be incarcerated for 18 months, all without good cause. Judge Yaffe functioned as a judicial tyrant.
Analysis and Commentary About Michel Allen, Democrat, Incumbent, California Assembly District 10
SBX 2 11, which purports to give judges who accepted bribes and those who made the bribes, retroactive immunity, was passed by the California Legislature and signed into law by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in February 2009, . . . [Text removed to comply with League of Women Voters’ rules.]
By force of California law, all licensed California attorneys are legally and ethically required to support and obey the U.S. Constitution, California’s Constitution, and all laws faithful thereto. . . .
California is no longer “golden”; it is corrupt to the core
California’s courts are no longer “Temples of Justice”. Instead, they are places where hundreds of corrupt judges, unfit to be entrusted with the serious business of rendering justice, continue to accept unlawful payments, under color of law, and abuse their powers to try to retaliate against, gag, and punish anyone who dares to speak out against them, such as attorney Richard I. Fine.
Since these corrupt judges have, so far, gotten away with their criminal shenanigans, under color of law, every ordinary California citizen who walks into a California courtroom is affected by this wide spread corruption and can’t feel comfortable or assured of receiving an objective, ethical, professional rendering of justice.
A United States, a California, where no one can count on receiving “justice” in a court of law, is no longer worthy of Leadership of the Free World, is no longer worthy of respect or loyalty or support, and is no longer recognizable. When a high quality of assured Freedom is gone, Liberty and the real Rule of Law are gone. Thus, California appears to be rotten from the inside out, and, like a dead oak tree, ready to fall down because the core lifeblood, the love of Liberty and a meaningful, real, Rule of Law has been replaced by corruption and cowardice to do anything meaningful to stop the corruption.
Every judge who has accepted an unlawful payment contrary to Article VI, Section 19 of California’s Constitution should forthwith resign, should forthwith return all unlawful payments+plus 20% as required by the California Govt. Code Section, and they should be criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It is axiomatic that judges especially are charged with knowing the law. Thus, ignorance+if any+on their part, is no excuse.
It is also axiomatic that, in this nation, “No man is above the law.” Thus, any judge who accepted an unlawful payment is not entitled to and is not worthy of any special consideration.
Worse: By urging the California Legislature to grant them retroactive immunity, these judges telegraphed that they knew from the get go that their acceptance of these unlawful payments was unlawful and smacked of them taking bribes, yet they have continued this practice for years, with apologies to no one, as if they really are arrogant in the extreme and drunk, as in a stupor, with their power.
California judges who accepted unlawful payments are unfit to serve as judges. If they refuse to resign, forthwith, the law should be enforced. They should be pulled down from power and prosecuted. Otherwise, they get away with being over paid, they get away with their criminal conduct, they will be treated as defacto “nobility”, and the average citizen will be justified in despising them and in having zero confidence in their professionalism, integrity, and objectivity of these judges.
When citizens lack confidence in their judges and contempt replaces that confidence, that development is devastating for the People of California and for the State of California.
The U.S. Armed Forces in the early 1990s went halfway around the world to pull Saddam Hussein down from power, at great expense to American taxpayers. Ironically, that was being done when attorney Richard Fine was fighting his battles with corrupt California judges sitting in LA County. Perhaps we would have all been better off if time, money, and effort was spent to pull down, instead, corrupt judges in this state. This is because we can’t spread Freedom abroad when we abandon it at home for ourselves.
Corrupt judges in this state, corrupt county officials who bribe these judges under color of law, and the senior leadership of the State Bar of California who imprudently did their best to trump up non-meritorious charges against attorney Fine to get him disbarred, have all earned a well deserved, overdue, comeuppance: They all deserve to be pulled down from power and held accountable. These people have been shuffling the laws like a card shark shuffles a deck for far too long.
Citizens and taxpayers hire and pay judges to do a serious job, which includes upholding and enforcing the U.S. Constitution and California’s Constitution. It is literally intolerable that these judges violate their oath of office, violate their public trust, succumb to greed, and then place themselves above and against those constitutions and “We the People”.
Public servants who function as public serpents need to be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law, forthwith.
All judges who accepted unlawful payments and all county officials who made them deserve to be sternly publicly rebuked and criminally prosecuted.
It is ultra dangerous for citizens to believe they can’t be assured of receiving justice in their courts because they are no longer “Temples of Justice” presided over by real Guardians of Liberty.
When citizens feel that it is foolish to trust the judges, they will not submit disputes to a non-violent resolution in court and, instead, they will resort to self-help remedies, which might often escalate to violence.
My commentary is meritorious. My comments do not call into disrepute California’s judges. They, sadly, left to their own devices, already excelled at doing that themselves.
This corruption issue cuts across all political party lines.
Bottom Line No. 1: Until this corrosive corruption is stopped, this mess is cleaned up, and the corrupt parties are held accountable, anyone who walks into a California court without having first paid the judge a bribe will have to entertain a worrisome thought: no matter how good their case is, will they get screwed by the judge because the judge is just no damn good, and they haven’t bribed the judge?
Bottom Line No. 2: The “Rule of Law” no longer means anything in California’s courts or among the highest leadership for all three of California’s branches of government. The judges, as a group, with some exceptions, and the senior political leadership of this state, have reduced the idea of a meaningful “Rule of Law” to a sham . . . and “the joke” is on the average California citizen, the hardworking taxpayer who pays the bills.
Bottom Line No. 3: Toward the beginning of this document, I wrote that I reason from and to the U.S. Constitution and California’s Constitution. Via this document, I have proven that claim to be true.
The Audacity of the California Judiciary is Obnoxious in the Extreme
What is stated below is my “position paper” on new developments regarding the California Judiciary.
California State Supreme Court Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye has asked the Legislature to restore some $100 million in state funding and to increase court user fees to keep the courts functioning. But, she is concealing the largest judicial scandal in American history, namely, 90% of California’s 1,900 State judges have accepted illegal compensation which, by force of law, is deemed to be a bribe, and that, by force of law, makes those judges guilty of what is deemed to be a felony, punishable by incarceration in a state prison.
The judges should not be complaining. They could solve the problem by giving the State the approximate $350 million of illegal payments they received from counties since 1985. Then they could refuse to accept the retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action that they received under a 2009 law that they wrote after these payments were held to be unconstitutional.
Since 1985 the judges in LA County have received approximately $350 million in illegal payments from LA County in addition to their state compensation. Judges in other counties also received illegal payments from counties and courts.
These payments were held to be illegal in the case of Sturgeon v. LA County, 164 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) Review Denied 12/23/2008. The judges were given retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability, and disciplinary action in Senate Bill SBX 2 11 which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009.
According to a December 2009 Report of the California Judicial Council to the State Legislature, over 90% of California judges received such illegal payments from counties and or courts in addition to their state compensation.
Such payments also violate the federal criminal law, 18 U.S.C. Section 1346, which states that “the intangible right to honest services”, as such payments are bribes under California law. Federal cases such as U.S. v. Adams, have incarcerated judges for taking such payments as the person giving the payments was appearing as a party in a case before the judge. The counties are parties before the judges.
LA County has between 650-850 cases a year filed against it, not counting criminal cases where the LA County District Attorney is a party and Family Law cases where LA County Department of Child Support Services is intervening. The same facts are true for all counties in California.
LA County Counsel Annual Litigation Reports show that from FY 2005 – FY 2011, approximately only 3 cases were won against LA County, when a Superior Court judge sitting in the Superior Court for LA County made the decision.
This isn’t the end of the story. The judges are still in office. Worse yet, they have retaliated against Richard I. Fine, the only lawyer in California brave enough to first expose and prosecute them. They illegally disbarred him and illegally incarcerated him for 18 months in solitary coercive confinement in the LA County jail without ever being charged with a crime.
On August 30, 2011, the State Bar admitted in legal papers that Fine was disbarred for filing cases against the judges for taking payments from counties. Fine was never charged with that by the State Bar.
In December, 2011, Fine brought a motion in the California Supreme Court to set aside the void disbarment based upon the admission of the State Bar. The State Bar did not oppose the motion. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and the California Supreme Court justices, however, still retaliated and denied the motion, even though California Rule of Court 8.54c states that a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed as a consent to the granting of the motion.
Court papers demonstrate that the official biographies of Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Associate Justices Chin, Corrigan, and Kennard were Superior Court judges in counties at the time that the counties in which they sat gave illegal payments to Superior Court judges.
Associate Justice Baxter was on the California Judicial Council that wrote Senate Bill SBX 2 11 that gave the judges retroactive immunity from California criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action.
Additionally, court papers demonstrate that the official biographies of former Chief Justice Ronald M. George and former Associate Justice Carlos Moreno also received illegal payments from Los Angeles County when they were Superior Court judges sitting in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County.
None of the Supreme Court justices, appellate court justices or Superior Court judges has received any immunity from federal prosecution for taking illegal payments from parties appearing before them or from retaliating against Fine. The U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice, however, have failed to express any inclination to prosecute any of California’s judges who have accepted illegal payments.
Recommendations for Eradicating Judicial Corruption and a Total Collapse of Constitutional Government in California
Any governmental entity that is making additional payments to judges, other than the State of California, in an amount determined by the California State Legislature, must stop doing so, forthwith.
All judges who have received such payments must return the entire amount, plus 20%, as required by law, forthwith.
All judges who have received such unauthorized payments must resign, forthwith.
The State treasurer or auditor-controller must stop paying any judge who has received any unlawful payment.
The auditor-controller for each of California’s counties must publicly release certified documents disclosing to what State judges sitting in their county, if any, has the county made ain unlawful payment, plus the dates, the amounts, and the full identity of the judges who accepted the payments.
If State judges who accepted unlawful payments refuse to resign, forthwith, the District Attorneys of the county in which they sit, as required by law, must prosecute them criminally, forthwith, and should also demand repayment in full of all illegally paid monies, plus 20%, as required by law.
If any county’s District Attorney refuses to prosecute these judges, and any county officials who offered bribes, California’s Attorney General should step in and prosecute, forthwith, as required by California’s Constitution.
California’s Governor, as required by California’s Constitution, must demand that any State judge who took an unlawful payment resign, forthwith, and repay all money with 20% interest, and, regardless of what the judges decide to do, the Governor should order the District Attorneys and the California Attorney General to prosecute these judges and any county officials who tendered unlawful payments.
If the California Governor cannot get the California Attorney General and/or the District Attorneys to prosecute, he should publicly sternly rebuke them and demand that the U.S. Attorney General prosecute to vindicate attorney Richard I. Fine’s federal constitutional rights.
If California’s officials and/or U.S. officials cannot stop this corruption and eradicate it, citizens should withhold their support, should vote against any incumbent who does not forcefully demand reforms consistent with these recommendations, and citizens should also withhold payment of taxes until this corruption is stopped and law violators are held accountable.
If the concept of “No man is above the law.” means anything worth anything, these recommendations must be vigorously implemented.
If “Due Process of Law” means anything, and it should, these recommendations must be vigorously implemented.
Senior California officers, the California Supreme Court, and the State Bar of California should issue attorney Richard I. Fine a sincere, formal, unequivocal, written apology, signed and dated, and those apologies should be memorialized in public records and widely disseminated.
The cost for the majority of the criminals to profit Billions a year for the legal scam and bribery throwing cases they need to keep up the false image that the FBI actually arrests corrupt judges. It’s a lie
Plus for millions stolen, one judge sits in jail for a fraction of the term, keeps all the stolen funds, full benefits and may even work in law again. Do we get those kinds of odds? Well, you’re no gang member, in a club or have a Legal BAR license to steal
Date of Birth: March 11, 1940
Family: Married; 3 children
Education: J.D., Stanford Law School, 1964
A.B., Princeton University (Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs), 1961
JUDICIAL POSITIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS Supreme Court of California: appointed on July 29, 1991, by Governor Pete Wilson, confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on September 3, 1991, oath same day; elected November 8, 1994, to full term; appointed as 27th Chief Justice of California on March 28, 1996, confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on May 1, 1996, oath same day; elected November 3, 1998, to full term.
Court of Appeal: appointed on July 23, 1987, by Governor George Deukmejian, confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments on August 27, 1987, oath same day; elected November 6, 1990, to balance of term.
Los Angeles Superior Court: appointed on December 23, 1977, by Governor Edmund Brown, Jr. (and elected without opposition to six-year terms in 1978 and 1984); felony trials including the pretrial and trial proceedings in the Hillside Strangler case (People v. Angelo Buono) (1981-83); Supervising Judge in charge of the Criminal Division (1983-84); civil trials and civil settlement panel (1985-87).
Los Angeles Municipal Court: appointed April 20, 1972, by Governor Ronald Reagan (and elected without opposition to six-year term in 1976); Supervising Judge in charge of the Criminal Division (1977); Supervising Judge in charge of the West Los Angeles Branch (1974-75).
JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
Chair, California Judicial Council (1996-__); other Judicial Council activities:(1989-96); Chair, Advisory Committee to Implement the Gender Fairness Proposals (1991-94); Chair, Subcommittee on Gender Bias in the Courts (1991-94); Chair, Task Force on Voir Dire and Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Voir Dire (1988);
Co-Chair, California State-Federal Judicial Council (1996-__)
Chair, Commission on Judicial Appointments (1996-__)
President, Conference of Chief Justices (2003-04)
Chair, Board of Directors, National Center for State Courts (2003-04)
Member, Steering Committee of the Georgetown University Law Center’s Sandra Day O’Connor Project on the State of the Judiciary (2007-____)
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. (2006-2009)
Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. (1999-2002)
Anglo-American Legal Exchange, U.S. State Dept. Program (1999-2000)
Governor’s Commission on Building Calif. for the 21st Century (1999-2002)
Committee on Continuing Appellate Education of the American Bar Association’s Judicial Administration Division (1993-1996)
President, California Judges Association (1982-83); recipient President’s Award (2010)
Los Angeles Countywide Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (Chairman pro tem 1984, 1983)
Judicial Commission on Crime Victims, appointed by Attorney General George Deukmejian (1980-82)
Los Angeles Superior Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions-Criminal (CALJIC) (1977-1987)
Lecturer at numerous judicial education programs, law schools, bar associations, news media seminars, law enforcement agencies, including American Bar Association Appellate Judges Seminar Series, California State-Federal Judicial Council Capital Case Symposium, San Diego Law Library Justice Foundation, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, 2020 Vision Symposium on the Future of California’s Courts, Annual Meetings of Calif. Judges Association, Annual Meeting of Calif. District Attorneys’ Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, U.S.C. Legion Lex, Calif. Law Enforcement Warrant Officers’ Association, Calif. Judicial College, Calif. Continuing Judicial Studies Program, Calif. Superior Court Criminal Law & Procedure Institute, Calif. Institute for Trial Advocacy Skills (Univ. So. Calif. Law Center), U.C.L.A. Law School Moot Court and Mock Trial Programs, Constitutional Rights Foundation
Author, Keynote Address, Law Review Symposium on State Constitutions, 62 Stanf.L.Rev. 1515 (2010)
Author, Access to Justice in Times of Fiscal Crisis, 40 Golden Gate.L.Rev. 1 (2009)
Author, Achieving Impartiality in State Courts, 97 Cal.L.Rev. 1853 (2009)
Author, Justice William J. Brennan Lecture on State Courts and Social Justice at New York University School of Law, Challenges Facing an Independent Judiciary, 80 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 1345 (2005)
Author, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 California Criminal Trial Judges’ Benchbook, and 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 Calif. Criminal Trial Judges’ Deskbook (West Publishing Co.)
Author, Benchblotter: Common Crimes and Punishments (published by L.A. Daily Journal, 1985-1987)
Author, Determinate Sentencing Manual (published by L.A. Daily Journal, 1987)
Co-Author, Calif. Judicial Retirement Handbook (Calif. Judges’ Association) (3rd & 4th editions)
Project Safer California, Member (appointed by Governor Ronald Reagan), Advisory Committee on Special Problems in the Judicial Process (1974)Member: American Bar Association, American Judicature Society
2010 – Diversity Award, State Bar Council on Access and Fairness
2010 – Inducted, Member of Warren E. Burger Society
2010 – Joan Dempsey Klein Award, National Association of Women Judges
2009 – Inducted, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
2009 – American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers’ Family Law Person of the Year Award
2009 – Asian Law Alliance’s Legal Impact Award
2009 – Friends of the Los Angeles County Law Library’s Beacon of Justice Award
2009 – Consumer Attorneys’ Association of Los Angeles’ Roger J. Traynor Memorial Award
2008 – Bar Association of San Francisco’s Champion of Justice Award
2007 – American Bar Association’s John Marshall Award
2007 – Legal Writing Institute’s Golden Pen Award
2007 – American College of Trial Lawyers Samuel Gates Award
2006 – American Judicature Society’s Opperman Award for Judicial Excellence
2006 – “Justice of the Year” Award—Consumer Attorneys of California
2006 – “Justice of the Year” Award—San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association
2006 – Burton Reform in Law Award
2006 – Ronald M. George Equal Justice Award, Central California Legal Services
2006 – Los Angeles Inner City Law Center’s Humanitarian Award
2006 – Mathew O. Tobriner Public Service Award, Legal Aid Society of San Francisco
2006 – Children’s Advocacy Award, Los Angeles Legal Services for Children
2005 – State Bar of California’s Bernard Witkin Medal
2005 – Foster Care Awareness Campaign Recognition
2004 – Public Counsel’s William O. Douglas Award
2003 – George Moscone Award for Outstanding Public Service, Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles
2003 – James Madison Freedom of Information Award, Society of Professional Journalists
2002 – William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence
2001 – Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Maynard Toll Award for Distinguished Public Service
2000 – Foundation of the State Bar’s Justice Award
2000 – Judge Learned Hand Award
1998 – American Judicature Society’s Herbert Harley Award (“for services in promoting the effective administration of justice”)
1998 – Los Angeles County Barristers’ Special Recognition
1997 – President’s Award, State Association of Counties
1997 – St. Thomas More Medallion Award “for outstanding moral, intellectual, and professional contributions to the law and society,” presented by the St. Thomas More Law Honor Society
1997 – “Justice of the Year” Award—Consumer Attorneys of California
1996 – “Person of the Year” Award—Los Angeles Metropolitan News
1996 – Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation of the State Bar of California, unanimously ranked “exceptionally well qualified” (highest possible rating) for appointment as Chief Justice
1991 – “Appellate Justice of the Year” Award—Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association
1983 – “Trial Judge of the Year” Award—Los Angeles Metropolitan News
1981 – Recipient, President’s Cup of the California Judges Association (as the judge who did the most for the California judiciary during the year)
EXPERIENCE AS DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (1965-1972)
Before the California Supreme Court, representing the State of California in 11 cases in oral arguments and preparation of briefs, including People v. Anderson (1972) 6 Cal.3d 628 [100 Cal.Rptr. 152] (which invalidated the death penalty under the California Constitution’s cruel or unusual punishment clause), and People v. Sirhan Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710 [102 Cal.Rptr. 385] (involving assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy)
Before the U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit), U.S. District Court, and California Courts of Appeal, oral argument and briefs in excess of 100 appeals and writs
Numerous trials and investigations Before the U. S. Supreme Court, six oral arguments and preparation of briefs:
Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752
(scope of search incident to arrest)
Hill v. California (1971) 401 U.S. 797 (argued twice)
(search incident to mistaken arrest)
McGautha v. California (1971) 402 U.S. 183
(constitutionality of jury punishment-determination procedures in capital cases)
Aikens v. California (1972) 406 U.S. 813
(initially the lead case on the constitutionality of the death penalty as decided in Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238, until rendered moot by the California Supreme Court decision in People v. Anderson (above) invalidating the death penalty)
Kirby v. Illinois (1972) 406 U.S. 682
(argued as amicus curiae by special leave of the court) (limiting the right to counsel at police lineups)
Administrative Assistant in charge of the Los Angeles Office of the Attorney General (1971) (supervision of 110 attorneys and 200 stenographic and clerical personnel)
Justice Ronald Marc George says goodbye to the State Bar
Chief Justice Ronald Marc George
California Chief Justice Ronald M. George said he could not have decided to end his long career as a jurist had the courts’ financial status not improved in the past year. “I could not in good conscience leave this post if California’s judiciary remained enmeshed in a severe budget crisis,” George said in his final address to the State Bar last month. Nevertheless, he added, “through the efforts of many within and outside the judicial branch and the bar, the resource issues facing the courts have been resolved in a manner that will get us through the difficult budget year that lies ahead, without compromising our ability to provide fair and accessible justice to the individuals and institutions who come before the courts.”
George announced in July that he will not seek confirmation to another 12-year term in next month’s election and will leave the bench on Jan. 2.
Reflecting on his 38 years as a judge, George said the structural changes achieved during his term have transformed the judicial branch into a more effective, accessible and accountable system of government than when he assumed his position. In particular, the unification of California’s municipal and superior courts, state funding for the trial courts and the transfer and sometimes the ownership of court facilities from counties to the state helped stabilize and strengthen the judicial branch, he said.
“These historic reforms,” he said, “. . . have addressed many of the institutional budget inequities among trial courts around the state. And ultimately, they have enhanced access to justice and provided a greater degree of accountability by the courts to the public they serve.”
Despite leaving a judicial branch stronger than the one he found when first appointed to the bench in 1972, George said enormous challenges remain. There are too few judges, particularly in areas where the population has greatly surpassed the addition of new judicial positions, he said. And he urged changes to the judicial retirement system in order to attract and retain high-quality judges.
“Justice is not simply a luxury to be adequately funded only in prosperous years,” George said. “Times will continue to be hard — but together we must not just stand still or, worse yet, slip backwards, when confronted by the increasing demands upon the court system and the decreasing resources available to state government. We must continue with the progress we have made in expanding access to justice.”
Retirement July 14, 2010, Chief Justice Ronald Marc George announced he would not seek re-election in 2010 and would retire at the end of his term: January 2, 2011
He was succeeded by Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye who has a just as dishonorable history
After retirement 2013, he published a book of memoirs, Chief: The Quest for Justice in California, about his legal and judicial career.
Chief: The Quest for Justice in California, Hardcover – November 6, 2013
In May of 2008, in a case that was watched across the nation and around the world, the California Supreme Court threw out the state’s requirement that marriages involve a man and a woman, opening the door for same-sex unions. The court became the first high court in the nation to rule that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Now in Chief: The Quest for Justice in California, the author of that landmark decision, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George, describes that extraordinary case, a critical moment in the nation’s ongoing legal and political controversy over the nature of marriage.
But Chief provides far more than a description of a single case. It chronicles an extraordinary career of public service, from George’s time as a young deputy attorney general to his rise through the ranks of the California judiciary. This vivid account, as described to an oral historian interviewing the former Chief, offers an insider’s detailed view of the recent legal history of America’s most dynamic state:
–As a young lawyer, George goes before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue the constitutionality of the death penalty.
–At the age of 32, George is appointed a municipal judge by Governor Ronald Reagan, later elevated to the Superior Court by Governor Jerry Brown, and to the Court of Appeal by Governor George Deukmejian.
–George presides over one of the most notorious criminal cases in American history, the Hillside Strangler trial of Angelo Buono. After a trial lasting a record-breaking two years and two days, Buono is convicted of nine murders.
In 1991, George is appointed to the California Supreme Court by Governor Pete Wilson, and then is elevated to Chief Justice five years later. In that role, George takes responsibility for the largest judicial system in the nation, larger even than the entire federal judiciary.
–Walking the halls of the state Capitol, George pursues major judicial reforms, including the unification of municipal and superior courts in each of the state’s 58 counties, and the construction and renovation of court facilities around the state.
–Alarmed by the decline in civics education, George initiates annual sessions of the California Supreme Court in various locations around the state, often arranging for students to attend oral arguments and ask questions of the justices.
California’s extraordinary stature in American life extends not only to its politics, geography, and culture, but also to its judicial system. Vast and complicated, as befits its state, the California judiciary has a long history of breaking new legal ground. The California Supreme Court was the first in the nation, for example, to rule that prohibiting interracial marriage was unlawful, just as, more than half a century later, it would provide path-breaking leadership on the issue of gay marriage.
In Chief, readers see not only the inside story of a career at the center of California’s legal life, but also a story that offers insight and detail on many of the legal issues and controversies that have grasped the attention of the nation and the world.
WHAT YOU CAN DO? WHAT WE CAN DO?
With all the awards and hype about the individual above, how does anyone explain his actions and history as a Chief Justice? The fact in 2008, Dr. Richard I. Fine exposed the fact that 90% of California Superior Court Judges were accepting bribes. Dr. Fine was disbarred and forced into solitary confinement for 18 Months by yet one more corrupt Los Angeles County judge, Dave P. Yaffe as extortion to stop him.
Not too long after that, Chief Justice Ronald M. George with the help of Darryl Steinberg put SBX 2 11 through. It was supported by the Judicial Council, the LA Superior Court, a lobbyist who was paid $10,000.00. Steinberg was the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate. Ronald George was also behind the entire Bill.
Amending SBX 211
After not one government official would help get “amend SBX 2 11” Dr. Richard I. Fine took his battle to the Supreme Court.
How the Supreme Court of California respond to Dr. Richard I. Fine?
Feb 6, 2018
in a crooked, Unjust Court system. Producer, William Wagener interviews, Internationally known Lawyer, Richard Fine, who discovered that all the Los Angeles Judges were taking OPEN BRIBES from one corporate person, monthly: on – On Second thought, a weekly TV show produced, copyrighted, since May 2000 in Santa Maria, exposing the massive corruption in government and a failed judicial system, which violates the Constitution. MAX, the cat supervised the interview, and there is meaning in Max’s sudtle wink.
Richard Fine, a Champion for Justice, Part 1, Part 2 HERE
Global Witness’ undercover investigator posed as an advisor to an African minister of mines who wanted to bring millions of dollars of suspect funds into the U.S. He met with lawyers from 13 New York City law firms. The meetings were all preliminary; none of the law firms took our investigator on as a client, moved the funds, or broke the law.
A number, including James Silkenat, indicated that they would need to carry out more checks before they could take on our investigator as a client. Mr. Silkenat also said that he had to make sure that no crimes had been committed and, if so, he would have to report them. Nonetheless, all but one of the lawyers we visited discussed suggestions on how to move the funds.
To understand these interview clips in context, it is important to view the recordings of the full interviews and read our report. See www.globalwitness.org/loweringthebar
How lawyers have created another CLASS which is above everyone else