FULL DISCLOSURE ® Transcript #
RICHARD I. FINE TELEPHONE INTERVIEW 12/17/09
© 2009 All Rights Reserved, AAW/Full Disclosure Network/Citizens
Protection Alliance
DUTTON: Mr. Fine would you explain
to us what the 9th Circuit Panel has
done with this memorandum that's
apparently unpublished? What's
happened?
FINE: well, in short, and to use the
opening words of the brief that I'm
submitting for an en bank hearing, the
Panel has succumbed to the cancer of
corruption and the criminals in judicial
robes. What they have done is that they
have gone through and they have
violated hundreds of years of
established judicial precedent that a
party cannot be a judge in his own case,
and they have gone through and they
have tried to literally emasculate the
legislative decision that the judges have
received criminal payments.
DUTTON: Now when you say
emasculate, what do you mean by that?
The legislation was approved and
signed into law and it was put into the
government code, wasn't it?
FINE: Yes. In fact, what I mean by it
is there's a part of their memorandum
decision where they recognize that the
payments to the judges are criminal but
then they go in and say that the
legislation SBX211 that allows the new
payments to be made, the Panel tries to
say that that is attempting to emasculate
the criminality of the old payments, and
Fine12/17/09.doc Page 1 of 8
in fact, that is totally wrong. First of all
it's wrong because of the fact that the
new payments are only being allowed
as of May 21, 2009, which is after the
old payments have been made. And
second of all, it is wrong because in fact
that would be known as an expo facto
law because the retroactive immunity
that was given by Senate bill SBX211
gave immunity to these judges for
getting these criminal payments. And if
you were to follow the Panel's
reasoning what would happen is that the
new payments would be removing that
immunity, and therefore, establishing
new criminal payments. And to do that,
you would be violating Article I,
Section 9, Laws 3 of the United States
Constitution which says that you cannot
make an expo facto law. So basically
that shows you how far off this Panel
really is.
DUTTON: Critics of the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals have jokingly called it
the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.
Would you say this decision is one that
could foster that perception?
FINE: There's no question that this
particular opinion is clearly violating
the Supreme Court precedent. And the
9th Circuit is bound to follow the
Supreme Court. They do not have a
choice. And in this opinion, they are
violating the case of In Re Murchison
which holds that no man can be a judge
in his own case. And here Judge Yaffe
was judging his actions in the Marina
Strand Colony II Homeowners
Assoctiona vd County of L. A. case
when Judge Yaffe was sitting at the
judge in the contempt case. So he's
doing that violation right then and there.
There's Judge Yaffe was violating
Supreme Court decisions of the Tumey
vs Ohio 273 US 510 (1927) case, and
the Cambridge Case, and a number of
others when he was taking the money
from L.A. County which was a party in
front of him. So the 9th Circuit is
violating Supreme Court decisions on
that, and the 9th Circuit was violating
the Supreme Court decisions on the
expo facto laws. So there's absolutely
no question that the 9th Circuit is
violating the Supreme Court. So if one
wants to go ahead and say that the 9th
Circuit is now the 9th Circus, one may
say that that is absolutely correct. But I
think worse than that what is happening
is that the 9th Circuit is buying into the
corruption. The 9th Circuit is going
along and literally exposing and
allowing 38 million Californians to be
subject and remain subject to the
tyranny of these criminal judges that are
existing in the California judicial
system. The 9th Circuit is allowing the
Californians to be stripped of their
constitutional rights and to be laid bare
for this tyranny to continue to exist as it
has been existing for the last 20 years.
So the cancer of the tyranny has now
spread into the 9th Circuit. And
basically what it means is that
California has got a judicial system that
is equal to that of the developing
countries and the war-torn countries that
the United States is complaining about.
DUTTON: Well, I'd like to ask you a
question. You have been sitting in jail
now for 10 months.
Fine12/17/09.doc Page 2 of 8
FINE: That's correct.
DUTTON: You've cited in your in
some of your court filings that, by law,
you should not have held in jail for
more than five days. Do you think that
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is
aware of the fact that by keeping you,
not letting you out, not granting your
writ of habeas corpus that they're
violating your rights?
FINE: Oh they absolutely have to be
aware of that. I think that there's no
question that their actions are
deliberate. In fact, I mention in this
particular brief that I am filing that this
brief should be done on an emergency
basis because of the fact that the 9th
Circuit has denied two motions to set
me free which are unopposed, one
motion for reconsideration of a motion
to set me free which is unopposed, one
motion to grant my habeas corpus based
upon the opening brief which is
unopposed. So the 9th Circuit's actions
here are definitely deliberate. They are
definitely keeping me here against my
rights and knowing so. And the reason
for it is is because the 9th Circuit has
become the advocate of the corrupt
judges. At this point in time, based
upon the unopposed motions the other
side has given up. There's no one that's
really fighting me right now. The only
people that are fighting me at this point
in time are the judges of the 9th Circuit.
That is demonstrated by Judge Reinhart,
Judge Trott, and Judge Wardlaw that
have come out with this memorandum
opinion that is unpublished and said to
not be a precedent. Justices Reinhart,
Trott and Wardlaw have become the
advocates of judicial corruption. The
other side has dropped out.
DUTTON: Would you say that the
judges, in accepting the criminal
payments and now being protected by
the 9th Circuit Court, that this is a
striking at the core of the corruption in
Los Angeles?
FINE: Oh, there's absolutely no
question about it that there's absolutely
no question that the corruption in Los
Angeles is probably (recording) --
There' absolutely no question that the
corruption in Los Angeles is the
greatest parts of the judicial corruption
in California. Because remember the
corruption in Los Angeles of the
payments to the judges was $46,000 and
now being raised to $57,000 a year. So
that is 27% to rising to a higher
percentage of the judicial salaries of
$178,000 per year. Now we have heard
from County Supervisor Michael
Antonovich that those payments are
going to stop as far as new judges are
concerned. So hopefully that corruption
is going to cease as far as the new
judges are going to be taking place. But
clearly the Los Angeles corruption was
the key to the judicial corruption in
California.
DUTTON: You know, we've tried and
tried many, many times to get
permission to come into the jail to
interview you on camera. Other media
agencies have been granted that
permission. ABC's 20/20 was granted
permission to come into the jail and
interview other inmates and you even
did get an in the facility, the jail facility,
an interview with the L.A. Times. Have
you ever been approached by the
Sheriff asking if you wanted to be
interviewed by Full Disclosure?
FINE: No, the Sheriff has never
approached me asking me if I wanted to
be interviewed by Full Disclosure. I
Fine12/17/09.doc
can tell you that had he asked me if I
wanted to be interviewed by Full
Disclosure, I would have told him,
"Absolutely yes and as fast as possible."
DUTTON: Do you know it to be true
that it is your right to be able to be
interviewed?
FINE: I do not know it to be true but I
believe it to be true that I probably do
have a right to be interviewed by the
press. And I would fight for that right.
DUTTON: Okay. Well, we're going to
keep trying because our viewers are
following this case closely and they're
very concerned about you and your
physical well-being. How are you
doing?
FINE: Well, I'm basically doing all
right. The legs are still swollen. They
took a series of blood tests on me and at
the present time they believe that my
cholesterol count is somewhere in the
300s. So they've provided a
prescription to bring that down, but I
think that's due to being confined
(recording) in a 7 1/2 by 13 foot cell
where one doesn't get exercise, and
probably has jail food that is not exactly
the best for one.
DUTTON: Jail food is not only not
tasty, it's not good for you either.
FINE: I'm sure the jail would disagree
but I can tell you that you can get sick
of a constant diet of jail food.
DUTTON: Well, it happened when I
asked Mike Antonovich about the
situation, he told me that it you
shouldn't be in the jail having to eat that
horrible food. That's exactly what he
said. So he must know as Supervisor
Page 3 of 8
since the 1980s, he must know that the
food's not too good there.
FINE: Well, then maybe he should do
something about getting me out of here
like admitting to the fact that I shouldn't
be here and have the Sheriff get me out.
DUTTON: Well, let me ask you. It
appears that you are being held there in
solitary confinement by the Sheriff.
You're in his custody. Isn't there
something that Mike Antonovich could
do to encourage the Sheriff to let you
go?
FINE: Well, I'm sure he could tell the
Sheriff to let me go and the Sheriff
could let me go. At this point in time,
the five day period under California
Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1218
has long expired. And under the
precedent of the Farr Case, I should
have been out of here probably by
March 9th.
DUTTON: Well, would you call this
false imprisonment?
FINE: There's no question about it.
There's absolutely no question that I'm
in here under false imprisonment. I
mean that is a given. It's a given on two
grounds. First of all, under the Farr
Case because of the fact that I'm
imprisoned based upon my moral
grounds of opposing Judge Yaffe. And
under those moral grounds I should
never have been in here in the
beginning. And then, in addition to that
part of it, under the California Code of
Civil Procedure you can't hold me here
for more than five days. Then on the
second ground is because of the fact
that Judge Yaffe should never have
been sitting as a judge in either the
Marina Strand Case or in the contempt
proceeding. So those are the two basic
Fine12/17/09.doc Page 4 of 8
grounds with sub-grounds under each of
them.
DUTTON: Okay. Well, give us an
idea now. You are preparing now to
file and ask for a hearing
reconsideration of what the 9th Circuit
has done. Would you describe to us
what it is you're doing and what is the
time frame for you for the next step?
FINE: Well, I have prepared and have
already dictated what is known as a
combined emergency petition for panel
rehearing and rehearing in bank of the
panel's unpublished non-precedent
memorandum decision affirming district
court and denying writ of habeas
corpus. Now what this particular
document does is that it shows that the
panel decision conflicts with the
established United States Supreme
Court precedents. And then I go in and
I show and cite exactly all of the
precedents to which it conflicts by
citing the precedents and their holdings,
and I also show that it conflicts with the
California Constitution and with the
United States Constitution, and
particularly the expo facto laws of the
United States Constitution. I then show
that we need the consideration of the
entire court. I show that the immunity,
that the removal of the immunity
violates the expo facto laws and it also
violates the California Constitution's
single subject rule, and I also show that
based upon this memorandum decision
that we're now going to find is that
every person who's been convicted of --
who's being tried for bribery is now
going to cite to this memorandum
decision to basically show that they
have not done any bribery because of
the fact that under the holding of this
memorandum decision there's no such
thing as bribing a judge anymore
because this memorandum decision
seems to say that anyone can pay off a
judge. That’s the effect of this position.
Then I also show that -- I reinforce the
fact that the payments violated Article
6, Section 19 of the California
Constitution under theI recite the
underlying facts in the case, and then I
go through and I show the reasons why
a reversal of the Panel's decision is
necessary and why the writ should be
granted. I'll just read you the title
headings under that. The first one is
"Judge Yaffe Violated Due Process by
Judging His Own Actions in the
Contempt Proceeding." The second one
is "Judge Yaffe Did Not Have an
'Appearance of Justice' Because He
Took a Bribe from L.A. County." The
third one is "Due Process Was Violated
by the Direct Payments to Judge Yaffe
from L.A. County Who Was a Party
Before Him." The fourth one is "The
Panel's Argument that Government
Code Section 6800 200 Passes Part of
Senate Bill SBX211 'Belies' the
Criminality of the Acts for the
Retroactive Immunity is
Unconstitutional." I then go on and say
that an emergency decision is needed
because the court is replacing the
opposition as an advocate. And then I
come to the conclusion. And since it's
somewhat short I'll actually read you
the conclusion. And it says, "The
Conclusion reads as follows: The Panel
presented a conclusive argument for the
House of Representatives Judiciary
Committee's current hearings to draft
recusal legislation. It demonstrated that
the judiciary cannot be trusted to govern
itself on recusal issues. The time has
come for the judicial sophistry to cease
and the Constitution and rule of law to
be obeyed. California Chief Justice
George has stated in his speech to the
American Academy of Arts on October
10, 2009 that the California government
is 'dysfunctional.' He should know.
Fine12/17/09.doc Page 5 of 8
He's the Chief Justice of the California
Supreme Court. He supervises the
corrupt California judicial system, and
is Chairman of the Judicial Council of
California which drafted Senate Bill
SBX211. Unless the en bank hearing is
granted, and the writ is granted, the 9th
Circuit will endorse California's
corruption and dysfunction leaving its
citizens to suffer without constitutional
protections under the (recording) under
the tyranny of criminals in judicial
robes. Justices Reinhardt, Trott, and
Wardlaw have opted for criminals and
corruption. It is now up to the en bank
panel to restore the Constitution, the
rule of law, and the Republic." "Fine
respectfully requests -- respectfully
requests that the en bank hearing be
granted, that the writ be granted,
thereby ending over 20 years of a
corrupt California judicial system. To
refuse to do so will be to continue to
subject 38 million Californians to
judicial corruption on a level found only
in the worst of the developing and war-
torn countries." That's it.
DUTTON: Well, we're going to post
the whole filing once it is up on
PACER. We will link to it so our
viewers and visitors to our website can
read it. Well, is there anything else that
you have planned for the future here
beyond the en bank hearing?
FINE: Well, we are also filing,
hopefully within the next couple of
days, we will be filing a petition to
Justice Kennedy of the United States
Supreme Court to stay the execution of
sentence, which means to stay my being
in the L.A. County jail. And he is,
under the precedent of the Farr Case he
can do that because Justice Douglas did
the same thing in the Farr Case. And
we also have filed in the California
Supreme Court, it was received on
December 7th of this year, a motion to
set aside my disbarment as having been
a fraud upon the court. So those are the
three things that are taking place. And
hopefully these filings on the U.S.
Supreme Court and the en bank filing
should be in the various courts by
Monday or Tuesday. So that is the
plan as of the present time.
DUTTON: Okay. Well, thank you
very much. We appreciate it. And I
will make certain that the Sheriff knows
that you do want to be interviewed by
Full Disclosure. I know our viewers
want to be able to see you and know
that you're all right. So, we'll keep you
posted.
DUTTON: Before you go, would you
give us further explanation on how the
memorandum decision of the 9th
Circuit Panel will impact the Sturgeon
vs. the County case?
FINE: Okay, the impact runs as
follows. The memorandum of the 9th
Circuit attempts to take that part of
SBX211 which says that the county
payments which existed as of July 1,
2008 may continue as of May 21, 2009
and to judges that are sitting and may be
stopped by the counties with 180 days
notice. Now, the impact runs as
follows. First of all, the question is
does that particular part of SBX211
violate Article 6, Section 19 of the
California Constitution? My answer to
that is, "Yes it does," and for the
following reasons. Article 6 Section 19
of the California Constitution as was
held in the Sturgeon Case states that
only the legislature can set the
compensation of the judges. And that
duty to set the compensation of the
judges cannot be delegated to anyone
else. This particular part of Senate Bill
Fine12/17/09.doc Page 6 of 8
SBX211 does not have the legislature
set the compensation. What it does is
allows the counties to set the
compensation because the
compensation that is being set is the
compensation that was set by the
counties as of July 1, 2008. So that's
the first thing that is violating it because
the compensation was set by the county,
not by the legislature. So that's the
violation that is hitting. The second
part of it is is that the counties can stop
the particular compensation with 180
days notice. So the legislature is also
not setting the compensation because
the counties are stopping the
compensation. So there you have a
direct violation of Article 6, Section 19
of the California Constitution. That's
the first thing that happens. The second
thing that happened in the memorandum
opinion is that the memorandum
opinion said that the criminal aspect of
the payments which is in Senate Bill
SBX211 as expressed by the retroactive
immunity that was given from criminal
prosecution is "belied" by this extension
of the payments. Now the problem with
this is that that particular statement is a
false statement and violates the single
subject rule of the California
Constitution. And the single subject
rule of the California Constitution says
that any piece of legislation can only
have a single subject. Now the subject
of Senate Bill SBX211 as expressed in
the bill was to deal with the Sturgeon
Case. It was not to amend the
California Criminal Law. So you could
not have this portion of SBX211 which
is extending these payments be an
amendment of the California Criminal
Law because first of all it doesn't say
that it's amending the California
Criminal Law, but second of all, it
would be a second subject of the bill.
And it would be a subject of the bill
that's not even mentioned. So therefore,
it's violating the California single
subject rule of the California
Constitution. The third violation that
takes place is the fact that the
memorandum, that by having the
extension of the payments (recording).
FINE: The third thing that takes place
is that the memorandum states is that
the extension of the payments is belying
the criminal aspect of the payments by -
- is belying the criminal aspect of the
payments becomes a violation of Article
1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the United
States Constitution which prohibits and
expo facto law. And also there is the
same type of provision in the California
Constitution. Now, an expo facto law
means that you cannot create a crime
where a crime did not exist. Now the
way that this works is that the
retroactive immunity section of Senate
Bill SBX211 states that the judges who
have received these payments and the
government officials who gave the
payments receive retroactive immunity
with respect to these payments
effective, or as of May 21, 2009. Now
following the memorandum's reasoning,
it would be that the new payments
which become effective May 21, 2009
would remove that retroactive immunity
from the criminal prosecution and
therefore would create a crime because
if you remove the immunity, you're now
creating the crime.
DUTTON: Oh.
FINE: Now you can't create a crime
where a crime did not exist. So when
you're removing the -- The crime did
not exist under the immunity, but by
removing the immunity, you're creating
the crime and therefore you have the
expo facto law situation. And by doing
that you fall into the expo facto law
Fine12/17/09.doc Page 7 of 8
situation and therefore you end up
violating Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
of the United States Constitution and
the similar clause or provision of the
California Constitution. So those are
the three constitutional violations that
you have in the reasoning of the Panel's
memorandum and why that reasoning is
basically fallacious and bottom-line no
good.
DUTTON: Now they have said in the
memorandum decision, it specifically
stated that it was not for publication.
Does that mean that no one else will
have to abide by this ruling?
FINE: Well, yes. What happens is not
for publication means that it is not to be
published which means that it should
not have any (inaudible) value and that
no one else has to abide by it.
However, it's very, very interesting
because in 2007 the Judicial Council of
the Courts changed the rules and said
that even though something is not
published, it was still a precedent. So
when this particular memorandum says
in its footnotes that it's not for
publication and it's also not a precedent,
this creates a very ambiguity with the
2007 FRAP 32.1 rule that came out
from the Judicial Council of the Courts.
And it creates a situation that this case
may still be a precedent even though
they don't want it to be a precedent. So
it's a very, very interesting situation
because I don't believe, I could be
wrong on this, but I don't believe that
there are any more cases coming out of
the circuits that cannot be precedents
anymore.
DUTTON: There was a controversy
when the Senate Bill SBX211 was
codified into the government code.
They deleted or omitted the paragraphs
that referenced the retroactive immunity
from criminal and civil prosecution.
Looking back now at the decision, or
this memorandum from the 9th Circuit
Panel, does the fact that retroactive
immunity is not in the government
code, or was not codified, does that
have any impact on this at all?
something as patently false and patently
fraudulent as this type of statement, you
know, is beyond me.
DUTTON: Well okay. I think we
covered it. I think we've covered it now
so we can, yeah...

FINE: No it doesn't. The fact that the (End of audio)

Legislative Council of California
decided not to codify the retroactive
immunity has no effect. All the
Legislative Council did is he made a
decision that he wanted to hide that
horrendous action from the public. But
that horrendous action of the retroactive
immunity is still a law in California. I
think it was a decision by the
Legislative Council to try and keep the
public from knowing that they did this
particular action. (Recording). Now
the memorandum opinion from the
Panel, however, is an entirely different
type of animal because the
memorandum opinion from the Panel is
now trying to go through and bluff the
public by this specious type of
reasoning to try and say that there is no
longer any type of retroactive
immunity. And that is a total falsity.

DUTTON: Well, we indeed have a

memo from Senator Steinberg's office
when we questioned them about the fact
that they didn't codify that retroactive
immunity. And they restated that it is in
force and in fact a part of the law
whether it's in the code or not.

FINE: Well, Senator Steinberg’s office

is absolutely correct. I think it is an
embarrassment to the 9th Circuit Panel
that they would even try and attempt
this type of fallacious reasoning and this
fraud upon the public to try and come
up with this type of nonsense to try and
say that the payments were not criminal.
And why they even attempted to do

Fine12/17/09.doc Page 8 of 8