Richard Isaac Fine

Richard Isaac Fine (born 1940) is an American taxpayers' advocate, anti-trust attorney, and former U.S. prosecutor. Fine investigated the Los Angeles, California City government under the Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, then founded the first Anti-Trust Department for Los Angeles County. The State Bar of California disbarred Fine in 2007, and since March 4, 2009, he has been jailed in solitary "coercive confinement" albeit with neither warrant nor valid and effectual conviction nor sentencing records.
Childhood, education, government employment
Fine was born and raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to a middle-class family. He earned his baccalaureate degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, his law degree from the University of Chicago, and a doctorate from the London School of Economics. Fine served at the U.S. Department of Justice (1968-72) in the Anti Trust Division. Later he served the City of Los Angeles (1973-74) in anti-trust capacities.
Private practice
In private practice, Fine was successful as an anti-trust attorney in pursuing taxpayers' cases against the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. His resume shows his efforts have returned approximately $1 billion dollars to California taxpayers.
Disbarment
Fine's disbarment in October 2007 was the outcome of administrative procedure of the State Bar of California, where he was charged with "moral turpitude" for filing complaints against judges who had received illegal supplemental payments from Los Angeles County while ruling favorably in cases in which the County was a party. Fine alleged violations of his First Amendment rights in response. Fine's petition for review to the California Supreme Court was denied, allowing the disbarment to stand. Fine was listed as being "involuntarily inactive" beginning 10/17/2007 and disbarred as of 3/13/2009.
Exposé of unconstitutional payments
Fine was the first to disclose that unconstitutional payments were being made to Los Angeles County judges. In August 2001, Fine's opening brief in the appeal of Silva v. Garcetti, revealed that payments of over $46,000 per judge, per year were being made by Los Angeles County to all (~430) Los Angeles County judges (and ~140 Commissioners). The payments, now some $57,000 per judge per year, have been made since the late 1980s, costing taxpayers over $300 million to date, and figuring prominently in County's "budget crisis". Fine also revealed that it had become practically impossible to win a case against the County at the Superior Court.
Litigation, which originated from taxpayer objections to such payments, and where plaintiff Harold Sturgeon was represented by Judicial Watch (Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles (BC351286)) resulted in a October 2008 decision by the California Court of Appeal,4th District (San Diego) that the payments were constitutionally "not permitted" as judges were to be paid only by their employers, the State of California. To counter potential civil and criminal liabilities to all California judges, and the county supervisors who approved the payments, a bill was passed and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009, providing retroactive immunity to all involved.
Arrest and jail
Two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, Fine was arrested by the Warrant Detail of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, at the end of a proceeding, represented as "Sentencing" - in the presence of media - by Judge David Yaffe, whom Richard Fine was attempting to disqualify. The basis for affidavits of disqualification for a cause was Judge David Yaffe's accepting of such payments from a party to the litigation then at bar - Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles (BS109420).
The entire proceeding later failed to appear in the publicly available litigation docket published online by the court. Likewise, the court record that was the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt, including what was represented as sentencing, which was widely reported by media present on March 4, 2009 in court, was later discovered to be invalid on its face. The record also lacked authentication.
Fine has been held ever since at the Men's Central Jail facility in Los Angeles - part of the Twin Towers Jail complex, under unusual, possibly unprecedented conditions. He has been held under continuous solitary confinement, in a hospital room in the jail, even though no disease or disability has been claimed by jail authorities. In the first few months of his jailing, he was denied access to pen and paper, and such conditions undermined his ability to file habeas corpus and related petitions. Jail authorities also explicitly attempted in the initial period to deprive him of the right to represent himself in pro se, and to coerce him to accept representation by counsel, which Fine declined.
On June 7, 2009, the Los Angeles Times published report by journalist Victoria Kim, who managed to enter the Men's Jail, interview Fine, and emerge from the jail unnoticed, at a time that the Sheriff's Department and the court banned interviews with Fine.
Petition for habeas corpus and emergency petition
Fine's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Fine v Sheriff Department of the County of Los Angeles (2:09-cv-01914) was dictated by phone to a friend, and was filed on behalf of Fine at the U.S. Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), but without his hand signature, and without review of the filed document by him. Key documents were later claimed missing from the docket. The case was unusual in that the Sheriff, named as respondent, refused to respond.
Eventually, a response was filed by the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe. However, such response was filed by attorney Kevin McCormick, who failed to file the required certifications indicating that he was indeed engaged as Counsel of Record in the case by his clients, and therefore authorized to file and appear in the case on their behalf. In Attorney McCormick's response there was no evidence that he had ever communicated with his clients. Similarly, the records which he filed were all derived from the Sheriff's Department, not from the Court, including a copy of the invalid March 4, 2009 Judgement and Order for Contempt, with no authentication. McCormick's filings included a short declaration by counsel - not a competent fact witness in this case, not by Judge David Yaffe or any officer of the Los Angeles Superior courts. A scheme, involving representation by counsel - albeit not counsel of record - with "not communications with client" clause, had been previously discovered and rebuked in an unrelated case in Texas, in March 2008, and a 72-page Memorandum Opinion provided the details of such schemes.
A June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendation issued by Magistrate Carla Woehrle concluded by recommending denial with prejudice.. District Court Judge John Walter accepted the recommendation and dismissed the action on June 29, 2009. Subsequent appeals were denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, most recently on December 16, 2009.
The circumstances surrounding these denials remain unclear, since Fine has been held at the time of this writing (November 2009) for seven months with no warrant at all. The information provided by the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County in this matter on its Inmate Information Center was incorrect, and possibly misleading. The arrest and booking were listed as if they had taken place at Municipal Division 86 at the San Pedro Courthouse. However, no such agency existed. In fact - no municipal courts existed in Los Angeles for almost a decade.
Public response and perspectives
Fine's jailing was perceived by many as false imprisonment, and became the center point for demands for reform of the judiciary. Small rallies took place outside the Men's Central Jail, and fundraisers were organized to help sponsor his legal expenses. Fine's jailing and the underlying secret payments to judges were also mentioned as diminishing the prospects of California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, one of the recipients, for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Embattled Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Alex Kozinski, never commented on the unsigned order issued in his name in this case, which appeared inconsistent with his usual liberal, civil rights-sensitive, judicially-incisive reputation. The fundamental judicial wrongdoing at the Los Angeles Superior Court, as alleged by those who consider the case false Imprisonment, should be viewed in perspective of the widespread false imprisonment instances of the Rampart scandal effected by that court. Such false imprisonments had been documented already a decade ago, as part of the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000), and were estimated by PBS Frontline at many thousands. However,the latest official Rampart scandal report - by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel- titled Rampart Reconsidered (2006) - documented the Superior Court judges as key parties in the ongoing refusal to free the Rampart-FIPs over the past decade. The report recommended "external investigation" of the Los Angeles justice system, which was never instituted. It also singled out the Los Angeles Superior Court as requiring review.,

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu