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

[RamboLiberal]

Source: CNN

Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- Once a dapper Beverly Hills attorney known for his bow tie, Richard Fine has been held in solitary confinement at Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail for 14 months, even though he's never been charged with a crime.

Fine, a 70-year- old taxpayer's advocate who once worked for the Department of Justice, is being held for contempt of court.

Superior Court Judge David Yaffe found Fine in contempt after he refused to turn over financial documents and answer questions when ordered to pay an opposing party's attorney's fees, according to court documents.

-----

For the last decade, Fine has filed appeal after appeal against Los Angeles County's Superior Court judges. He says the judges each accept what he calls yearly "bribes" from the county worth $57,000. That's on top of a $178,789 annual salary, paid by the state. The county calls the extra payments "supplemental benefits" -- a way to attract and retain quality judges in a high-cost city.

-----

Judges in Los Angeles County not only have the highest state salaries in the nation, they also get tens of thousands of dollars in county benefits. These payments, Fine says, mean judges are unlikely to rule against the county when it is involved in a lawsuit.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/24/jailed.lawyer.richard.fine/index.html?hpt=C1

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[jberryhill]

2. Because he's being held for contempt

Courts can hold a party for contempt for as long as it takes for the party to decide to comply with the order which they have violated.

[davidinalameda]

3. pretty much

[Jkid]

9. Every human has a limit

Problem is that how long is he going to take until he produces it. He has to do something major in the free world to be compelled to get out of jail.

[jberryhill]

31. The record is 14 years

We had an attorney in Philadelphia who didn't want to tell the divorce court where he'd stashed some seven digits worth of cash.

After 14 years, they figured they'd just let him out and keep an eye on what he does next.

[msanthrope]

46. Beatty Chadwick....a hero to some, a piece of crap to others...

a real piece of work.

[Xithras]

71. As I recall...

Chadwick claimed that the money was gone, and multiple investigations by the government were unable to uncover any evidence of its existence. He was imprisoned for 14 years because the government demanded that he pay $2.5 million dollars that he claimed he didn't have, and that the government couldn't prove even existed.

I have no idea what kind of "person" he is, but the guy deserves a $2.5 million judgement against the state of Delaware for a bs imprisonment.

[jberryhill]

73. WTF?

The case wasn't even in the State of Delaware.

He did claim to have the money, but he "lost it", and he refused to consent to audits of his records to find out where it went.

But the case was in Pennsylvania, not Delaware.

[Xithras]

79. Human recollection is a fallible thing :)

I was going entirely off memory (I read a bit on the case when he was released last year), and I'd have sworn it was Delaware. So sue me ;)

He claimed to have lost the money in a bad investment. Without any documentation to prove that he had the money one way or the other, it was improper for the court to have imprisoned him for so long.

As I heard someone point out last year: If his goal was to protect his money from his ex wife, he could have just shot her and been done with it. With the defense he could have afforded, he'd have spent less time in prison. It stretches credulity to believe that he sat in prison 14 years when freedom was simply a checkbook away. He was an attorney, so he knew the law and knew what he was facing.

I also heard it brought up last year that the guy may have genuine mental issues. The behaviors described by his ex-wife were rather alarming, and sounded like something you'd see in a person with untreated severe Aspergers Syndrome.

Either way, it was a very odd case, and the court had no valid reason to hold him as long as they did. The court, at worst, should have recognized that the imprisonment wasn't having the desired coercive effect after only a year or two.

[jberryhill]

80. "He claimed to have lost the money in a bad investment."

When you lose 2.5 million dollars in a "bad investment", you have some records to back that up.

[Xithras]

86. Assuming the investment was legal.

I'm a bit shocked that he didn't fall back on the 5th Amendment. "Your honor, I lost the money in some investments, but because of the nature of those investments, I am hereby invoking my Fifth Amendment protections against self incrimination."

The court cannot force to to prove financial losses if doing so could expose you to prosecution for other unrelated criminal activity.

Look, I happen to believe that the guy really does have the money stashed away somewhere, but I also believe that a certain burden of proof must be borne by the government before a person is incarcerated for 14 years. Without evidence that the money still existed, the government did not meet that obligation and imprisoned him abusively. I would have ZERO problem with the incarceration if the government could have demonstrated, at any time and with certainty, that the money was sitting in an account somewhere. It didn't do that. The governments position amounted to "prove your innocence", which is an offensive position for a judge to take.

[jberryhill]

87. This was an accounting procedure in a divorce trial

This was not a criminal prosecution and, yes, you do have to cough up financial records in the course of a divorce proceeding.

That can be done under a protective order, but most states seal divorce proceeding records for the very reason that they necessarily involve personal information not of public interest.

There is not a "government position" here, as at no time was he engaged in a trial involving the government at all.

And, yes, he can plead the fifth, but for the purposes of a civil divorce proceeding, then it is also permissible to infer he still has the money. You don't get rewarded for having done a good job at hiding your assets in a divorce proceeding. If you can't produce an accounting, then the fact that you (a) had the money, and (b) aren't producing records to show where it went, only results in the permissible inference that you still have it.

You don't walk into a civil proceeding, plead the fifth, and then everyone just throws up their hands and says, "Oh, he pled the fifth. So, we should all go home now." That's not how it works.

You will shield yourself from criminal prosecution, but it doesn't net you some sort of favorable inference for the purpose of the civil proceeding.

Aside from which, as an exercise is "missing the point", the notion of not disclosing in order to avoid criminal penalty is kind of silly, since he was going to stay in jail until he did disclose, and 14 years is pretty much longer than any time he would have served for any conceivable financial crime here.

[msanthrope]

102. Christ, are you injecting fact, law, and logic into this? n/t

[elleng]

4. Headline leaves wrong impression.

'Contempt' is not a 'crime,' and he's been 'charged' with contempt from the beginning. Bad enough, but let's not muddy our otherwise unclear our public discourse further with suggestions of high impropriety on part of the government.

Often said about contempt charges, he's got the keys to the jail house door in his own hands.

[jberryhill]

6. He violated a document production order

So, I guess the point is that attorneys should ignore court orders or something.

I don't get why this is a story.

[elleng]

ditto. Sounds dramatic, I guess.

[elleng]

7. dupe

[harmonicon]

8. You don't get why this is a story?

Whether he is right or not, I don't know, but a man is being held in jail without recourse by the very people he is accusing of being corrupt. It's like if you accused the police of committing crimes in your neighborhood and their response was to send someone to your house to rough you up and shut you up. Who would you call then? The police?

[jberryhill]

10. He's perfectly capable of recourse

"a man is being held in jail without recourse"

Bullshit.

He can file an appeal of the contempt citation. He can file a habeus petition. He can file a civil rights action in federal court.

He has plenty of recourse.

So, your point is that if a court orders something, then you should just ignore the order and the court will have to say "please". Then, the court is just going to have to throw up its hands and say, "Oh, well, he won't produce the documents we ordered, so we'll just have to cancel the show."

No, it doesn't work that way.

Notice that this is in connection with having been ordered to pay fees to the other side in a suit which he lost. The only reason why the court would want his financial documents is to assess a claim on his part that it is excessive or beyond his ability to pay. But he won't turn them over.

So, you want to be able to have someone file a frivolous lawsuit against you, and then skip out on the penalty if fees are assessed against them, yes?

[msanthrope]

24. Exactly right--he has plenty of recourse available to him. n/t

[icee]

35. Not in a system as summarily crooked as ours. These "recourses"

can be squashed without too much effort or themselves continued for months.

[jberryhill]

37. Let's start simple

Why doesn't he produce the documents he was ordered to produce?

[icee]

39. He doesn't want to--

ddddd

[jberryhill]

40. Oh... The "I don't want to" exception to document discovery in civil litigation!

I see. So when the court orders production of documents relevant to a civil case, one should object on the basis of "I don't want to."

You understand this is a case HE brought?

Normally, defying a court order is grounds for contempt. But, I see there is an often overlooked exception in which one declares "I don't want to", which has the effect of nullifying the court order.

[icee]

42. If the plaintiff believes the court is crooked, and Fine knows them

backwards and forwards, then I understand his position. I would do the same. If you knew the LA Superior Court as well as Fine, you wouldn't even be posting regarding this. Fine knows what he is doing. LA Superior Court will end up with egg on its face.

[jberryhill]

49. Oh, I see

So the court is crooked.

That's why Fine filed his frivolous action there in the first place?

Because he likes to litigate in crooked courts?

So then, not only can he file suit there and put the defendant to unjustified expenses, but he can pick and choose which orders he wants to ignore.

I suppose he would have told the other side to ignore the order if he had won, right?

Fine is a lying right wing extremist pest.

"If the plaintiff believes the court is crooked"... oy.

[icee]

53. Where was he going to file? From a techical pov you are right. From

a reality pov you are wrong. But until you venture in the LA Superior Court system, you'll never know.

[msanthrope]

104. "From a techical pov you are right." Ah..the law. n/t

[msanthrope]

47. No--all he need do is produce, then he has the right to go. If

release doesn't happen quickly, he has habeas.

[icee]

50. You don't seem to get it. Let's suppose the document(s)

Fine is suppose to produce contains not only information that the court requires but also information having nothing to do with the case at hand that the court could use to either harm Fine and/or enrich itself at Fine's or the taxpayer's expense. In an ethical court this extraneous info would be set aside, deemed irrelevant. But not LA Country Superior Crooks. This court has been referred to in quasi legal publications as "the most crooked in the US". Should Fine produce and destroy himself concurrently? I think not. But, then, I know you don't know any of what I said is valid or not.

[jberryhill]

68. Yah, let's suppose the facts were something different

And let's suppose that an attorney doesn't know how to file an objection to a document discovery order or know how to redact privileged information.

Let's pretend an attorney doesn't know how to file an appeal.

Let's suppose there were a universe in which Richard Fine was sane, while we are at it.

Let's suppose that gold coins come out of my ass, and I give them away free to DU members.

[icee]

75. You've drifted into the irrational....

[jberryhill]

78. Yeah, that was Fine's problem back when he was disbarred

...and he STILL hasn't come to grips with reality.

[msanthrope]

100. "Should Fine produce and destroy himself concurrently?" Dude, he filed the case!!

I mean, he was stupid enough to file a case, lose, be ordered to pay costs, and then think he didn't have to provide proof when he said he couldn't pay.

Guess what? That American legal system does not stop stupidity...which is why Orly Taitz, Fine defender, is currently facing a 20k contempt fine.


Here's Orly Taitz defending Fine. She's doing as well as you....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KG5ei6uH0

[icee]

106. I disagree.

[msanthrope]

108. Of course you do. So does Orly Taitz. n/t

[icee]

109. So because both Orly Taitz and I disagree, we're exactly the

same? Right? You're the reason people hesitate to make certain posts on this forum. I think the attorney is doing the right thing in this case. I know all about LA Superior Court, having been a party to many many suits run through them when I worked for a local transnational oil company which merged with another transnational oil company. Roughly half the judges are crooked, take bribes, bend verdicts to suit paying parties, participate in record falsifications, make rulings favorable to monied plaintiffs. I have observed much of this with my own eyes on hundreds of occasions. This was one of the reasons I quit my job with the oil company. Maybe when you get older you'll understand that things are not always as they seem. Meantime, you and Jerry can ruminate over the Orly Taitz dipshit.

[harmonicon]

48. I think you missed my point

It has nothing to do with arguing about the case or contempt charge that he's supposedly been jailed for. The problem is that he's previously accused his jailers with corruption, so there seems to be at least the possibility of this detention not being related to it's supposed case, but rather as a form of retribution. That is why it's a story.

[quakerboy]

65. To be fair to both sides

It would be pretty much impossible to run a country without having someone in authority over someone who accused them of wrongdoing.

If someone complaining against you invalidates your legal authority, then a whole lotta parents with little kids are in a whole lotta trouble right now, to take out toward its absurd ends.

[jberryhill]

70. Lol "retribution"

He was already disbarred for lying in and about court proceedings, appealed his disbarment, and that was still confirmed:

You would have thought he'd gotten the message at that point.

[WolverineDG]

30. "Without recourse" I think not

He's in violation of a court order to produce documents. He continues to refuse to do that, so he stays in jail. Jailing an attorney for contempt is not something that is taken lightly. He probably had oodles of opportunities to do what he was ordered, failed to do it, & so as a last resort, was thrown in jail.

dg

[icee]

33. You're the only one here who understands the situation. I hope the

guy holds out, even though I have no use for attorneys.

[creeksneakers2]

82. I don't buy his corruption claim.

I assume the judges get the $57,000 automatically. There's nothing that says they only get it if they rule favorably for the county. So its not a bribe. If it was any salary at all could be called a bribe. The attorney sounds a little crazy to even make such an accusation.

[jberryhill]

84. He's more than "a little crazy"

He's a whole lot crazy, and there is a reason why he is not an attorney.

He is a serial liar and vexatious litigant.

[gcomeau]

5. What is the point of this post?

To suggest that it's wrong to require people to comply with lawful court orders? Because that's what it looks like from where I'm standing.

[closeupready]

11. Cruel and unusual punishment, IMO.

If I could, I would order him released, and compensated for the excessiveness of this.

[jberryhill]

12. And what about the party who had been already ordered compensation by him?

Their claim doesn't count?

You do understand the situation here, yes? Someone was already ordered compensation by a court, and this guy is refusing to pay it or provide information ordered in the course of effecting that order.

So, if you could issue court orders, what would you do when the party in question simply thumbs their nose at you?

[closeupready]

14. Their claim isn't worth depriving someone of 14 months of liberty.

n/t

[jberryhill]

16. Oh, really...

Hey, does that go for people who violate child support orders, or do you have a list of "ignorable court orders"?

This guy held out for 14 YEARS on a contempt order for failing to tell the divorce court where he stashed his money:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09192/983301-454.stm

You don't understand how contempt works. The key to the jailhouse door is in his own hands. He was ordered to turn over documents in the phase of a trial at which he was judged liable for the other side's costs.

In order to avoid jail, he can comply with the order and turn over the documents.

Do you know, or care, what the other side of that suit is out of pocket on this thing?

[msanthrope]

27. Mr. Fine thinks it is...

Mr. Fine could comply. He chooses to sit where he is.

He could walk out of jail tomorrow.

[icee]

41. That's the real issue here. Los Angeles Superior Court is as

crooked as a dog's hind leg. I used to work for a company that would bribe them routinely, although it looked strictly above board. Also, I had a friend who got out of LA County Jail by arranging a payoff to a judge that was initiated by a guard who did this regularly for certain jailees who fit a profile.

[closeupready]

43. Very interesting.

Sad that people here refuse to see the obvious problem with this.

[jberryhill]

51. The "obvious problem"?

What would that be?

That Richard Fine chose to bring a frivolous suit in a corrupt court, lost, and now doesn't want to cooperate by producing relevant documents - in a suit HE filed?

There's an obvious problem there. Did he expect the other side to follow court orders, or was this one of those "one way" suits?

[closeupready]

56. Plonk.

n/t

[icee]

54. Me, too. And require the judge to serve compensatory time. Solitary

confinement? That sounds over-punitive to me. Fine is the taxpayer's friend. We need him on the street.

[leveymg]

13. Yet, they dropped the charges against AIG execs, and torturers and war criminals walk free.

I say, free up that cell space and go after the real scofflaws and predators. The System's priorities are contemptible.

[jberryhill]

15. Who is "they"? Los Angeles Superior Court?

[leveymg]

22. DOJ

Sure, sure. I know, different jurisdictions. Just commenting on the lack of proportionate justice metered out in this country, today.

[WileEcoyote]

17. It goes deeper than this

Once you've been nabbed by the legal system you understand that "fighting crime" is not their main priority. Making money off the residents and visitors is.

True, the legal system does reduce some "crimes" but it can not do a very effective job largely because it is oriented towards making itself stronger and wealthier.

Law enforcement, judges and legal staff are almost on a commission payment system. This is even true of public defenders who are a joke in California and elsewhere too I predict.

Your public defender works for the municipality. They pay him or put him in a place where he'll be paid money from you the defendant. He/she has no incentive to buck this system. You almost always lose your case with a public defender.

Best thing to do? Pay for a real attorney. Otherwise? Don't ever pay any fines! This just encourages the bureaucracy. When you pay a fine you virtually indict yourself. Instead always HANG UP the phone when the municipal governing body is asking for money they claim you owe. If arrested? Do the time. It's cheaper than the fines. You'll also develop a useful hatred to the general corrupt mother fuckers running the legal system.

This will be especially good for you.

Oh and EVERYONE here should expect to be threatened with fines and jail. With the recession biting into tax collection the Sheriff Of Nottingham will find plenty of other ways of nailing your ass. Like giving you a ticket for going 42 MPH in a 40 MPH zone.

[jberryhill]

29. "nabbed by the legal system" LOL

Ummm... you do realize this guy is an attorney who was disbarred for lying to courts in 16 different instances.

A good way to avoid "the legal system" is not to become a lawyer and then seek action against judges every time they rule against you.

[abelenkpe]

18. CNN? Really? Here?

This article is meant to make readers pissed off at the compensation of state employees period. Libertarians want to divide private sector employees from public sector employees so that workers fight among themselves rather than pursue the real cause of their economic problems and to encourage voters to lose faith in their government and demand that the justice system: courts, jails, police be privatized.

Yeah it sucks that this dick is stubbornly refusing to produce the money and documents he has been ordered to produce. So he's accusing judges of being corrupt. How novel. I'm sure if you asked any inmate they'd say the same thing.

Taxpayers advocate my ass. Libertarian martyr wannabe is more like it.

[jberryhill]

20. Not "taxpayer advocate" but far right "tax protester" nutjob

He files frivolous class action lawsuits and then when they are dismissed, he files multiple disciplinary actions and suits against the judges and courts.

He is one of those paper terrorists like the "sovereign citizen" people, with is own peculiar legal theories which are not recognized by any court.

Birther attorney Orly Taitz was trying to raise support for his "defense".

Here is the decision on the appeal of his disbarment, which should give you the flavor of what this guy is all about:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/04-O-14366-2.pdf

[jberryhill]

21. You nailed it

Richard Fine is a known quantity.

[jberryhill]

19. You know why he his an "ex" lawyer?

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/04-O-14366-2.pdf

[leveymg]

23. One-man war against the CA Judiciary. He lost.

Big surprise.

[jberryhill]

26. Orly Taitz is one of his supporters

...thus adding to the profound lack of surprise.

[msanthrope]

28. Doesn't that say it all? n/t

[liberation]

25. "taxpayer's advocate" isn't it an oxymoron for a guy willing to waste taxpayer's money for 14 months

because he doesn't feel like paying attorney's fees?

The article seems to be less concerned with reporting the facts, than it seems in providing a platform for libertarian talking points... given the amount of red herrings littered through the article.

This is a rich guy wasting everybody's time and money pretending he is the victim via his ridiculous stance. There are real victims of abuses in/from the legal system, this guy is not one of them.

[depakid]

103. A lot more than 14 months...

A legal blog puts it into the vernacular:

When Fine lost a case, he would argue in each appeal that the judges were corrupt. This results in delays and led to false accusations against judges who were just trying to do their job. It is hard to have any other opinion based on the eventual finding that these lawsuits were found to be "frivolous and meritless.")

http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-richard-fine-jd-fine-with-wearing.html

And it wasn't just judges in the cases, but clerks and other judges in the system.

[ieoeja]

32. Unrec - why is a thread supporting a rightwing EXTREMIST on the front page?

This making the DU front page is more unbelievable to me than the people who thought we were going to blow up the moon. At least that was only a couple of individuals with an unpopular opinion. For this to make the front page, it required a lot of DUers to recommend a post that is supporting a rightwing extremist position.

[jberryhill]

36. Good question, isn't it?

This guy Richard Fine is a darling of militia types and "tax freedom" types everywhere.

[closeupready]

45. Thank you. This topic is bullshit - or at least the responses supporting it.

DU has seen better days.

[harmonicon]

52. supporting?

I think this is worthy of discussion, and things worthy of discussion should go on the front page, not just high-fiving, preaching to the converted posts - there is no point in discussing those sorts of things.

As for someone being right-wing or left-wing, I don't think it really matters here. Those with an interest in liberty often have to keep strange bedfellows.

[icee]

55. Hear, hear!

[ieoeja]

67. What liberty?

The man woke up yesterday, broke the law, and received a 1 day sentence.

He woke up today, broke the same law, and received another 1 day sentence.

He will wake up tomorrow, probably break that same law, and receive another 1 day sentence.

This will continue until he wakes up one morning and decides to obey the law.


So what liberty are you advocating? The liberty to break the law EVERY SINGLE DAY?

[harmonicon]

81. the law is not what's at issue with this story

Besides, he hasn't been convicted of a crime, he's being held in contempt of court. The people who are holding him in contempt are the same people he has accused of being corrupt and not impartial to the law. That is the story here.

[jberryhill]

83. "he's being held in contempt of court"

He accepted the jurisdiction of this court when he filed his frivolous suit.

He can't produce the ordered documents... why?

[liberation]

85. EXACTLY!

Good grief a lot of people here are not understanding the situation at all, and are trying to twist it into their own victimization narrative.

The problem is that there are actual cases of people being shafted by corrupt/unfair laws. This asshole is not one of them.

It boils my blood when rich douches pretend to wrap themselves on the victim flag when it is convenient to their cause. They are the ultimately manipulators... so I am not surprised this is one of those so-called "tax payer advocates" read "fuck you I got mine" libertarian.

He was asked to produce a set of documents, which would blow his argument out of the water and expose him for the fraud he is trying to get himself out of paying the fees he incurred with his BS frivolous law suit.

[Truth2Tell]

89. And WTF is with this CNN sympathy puff piece... OMFG

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2010/05/21/FINE_FAMILY_WEB_INTERVIEWv4.cnn

No context, no information about anything. Zippo. Just grieving family and sappy garbage. Ohhh, the humanity.

Unreal.

[jberryhill]

91. It's an example of the kind of success one can obtain

...with this sort of campaign.

A lot of people don't realize that you can be put away for contempt as long as you remain in contempt, and it has nothing to do with being charged with or convicted of a crime.

So, ZOMG... some guy has been indefinitely locked up and never charged with anything. That's attention-getting if you have never been exposed to how courts normally function.

You'll see this sort of thing when Lt Col Lakin receives his court martial sentence for refusing to deploy because he doesn't think Obama is a natural born US citizen. It will be "ZOMG... this man is in jail because Obama refuses to show his birth certificate." I guaran-damn-tee it. The underlying craziness is glossed over, and the idea is to show some kind of "miscarriage of justice".

[harmonicon]

98. again, you're purposefully changing the topic

What he is being held in contempt for is not what's at issue with this story. This argument of yours is a red-herring. I am now done trying to discuss this with you, because you have repeatedly failed to engage with the substance of the original post in favor of bringing up other arguments in order to change the subject.

Have a nice day.

[jberryhill]

110. Not what's at issue with this story?

My goodness, the headline of the story refers to him being imprisoned without being charged with a crime. To those unfamiliar with contempt, that may seem odd.

To those familiar with it, the notion of a contemnor alleging the court to be crooked, does not seem odd at all. It is how he managed to score multiple sanctions and disbarment in his career prior to being an "ex" lawyer.

The man is a rich spoiled brat playing at martyr.

[ieoeja]

111. So what is the point of your OP? That people should be allowed to ignore court orders?

I return to my "what liberty" question. You seem to be ignoring the fact that he is breaking the law on a daily basis. As previously stated (by me and just about eveybody else on this thread) he will get out of jail the second he agrees to stop breaking the law. That is all he has to do. Just stop breaking the law.

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. +1.

Dungeons suck, regardless of who's in them.

[Daemonaquila]

76. Thank you.

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out how so many people are getting worked up over this. Right-wing nutjob gets disbarred for abusing the court system and finally gets tossed in jail for contempt of court for continuing his bad behavior, and it's even a story? Orly Taitz is a story only because watching her wreck is so bizarre it's fascinating, and everyone is waiting and hoping for her to wind up in a cell for contempt. Good lordy - leave this silly story be and spend some energy on people and issues that matter!

[TwentyFive]

34. I've been victimized by a frivilous Law Suit before. Keep him in jail.

When a plaintiff builds a case around lies and deceptions, the unwitting defendant is then required to spend countless hours and several thousand dollars in legal fees in order to prove the plaintiff is just trying to deceive. Beyond that, a law suit is incredibly stressful.

People who think this attorney should just be let go...and it's not that big of a deal....have no idea what they are talking about.

[jberryhill]

38. It's not even the first go-round for this asshole

Note the "ex" in front of "lawyer".

He's been bucking for contempt for years.

[closeupready]

44. Well I haven't. Let him out.

n/t

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

57. Shameful. Not justice by any means - the crooks own the keys to the jail cell. eom

[icee]

60. If they start a Free Richard Fine march, I'm going up there. It's

only 22 miles from my house. Here, look at this. This illustrates what you said in your post.

http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home

[ShortnFiery]

61. Thank-you for the info and site reference.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[icee]

63. See ya later, buddy. Keep up the good work.

[depakid]

101. Believe me, you wouldn't want to hang out with this teabagging nuttery crew

The guy's anything but some sort of oppressed underclass hero- and has been noted, Fine has the keys to the jailhouse door.

His release date from LA County Central Jail is entirely under his control.

[icee]

105. Why would a guy like Fine who has tons of money stay in jail? Makes

no sense, particularly when that jail is LA County. I was in that place once for a DWI I got in 1971. Not a fun place. I can only image now. And he's in solitary confinement. Something don't ring true.

[depakid]

107. Because, like Orly Taitz he's an obsessive nutter

with a martyr complex.

As far as his broad based allegations are concerned- the courts rule against LA County all the time. Just not always in his cases.

[ieoeja]

69. No. Richard Fine owns the keys to the jail cell.

All this rightwing extremist has to do is "agree" to pay his fine and turn over the documents. If he wakes up tomorrow morning and tells the guard he is willing to do that, he will be released as soon as they can complete the process for releasing him.

[icee]

58. jberryhill, if you're still here, take a look at this.

http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home

[jberryhill]

66. Yeah... he's got a website where fellow kooks request donations

Birther Orly Taitz was pimping that site a while back too. So?

Richard Fine is a documented liar and nutjob. That there is a website promoting a one-sided account of his nutjobbery is not much of a surprise.

If you want a great legal website, then check out orlytaitzesq. com at which you can find out all about how the President was born in Kenya.

So, tell me, did Richard Fine expect the other side of the suit he filed to follow the orders of this "corrupt court" or not?

(although I really did get a kick out of your post a few days ago about how white people are going to be a minority in the future and things won't be like the "good old days" in the 1950's and 1960's. You are going to have to do better than that to keep your cover.)

[icee]

74. That's what's going to happen....Richard Fine acts unilaterally

expecting nothing and everything. I don't care for Orly Taitz, but I can't stop her from going to sites I appreciate. Here, watch this when you have a chance. I don't think you get it about Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI

[jberryhill]

77. Pilger - Yeah, another hero on the Alex Jones hit parade

The "Obama worked for the CIA" guy.

Ummm... you're right.

I obviously don't "get it".

Nor do I get how the accusation that Obama is some sort of "deep cover" CIA agent has anything to do with the bizarre legal gyrations of Richard Fine, but I'm sure you'll sort out for me how all of this fringe nonsense is connected.

Do tell.

[Truth2Tell]

88. So the narrative on that site

includes this:

"Meanwhile, the farce has escalated to the point that judges are taking over cases in which they are parties and dismissing those cases against themselves."

That's quite an extraordinary claim. It seems like if that were true it would be a larger story than the confinement of Mr. Fine. Wouldn't it?

Why doesn't this site provide any further details on this extraordinary claim? No links?

Hmmmmm.

[icee]

92. It is a larger story, but you may not be inquisitive enough to

explore other more provocative sites. I know judges are crooked. An event happened to me. And many others know it too. If you keep believing what is now mainly an advertised America, you'll never learn the truth. There are, however, many honest judges.

[Truth2Tell]

94. I'm willing to accept that this is part of a larger story

of court corruption if someone can provide some specifics. Certainly if judges have been taking over cases to which they are party and then dismissing them - as this site claims - that would be extremely corrupt. Can you point me to any more specific information on that claim? Or has it just been tossed out there? Because that would seem to present a credibility problem for this site IMO.

[icee]

95. If I find something I'll post it to you as an off-topic entry.

[Truth2Tell]

96. The credibility of the information source

you linked is square on topic.

[ColesCountyDem]

72. He holds the keys to his own cell door.

If he chooses to remain jailed, that's his choice ....

[SILVER__FOX52]

90. Fuck the Judge !!

14 mos is ridiculous

[ieoeja]

112. It's not 14 months. It's one day.

He has to spend one day in jail every time he chooses to violate a court order. The first day he pays the fine and turns over the documents, he gets out of jail.

He has been in jail 14 months because he has broken the law every day for 14 months. All he has to do is stop, and he will be immediately (or as soon as possible) released from jail.


During Ken Starr's witch-hunts two women were told that if they testified in favor of Bill Clinton, they would be prosecuted for perjury. One woman testified immediately, was prosecuted for perjury, easily won her case, and never spent a single night in jail. The other woman, Susan McDougal, chose not to testify and accordingly spent the next several years in jail.

Like the idiot in this case, she could have gone free at any moment. Worse yet, while she was in jail, she got to see the other woman's case play out right in front of her, and was still stupid enough to choose to remain in jail.

[Joe Chi Minh]

93. As that FBI spokesman intoned, when failing to prosecute AIG's finest:

"The system worked". I wonder what that system could possibly be.

[depakid]

99. This is one guy who richly deserves his baloney sandwiches

It was a fine day when this note appeared in the California Bar Journal. It was a long time coming:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/October2009&MONTH=October&YEAR=2009&sCatHtmlTitle=Discipline&sJournalCategory=YES#d3