Richard Fine

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Richard Fine in California

Richard Fine, Lawyer in Jail

In the year 2000, he was a successful, highly respected litigator. In 2010, he has just been released from a year-and-a-half stay at a Los Angeles County jail.

The basic facts behind his story are easy enough to understand. On March 4, 2009, Fine entered the Men’s Central Jail after a state superior court judge found him in contempt for refusing to pay the penalty for missing a filing deadline. Around the same time, the California Supreme Court revoked his license to practice law for filing dozens of groundless motions that challenged both the integrity and the legitimacy of judges. What none of these facts even begin to reveal, however, is: Why?

Richard Fine: California Corruption

By Michael Estrin. He is a freelance writer living in Los Angeles.

Disbarment and imprisonment apparently won’t persuade Richard Fine to stop accusing state judges of being on the take.

The 70-year-old disbarred attorney claims that he was a prisoner of conscience who continues to pay a very high price for blowing the whistle on a state-sanctioned bribery scheme that implicates hundreds of judges. As he told the Los Angeles Daily News in March for an article that would mark the one-year anniversary of his confinement: “We’ve exposed the most massive judicial corruption scheme in the history of the United States.” (…)

In short order, I learned that Fine has a law degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD in international law from the London School of Economics. I also learned that in the early 1970s he worked in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, bringing price-fixing cases against the likes of General Motors and the Ford Motor Company. By the 1990s, though, Fine was making a name for himself in private practice, filing cases against the public sector. One sixteen-year-old clip from the Lodi News-Sentinel names him as part of a team of attorneys who sued California for illegally “robbing” special state funds to plug holes in the budget. In 1995, a Los Angeles Times story identified Fine as the lawyer behind a $116 million suit against the city, claiming that it had illegally diverted funds set aside for installing fire sprinklers in public buildings, constructing parking lots, and maintaining parking meters. The same story also noted that Fine had won a $3 million judgment against the city in a separate lawsuit on behalf of the Los Angeles Harbor Trust Fund, and that he blocked the misappropriation of another $120 million the city had planned to tap to fix a budget shortfall. Then in 1996, according to the Times, Fine brought suit on behalf of two North Hollywood residents against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, for allegedly overcharging customers by as much as $65 million in sewer fees.

Taken together, these clips suggest that Fine was a crusader rather than just another hired gun. In fact, the man claims to have recovered or saved taxpayers nearly a billion dollars over the course of his career. But by the spring of 2009, when L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe found him in contempt, Fine’s crusade had morphed into a single-minded campaign against the roughly $300 million in benefits that he estimates L.A. superior court judges had received from the county since the late 1980s to supplement their state-paid salaries. These payments, Fine insisted, made it almost impossible to get a fair hearing in Los Angeles when representing parties against the county.

It was, of course, a whopper of a claim. And yet, as wacky as it seemed, Fine could point to at least one case that strongly suggested he was on to something. This was a case brought by the conservative public interest group Judicial Watch on behalf of a Los Angeles County taxpayer named Harold P. Sturgeon. The question it raised was this: Could California’s judges collect any county-paid insurance or retirement benefits without violating the state’s Constitution? (Under Article VI, section 19, judicial compensation must be set by the Legislature.) On October 10, 2008, the California Court of Appeals in the Fourth District ruled that they could not (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630 (2008)).

Needless to say, for the roughly 90 percent of California’s trial judges who receive local benefits of some sort, that decision came as quite a shock. And in Sacramento, it set off a mad scramble to enact a legislative fix. The result was SB 11 (Steinberg), which passed both chambers of the Legislature during a special weekend budget session in February 2009 (see Cal. Gov. Code §§ 68220?68222).

Then, just one month later, Richard Fine found himself in jail.

When I first spoke with Fine in early May of this year, a CNN crew had already been out to the Men’s Central Jail to film a story about him. Also by then, inmate No. 1824367 had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his habeas corpus petition. His request would soon be rejected (see Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, 2009 WL 4874116 (9th Cir,), cert. denied sub nom. Fine v. Baca, 130 S. Ct. 1334 (2010)), but not before prompting simultaneous demonstrations on his behalf: one in front of the U.S. Supreme Court; the other outside the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, where about 75 protestors chanted “This is America, not Russia!”

As I expected, Fine felt pretty good about all that attention. But when I arrived at the jail, I also learned that he was having some problems with his health. Most worrisome was the swelling in his legs. His blood sugar and cholesterol numbers also were high. “The Rabbi told me to go with the kosher meals because they were better,” he told me with a slight laugh. “But the food is still pretty bad.”

We spoke to each other through a pair of clunky, black phones in the jail’s second-floor infirmary, he on one side of a thick glass partition and I on the other. Fine’s side was dimly lit, so it was difficult for me to see beyond his stall. But occasionally I heard the sound of a steel door opening and closing, which disrupted our conversation. The interview on that day alone lasted for five hours.

(To minimize the possibility of unrest, the two newspapers that the prisoners had access to were out of date and heavily edited by the jail’s staff. So although Fine had a pretty good grasp of what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was not nearly so up to date on Los Angeles.)

Heavyset and bespectacled, he struck me as a rather pleasant, grandfatherly sort of guy. But when the talk turned to how the county was enhancing judicial compensation packages, Fine’s posture noticeably stiffened. “It’s bribery,” he said, tilting his head straight at me. “The result is that when you sue [a county] on a bench trial, you lose.”

As Fine recalls, he didn’t realize that the county was doing any of this until 2000-at least a dozen years after it started. But then when I asked him how he found out, his answer floored me. The person who tipped him off, he said, was none other than Ronald M. George, the chief justice of California.

“I had a feeling something was amiss for a while,” he explained. “I had come across some really bizarre rulings in my cases against the county, but I didn’t know why. I didn’t learn about the payments until I read a news report of a speech given by Chief Justice George where he said that these payments were unconstitutional.”

When I later checked out the Free Richard Fine website devoted to his defense, I would indeed find a quotation attributed to George: “That state of affairs is not only wrong, it may be unconstitutional,” it said.

This quote, I’ve since determined, came from a September 18, 2000, article in a legal daily in L.A. called the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, which described an informal Q&A session in San Diego between the chief justice and members of the California Judges Association. In the article, however, the line Fine’s website excerpt-ed did not have any quotation marks around it, suggesting the reporter had paraphrased the remark.

When I called the State Supreme Court for a comment, a spokeswoman for George said that the Chief didn’t remember ever making such a remark. She also noted that it wasn’t altogether unheard of for a reporter to take his comments out of context.

Clearly, I wasn’t going to get to the bottom of this easily. But to hear Fine tell it, I needn’t have bothered.
“You won’t find a copy of that speech,” he said before I left the jail. “They don’t want that out there.”
His words had the ring of a bad Hollywood thriller.

In one of the last cases of his legal career, before he lost his license, Fine represented a homeowners association called Marina Strand, which was challenging Los Angeles County’s permit for a high-rise apartment complex to be built in Marina del Ray (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Ass’n v. County of Los Angeles, No. BS 109420 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.)). Fine filed the action in June 2007, but before the year was out the State Bar, as part of its disbarment proceedings against him, ruled his membership inactive. (See In Re Matter of Richard I. Fine, No. 04-0-14366 (State Bar Ct. inactive enrollment ordered Oct. 17, 2007).) So the home-owners’ association turned the matter over to another attorney named Rose Zoia.

According to Zoia, there was nothing unusual about the Marina Strand case itself. Arguing before Judge Yaffe, she won on some issues and lost on several others. Each side then appealed, only for the case to be dismissed as moot when the county issued a new environmental impact report.

I asked Zoia whether she agreed with Fine that nobody suing the county in L.A. could get a fair hearing. “No,” she emailed back, “I would not support that very general proposition. Of course, whether one agrees with the outcome of any given case is a different issue.”

Marina Strand may have been perfectly routine from a case law standpoint, but if you go to the records department of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse and ask for the files, you’ll end up with a cart filled with four volumes of material, much of it devoted to the fight that landed Fine in jail. The issue at hand: Did Judge Yaffe have the authority to order Fine to pay $46,329.01? This was the amount that the lawyers for the apartment project’s developer said Fine owed them for missing a filing deadline. (Fine calls this sum preposterous, maintaining that his error caused only a one-day delay in the proceedings.) But rather than argue over the merits of the claim, Fine simply insisted that Yaffe’s authority had been entirely compromised by the money that he was receiving from the county.

As Fine began to file motions calling for Yaffe’s disqualification, their ex-changes grew increasingly tense. At one point Yaffe asked: “Is there any judge or justice in California that can order you to do anything?”

“The answer to your question is yes,” Fine responded, “there are judges within the county [and the] California judicial system that can order me to do something. You are not one of them.”

Fine then added: “There are people in the California judicial system who are clean. There are a lot of people who are not clean. … Unfortunately, your Honor, you are in this group that is disqualified.” Minutes later, the judge found Fine in contempt of court.

By the time Judicial Watch decided to throw its weight behind Sturgeon, Los Angeles County had already been supplementing judges’ salaries for almost two decades, though the practice wasn’t codified into state law until 1998, when the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act took effect. (In addition to Los Angeles, 34 of the state’s 58 counties also supplement their judges’ salaries, although by much smaller amounts.) But in the appeal of Sturgeon, Justice Patricia Benke ruled in October 2008 that under current law the state Legislature could not delegate to individual counties such constitutionally prescribed duties as setting judges’ compensation (Sturgeon, 167 Cal. App. 4th at 635).

It wasn’t that counties didn’t have a “legitimate interest” in assuring the competence and skill of the judges who serve them, she allowed. “Because they improve recruitment and retention of judicial officers, the disputed benefits … serve a public purpose.” Yet she concluded that the Lockyer-Isenberg law did not pass constitutional muster because it failed to stipulate “any standard or inherent safeguard by which future increases or decreases in judicial benefits would be regulated.” (167 Cal. App. 4th 656.)

Benke’s decision drew an immediate appeal from the county and prompted L.A.’s superior court judges to retain their own counsel (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher), which was paid for out of a superior court defense fund. Meanwhile, with reports circulating that a number of senior judges were threatening to retire, pressure mounted for a legislative solution that would keep the county funds flowing without interruption.

And SB 11 – which Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law on February 20, 2009 – did just that.

Actually, the legislation did three important things. First, it addressed the constitutionally mandated role of the state by requiring the Judicial Council to report to the Senate annually any judicial payments that the counties made. Second, it empowered the counties to stop making such payments, as long as the judges affected are given at least 180 days written notice. (Observers had worried there might be no legal way for a county to stop giving money to judges once they started.) And third, the bill shielded public entities and officers against any liability from past payments. (See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 68220?68222.)

Later, Judge James Richman affirmed that the supplemental payments could continue in light of SB 11’s passage: “[T]he Legislature obviously considered the problem identified in Sturgeon,” wrote the San Francisco appellate court judge, who was transferred to Los Angeles just to hear the case. “That the Legislature did not ordain a uniform state-wide amount of the total salary, compensation, and benefits,” he added, “does not show the ‘abdication’ that Plaintiff so vigorously decries.” (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, No. BC 351286 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.) order on summary judgment at pp. 11?12.)

To Fine, of course, these developments were all part of an “outrageous act of corruption.” However, when I asked Paul Orfanedes, the director of litigation at Judicial Watch, for his assessment, he seemed to go out of his way to distance himself from Fine’s characterization. “In our view,” he told me after a long pause, “the California state Constitution says that only the Legislature can set judicial compensation. Is this payment corruption? Maybe it’s a form of corruption, I don’t know. But it is not a kickback scheme or a quid pro quo.

“Fine’s fight predated our case,” added Orfanedes, whose organization has appealed Judge Richman’s ruling. “When the court of appeals ruled in our favor [in Sturgeon], he used that as an opportunity to bring attention to his issues.”

On May 24, Fine scored a big media coup when CNN aired its lengthy segment about him on Anderson Cooper’s 360 news show. Among those interviewed for the program was Los Angeles County’s cost litigation manager, Steven Estabrook. For the network’s online version of the story, he told CNN that in the past two fiscal years the county had won eight of nine bench trials – odds that seemed to support Fine’s complaints. When I spoke to Estabrook later, however, he told me that the numbers were not nearly so definitive. For one thing, he noted, records on the county’s success at the bench versus at jury trial go back only three years. He also noted that no one has collected statistics on pretrial motions, which is when many rulings go against the county.

In addition to giving Fine an opportunity to talk about judicial corruption, CNN provided him with a platform to describe the harsh conditions of his confinement in a seven-and-a-half by thirteen-foot cell set apart from the rest of the inmates. And in a second video clip posted on CNN’s website, Fine’s wife and daughter described their own pain and indignation.

In fact, Fine’s daughter, Victoria, had lots to say about this case, even before the CNN program. An editor at the Huf-fington Post, she wrote an impassioned editorial for the online news organization back in January, describing her father as a “political prisoner.”

Still, CNN’s broadcast struck at least one critical note: “What [Fine] ultimately did” in Marina Strand, said Joseph Carlucci, the lead prosecutor for the California State Bar on Fine’s disciplinary case, “was to delay proceedings, [and] to level false accusations against judges. All those lawsuits were found to have been frivolous and meritless,” he added. The segment also made mention of the fact that Fine had been disbarred – an action the California Supreme Court finalized on March 13, 2009 (Fine v. State Bar, No. S168418).

Unlike Judge Yaffe’s deliberations, the State Bar’s disbarment proceedings against Fine passed judgment on a long history of acting out. The records on this are voluminous. Numbering thousands of pages, they portray a litigator who at times seemed virtually out of control. As State Bar Judge Joann Remke wrote: “[Fine had a] pattern of deliberately and repeatedly misusing this state’s statutory process for challenging a judicial officer’s qualifications.” (In the matter of Richard I. Fine, No. 04-0-14366 (State Bar Ct.) opinion and order at p. 1.)

To make their case, State Bar prosecutors focused on five civil suits that Fine had worked on over the years, including one in which he filed no fewer than a dozen disqualification motions, three times the number he filed in Marina Strand. This was a class action that arose out of a series of claims against an insurance company that allegedly had hired an imposter physician (DeFlores v. EHG Nat. Health Servs., No. B150607 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. filed May 23, 1996)). When Fine and several other plaintiffs lawyers settled the case in 1999 for $9.2 million, one-third of the settlement was set aside for attorneys fees. However, all hell broke loose when Bruce Mitchell, the commissioner who presided over the case, refused to authorize a $1.4 million advance payment that Fine was seeking before the court had made a clear determination about how much money each attorney was owed.

Fine filed his first motion to disqualify Mitchell in December 1999, claiming that the commissioner had colluded with another plaintiffs attorney to cheat him out of his fee. Four months later, with Fine becoming increasingly obstreperous, Mitchell removed him from his role as class counsel – although he did allow him to continue representing a few of the litigants. In September 2001, with Fine up to nine disqualification motions, Mitchell found him in contempt of court and sentenced him to five days in jail. Fine then appealed the matter to Justice Roger Boren of the Second District, who not only rejected Fine’s arguments (he noted that Fine, along with the other lawyers in the case, had stipulated without objection to Mitchell acting as the pretrial judge), but also found his accusations to be “false and thus contemptuous.” Thus, Mitchell’s contempt order stood (Fine v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. App. 4th, 651 (2002)).

Amazingly enough, the ruling failed to dissuade him from filing even more disqualification motions against Mitchell. And in October 2002, with Fine up to his twelfth motion, an independent judge assigned to the case once again found him in contempt.

The State Bar Court found a similar pattern of abuse in the four other civil cases it looked at, in which he racked up another 18 disqualification motions. Perhaps even more telling, however, were the five disqualification motions Fine subsequently filed against the State Bar Court trial judge who presided over his disbarment trial, the five more he filed against the supervising judge of that court, the six against the presiding judge of the review department, and the eight he filed against other review judges.

In her opinion, State Bar Judge Remke stated that Fine had committed “multiple acts of moral turpitude.” (In the matter of Richard I. Fine, No. 04-0-14366, opinion and order at p. 16.) But when I bounced those words off of Fine, he simply scoffed. “”Moral turpitude,” he said, “is an archaic concept.”

“This started with an effort to take away my fees because they thought I would quit [pursuing the DeFlores class action] if they went after my pocketbook,” he continued. “Then, they went after my license, and now I’m in jail. As a friend of mine said, ‘Richard, they’d kill you if they could figure out a legal way to do it.’ ”

“Who told you that?” I asked. “A personal friend,” he answered back, without saying anything more about it.

Is it reasonable to suppose that the hundreds of millions of dollars that state judges have received from Los Angeles County make it more difficult for lawyers there to win cases against the public sector? Frankly, I think it’s something worth looking at. But even if one were to concede the point, is Richard Fine the best person in the world to be making it?

This brings me to Roger M. Grace, an attorney who also happens to be the editor and co-publisher of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Grace is clearly no fan of the judge who threw Fine in jail. In fact, back in 2001, Grace wrote no fewer than seven highly critical columns about David Yaffe. “From what I’ve observed,” Grace wrote, “Yaffe does, to his credit, read the briefs. And he has a substantial quantum of law memorized. To his discredit, however, he’s a nasty and arrogant SOB.” Grace then proceeded to quote nine lawyers, most of them without attribution, who more or less echoed his sentiment.

Still, when I asked Grace whether Yaffe had mistreated Fine, he answered: “Even Yaffe is going to get one right.”
In early August, Judge Yaffe announced his retirement, effective November 1. Then, on September 17, just one day after formally restating his intention to keep the disbarred attorney locked up, Yaffe abruptly ordered Fine’s release. “It is becoming increasingly clear that Fine’s conduct is irrational,” the judge wrote. “His conduct is bizarre, and that fact alone must be considered [in determining whether his continued] confinement serves any useful purpose.”

Fine, however, had a different take on what happened. “Right will win over might. This is a really great day for Los Angeles and for California,” he told the Los Angeles Daily News. He also promised that he would continue his fight to “clean up the judiciary in California.”

I’ve talked to a lot of lawyers who were able to make their best arguments and then move on,” he says. “But in Fine’s case the argument mushroomed into an all-consuming passion that cost him everything. I guess I still don’t understand why he did what he did in the way that he did it.

7 thoughts on “Richard Fine

  1. International Post author

    Christina Illsley

    I have been one of Richard Fines supporters and worked hard exposing the corruption here in Los Angeles County. This includes the fact the state pays its counties to kidnap children from poor families for human trafficking to enslave in state foster care for federal funding which helps pays for these corrupted judges’ salary and pension. These same judges who violated their oath to office, by making bias and illegal rulings while sitting on the bench allowing the county to take people’s children, property and assets not to mention taking one’s freedom when we call them on it. I need to correct some misinformation about Richard Fine’s source. This comment is directly at Richard Fine. I would like to know why Mr. Fine is leaving out the fact the it was Dr. Shirley Moore who came to him with the evidence concerning the California Judges taking bribe money and Ronald M. George, the chief justice of California is correct it was not him. It was Dr. Shirley Moore who did the research and the investigation which lead to the discovery of the corruption in our State Courts. I believe Richard Fine has forgotten the efforts that Dr. Shirley Moore has taken to have him release from jail. I would like to know why Fine is taking credit for Dr. Shirley Moore work. If this reporter is really interested in the truth with documented evidence of fact which will support what I have exposed here today, please contact me. I believe in the truth and I believe credit should go to the correct people who are responsible for doing the work. I can only pray that we the people of California will stop being slaves to our corrupted officials who profit off our livelihood and our children lives.

  2. International Post author


    The Americans judiciary system, if not changed, will cause so much injustice that the US will become a weak nation in the world in the foreseeable future. There may be many riots and Robinhoods because of corruption. These judges shamed on the glory history of the US which was build up numerous lives of people who fought for freedom of the US. The status of judicial corruption is even worse than the Communism countries. The US is turned into a tyranny. Even China would not allow this to happen. The people cannot unite in the US when there are foul judicial systems that caused too many incidents of injustice. May God bless Mr. Fine and release him from the jail as soon as possible. The judicial system is too foul to allow this to happen in the modern days without procedural due process and no judge would stand out to safeguard the Constitution. If the US and California state continue allowing the judicial system to be so foul, it will lose its leading status in the World soon.

  3. International Post author

    Free Richard Fine

    To correct some errors, the article did not mention: (1) that the Superior Court voided and annulled its 2001 contempt order, which the Court of Appeal affirmed in Fine v. Superior Court, after Dr. Fine filed a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court. This action in turn voided and annulled the Fine v. Superior Court state appellate case and the subsequent contempt case. In voiding and annulling the 2001 contempt order, Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell admitted that he did not have authority to act as a temporary judge in the DeFlores case after the entry of the Final Judgment on June 29, 1999. The voiding and annulling also voided and annulled all of Mitchell’s actions against Fine in the DeFlores case and in every other case in which the action was based upon Mitchell’s action in the DeFlores case. (2) Judge Yaffe’s admission that he committed fraud upon the court and obstruction of justice on 7/13/10 when he admitted in a minute order that his 3/18/08 order holding that Fine did not have standing to disqualify him in the Marina Strand case was false, as it was “a draft order that was not filed”. (3) that Judge Yaffe denied Fine’s motion to sanction the County and the developer for violating the Public Resources Code by being over 30 days late in filing the certified administrative record in the Marina Strand case. (4) that only California and New York use “moral turpitude” as a reason for disbarment. In New York, Moral Turpitude is limited to the commission of a criminal act. In California, the mere filing of a complaint in good faith is moral turpitude. This violates the First Amendment. All of the State Bar charges were based upon documents filed in courts. (5) that the conduct that Judge Yaffe called “bizarre” and “irrational” in the 9/17/10 order was the filing of a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeal. It also did not mention that Judge Yaffe admitted in the same order that Fine’s incarceration discouraged others from challenging the judges.
    (6) that only 3 cases were decided against LA County by LA Superior Court judges from FY 2005-FY 2009 according to the LA County Counsel Annual Litigation Reports. (7) that Judge Yaffe resigned after Dr. Fine reported him to the Commission on Judicial Performance

  4. International Post author

    Lawyer defending case filed by County

    What is disturbing to me is the provision that allows County to elect to pay a judge for the rest of the judge’s life, if the County is pleased with the Judge’s rulings. This is specifically allowed under GOVERNMENT CODE 68220 (b): ” b) A county may terminate its obligation to provide benefits under this section upon providing the Administrative Director of the Courts and the impacted judges with 180 days’ written notice. The termination shall not be effective as to any judge during his or her current term while that judge continues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the election of the county, when that judge leaves office.” Many of the rulings in the case I am handling have been inexplicable and very troubling until I read this article. Now they are only very troubling indeed. IT IS SO VERY CLEAR THE COUNTY IS MORE LIKELY TO NOT PAY A JUDGE FOR THE REST OF THE JUDGE’S LIFE IF THE JUDGE MAKES THE COUNTY PAY LITIGANTS A LOT OF MONEY. Indeed, if the judge is smart, he/she will figure out the County needs to have money to make generous payments and the less money County has, the less generous County will feel.

  5. International Post author


    If nothing else is gained from Fines experience, I took this away from it; he tried to use due process, all the way to the supreme court to get free, but, it was no due process that freed Fine, it was a personal decree that only a sovereign king of dictator typically does. What does this say about United States civil rights. This case shows that rule of law is not the basis for Fines punishment or release, but vindictive animus in retaliation for First Amendment Redress. These are “rights inestimable and formidable of tyrants” as spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. How can Judges acquiesce to this behavior and others turn a blind eye. Filing frivolous suits, if that is the case, is petty to what Yaffee did!

  6. International Post author


    One other particular bothersome element of this case I need to comment on. Bogan v. Scott Harris, and Stump v. Sparkman hold precedent from the controversial 1793 decision in Chisholm v. Georgia that sparked the paradigm shift after the revolution when new officials (ex noblemen of the crown) who legislated without democracy to bar citizen redress, their only means to deter overt government abuse as a “grievance.” This was done by reinstating an official’s right to tyranny without judicial scrutiny by inventing a clandestine method of overcoming democracy that deterred corruption under the bill of rights in a way that didn’t alarm citizens of that era that their bill of rights would be barred from obtaining a remedy, or deterring officials who abuse power under color, now known as violating Title 42, section 1985 or 1983. Amazingly, the act of filing a complaint alleging a violation by an official of this statute, is met with an immediate bar from discovery or a jury! This is an absurdity that is allowed, but damning at the same time. The 11th amendment is the direct antithesis of the Chisholm decision that over-ruled the Supreme Courts decision from the very credible Supreme Court Justice James Wilson. After all, he was the author of article III of the Constitution, and he signed the Declaration of Independence. When he stated in Chisholm that “States have no sovereign immunity” he did not interpret this, he explained this to congress and other officials who were suffering withdrawal from former “inestimable and formidable right of tyrants” who could take what they wanted from citizens only by abusing power when they felt it necessary. The 11th amendment reinstated this right. It is upheld and touted as a necessary evil for a better Democracy. It is because of the 11th amendment that Fine is in the predicament he is in. Getting rid of Yaffe violates the 11th amendment! Our officials have a constitutional right as a basis to be corrupt! Bogan and Stump both use the “C” word, as a constitutionally protected right, another overt absurdity that cannot pass the straight…

  7. International Post author


    Even though Mr. Fine was punished for exposing information about judges getting extra benefits by county officials, an appellate court ruled against these benefits. Yet, Mr. Fine still spent 14 months in confinement.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.