The Best Courts (Your) Money Could Buy

[Father of four]

Alright all you smart people that have legal law knowledge. What do you think about this?

LA County Supervisors have been giving local superior court judges an illegal bonus.

Have you ever heard of Richard Fine.

Is this just another conspiracy story? Please shed some light on this.

Here is a link for those interested...http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/best-courts-money-could-buy

Read More

 

[Father of four]

Here is Richard Fine's US Supreme Court Petition...http://www.scribd.com/doc/18031057/US-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari

 

[Father of four]

Here is one court case about it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/18028622/Sturgeon-v-Los-Angeles-Ruling

More information...http://blog.fulldisclosure.net/2009/05/fiscal-crisis-illegal-payments-create.html

 

[Father of four]

Last one. A video... <broken link removed>

 

[Father of four]

The Incarceration of Attorney Richard I. Fine

Link...http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/fine_09a.htm

Interesting quote from the above web site...

"The remedy to unbridled judicial power and its inevitable abuses is to hold judges accountable for improper and unlawful conduct through citizen-controlled means that are independent of the judiciary, as described elsewhere on Tulanelink. The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate the courts, but Congress has proven to be an unwilling taskmaster, and it has permitted the judiciary to usurp power sufficient to keep the scales of justice from attaining an honest balance.

Calls from the public for greater accountability have been treated with disdain by the judiciary, which resists any change that would curtail the nearly unlimited power that judges enjoy over litigating parties. Perhaps continued citizen distress over arbitrary abuses of judicial discretion will lead to an inevitable "pitchfork rebellion" intent on restoring the balance of power to the people, where it rightfully belongs.

Reform movements modeled on the J.A.I.L. initiative have gained and then lost momentum in California, Idaho, South Dakota, Florida and Minnesota, where they have been opposed by bar associations and big business, misrepresented in the press, and suppressed by government entities with instances of law enforcement participation. Clearly, the "Powers That Be" fear meaningful judicial reform and stand ready to mobilize considerable resources to defend their position."

 

[Father of four]

They say this bill was passed without public debate or awareness.

SBX2 11 http://www.tulanelink.com/pdf/sbx2_11.pdf

From in the bill....

"This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee
of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution
or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the
official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of the bill
on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law."

Cant be prosecuted for breaking the law before this bill?

 

[Just Jim]

We have a good system of government but criminals running it.

jj

 

[CEF1959]

Is this just another conspiracy story?

Yes.

 

[ZachS]

Per the guy's cert petition, here's what happened:

1. California counties made "locality adjustments" to the pay of all judges who work in their counties, basically because it costs more to live in L.A. than, say, Shasta County. Each judge in each county gets the same amount of extra money. This was done openly by almost every county in the state.

2. A lawyer believed this practice was a violation of the US Constitution, and sued in federal court to stop it. Although he was probably able to make a perfectly reasonable legal argument for his case, he lost. The reason he lost is because (greatly simplifying things) a) it takes more than a perfectly reasonable argument to stop a harmless and useful practice like the one described above, and b) the other side also had a perfectly reasonable argument.

3. I'm not going to bother looking up his disciplinary record, but I've read about enough cases like this that I can assume he was a very sore loser and engaged in behavior that violated state bar rules. He was disbarred for doing this.

4. After he was disbarred, another organization sued one county about these extra payments in state court, and won. Because everybody thought the payments were legal for 25 years, and almost every judge in the state accepted the payments on that basis, the legislature passed a law preventing the judges from being sued individually or prosecuted for the money they received. If you think this is unreasonable, how would you feel if somebody decided that you incorrectly received $10,000 too much in salary for the last 10 years, and sued you to get it back - plus interest? That wouldn't be fair, would it?

4. The lawyer didn't give up arguing his case, even after losing and being disbarred, and found himself in contempt of court. Judges do not put people in contempt lightly, especially people who can fight back. Anyway, the lawyer's pursued the contempt charge (and his bar discipline, and his problems with this law, and probably other things but I got tired of the whining and didn't want to read that far) up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is unlikely to hear his case.


Basically, this is about a lawyer who got a bug up his *** about a minor issue that - while it may have had technical implications as far as the California Constitution is concerned - was really not that big of a deal. He couldn't stop fighting, he stepped over the line both ethically and legally, and is paying the price. He still can't give up. And he's going to lose. This could be admirable behavior if he was fighting over an important civil rights issue like gun rights, equal protection, or illegal search and seizure. In this case, it probably reflects some sort of mental illness.


So, it's not exactly a conspiracy story - just the story of one man's quixotic quest for his vision of justice. Or to put it more bluntly, a bug crawled up his a** and he never tried to get it out.

 

[Just Jim]

Reported today that only 41 &#37; of the public are actual producers and that jobs are not being created. Guess the politicions will run out of money before long.

jj

 

[ZachS]

Yes.

Your answer was better.

 

[Trlsmn]

This is why I just say no to conspiracy theory. And besides lawyers and judges suing each other and having less time for the public? where is the down side?

 

[ZachS]

This is why I just say no to conspiracy theory. And besides lawyers and judges suing each other and having less time for the public? where is the down side?

True - it means you get a few more weeks of freedom before your court date!

 

[Trlsmn]

 

[Father of four]

Thanks ZachS. Case closed...hehe!