John Clark Pro Se Blog Actor, Producer & Writer

Category Archives: Links to new justice

Subscribe to Links to new justice RSS Feed

Richard Fine, Found Guilty of Moral Turpitude?

By John Clark on Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to new justice

Our friend Richard Fine, (ex-Esq.) sat in one of the worst jails, the Men’s Central jail in Los Angeles, alone and ignored for a year and a half.  He believed in a cause, the cause of honesty and fair dealing by the exalted arbiters – Judges – who hold sway on the lives and well-being of our citizens.

How is it that this can happen here in California?  We are the only state of the union that has a special Court presided over by judges. If the State Bar determines that an attorney’s actions involve probable misconduct, formal charges are filed with the State Bar Court by the bar’s prosecutors (through the office of chief trial counsel). There, it’s considered whether lawyers have misbehaved.  The court hears the charges and also has the power to recommend that the California Supreme Court suspend or disbar attorneys found to have committed acts of professional misconduct or convicted of serious crimes.  When a finding is made, the decision then goes before the Bar, where they decide whether they agree with it.  If you see signs of self-dealing and conflict of interest, you will find it here.

Richard appealed.  What were his serious crimes?  Read the following, from the introduction to their Opinion and Order:-

Respondent Richard Isaac Fine appeals a hearing judge’s decision finding him culpable of committing 16 violations involving moral turpitude in multiple civil proceedings. Citing respondent’s “pattern of deliberately and repeatedly misusing this state’s statutory process for challenging a judicial officer’s qualifications” followed by a “campaign” of repeatedly filing meritless lawsuits in federal court, the hearing judge recommended respondent’s disbarment and ordered that he be involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar of California in accordance with the provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4). Respondent attacks the legal sufficiency of the culpability findings and raises several constitutional claims for the first time on appeal. The State Bar urges us to affirm the hearing judge’s findings and recommendation. Following our independent review (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we find that the hearing judge has fairly and fully reviewed the testimonial and documentary evidence, and rendered the appropriate findings. Although we reverse the culpability determinations on certain counts and find culpability on others the hearing judge dismissed, these modifications do not impact our ultimate recommendation. In addition to respondent’s pattern of misconduct over about a three-year period, his misleading and dishonest statements in his pleadings are a common theme throughout this proceeding. Based on the overwhelming evidence of respondent’s repeated abuse of the judicial process, we agree with the hearing judge that disbarment is the only appropriate discipline recommendation.

And so, by this decision, we can assume that they think that Richard has been immobilized, rendered harmless.  I disagree, for what they’ve done is to anger the electorate. They will rise up in protest when enough individuals have been deprived of their freedoms, a number which is growing by the day.

Meanwhile, Richard is now one of us.  He intends to file motions as an honorable Pro Per, seeking to immobilize each and every judge guilty of taking funds from Los Angeles County tax-payers, to which they were not entitled. And we can do the same, as he teaches us here.

Don’t forget that Judicial Watch has been doing its thing too.  It carries more weight than Richard Fine, and it would be most unlikely that one would see their West Coast lawyer Sterling Norris, Esq., who wrote and filed the paperwork, finding himself removed from the rolls of active lawyers.  They filed their original complaint back in April 2006, in the Sturgeon vs. County of Los Angeles case, and while it has been beaten at every turn, it remains to be seen whether they’ll take it to the United States Supreme Court. You can read the history of the twists and turns here.

Watch American democracy in action, because it’s fascinating and very very important.  The Supreme Court will most likely not want to dirty its hands and will deny consideration of the issue.  As a last chance, it will be left for action from the White House.  Obama now has a record of stepping into places usually avoided by his predecessors.  He recognizes that America has a stake in preserving the integrity of the Constitution and our Rule of Law and not just in name only.   It needs to be demonstrated as a significant arm of his foreign policy, and he does have a safe law degree.

Looking for Justice

By John Clark on Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to new justice

AUGUST 1, 2009
I feel bad that here it is, over 2 years since the previous entry on the subject. The reasons are 2-fold:
1. I have had an extended health problem, heart attack, atrial fibrilation, pace-maker, and the side effects of powerful medication to keep the blood flowing and the ticker ticking. And ever-present feelings of depression and failure, due to the lack of closure on my past marriages (only 2) and connected relationships, which others sort to benefit from, and did but really didn’t, and the weird action of the real estate and stock market. I began to feel like the victim in a Priestley play.
2. On the bright side, I couldn’t get justice then, given the players and tools which they used to such unfair advantage. Enforced patience took place, and behold, a whole new ball game is in play. The old actors are retired out of the picture, dead, gone, or disabled, and a new President is throwing in the air all the old precepts and practises, and we are watching where the pieces are falling. Many people don’t like it, don’t like it at all.
Me, I say give it a chance; the government is now getting into private enterprise, becoming the agency of last resort. Bleeding but leading. Making many entrepeneurs uncomfortable for good reason, claiming traditional first rights to that turf. But I don’t think what he’s doing should be confused with what many are calling creeping Socialism. That word, as I intimately knew it, meant Nationalisation British style after the 2nd World War. He’s no Clement Atlee, or Harold Wilson, and it goes without saying that industries will be able to buy themselves back when they clean up their act.
In this country, there are certain flagship enterprises that should not be allowed to fail, notwithstanding the incompetency of their operators. The Auto industry comes to mind, as does the Defense industry, the Aircraft industry, and the Airline industry (Pan Am, where are you, they saved Lockheed, didn’t they?) The Banking industry? Well, they were not just incompetent, they were to say the least, dishonest and corrupt in ways we’ll never know. Why? Because of the Regulatory industry, possibly partners in crime. And because of the Judicial industry, which is where I come in.
The Web has changed the conditions of blogging very swiftly, giving the public access to information in ways that make my efforts look like snail mail vs. email. Moreover, many old links have become dead links. Most newspapers are expecting us to pay for archived information.. What we need now is the original publishing entrepeneur, Benjamin Franklin. He’d have found a way. The L.A. Times? Bye Bye.
But Information, and transparency, is the most urgent need now, and from now on, I am going to pass along links and sites that ought to get the public interested and involved. I do believe that there is a groundswell of discontent in the land that in past years would have led to the thunder of revolution, rebellion, or civil war. Can’t do that any more. Check your History channel.
The upholding of the Constitution (the pursuit of… remember?) under Government Guarantees is soon upon us. Voices are being heard, and they should, must, be listened to. Enough from those who would say “let it pass. Get on with your life. It’s over now. Trust justice to take care of us. Everyone deserves what they get. Look in the mirror.” Well, I do. It’s my mirror, not yours, and I like what I see.
So, I give you links that may open your eyes, and get you involved. Let’s start with a lady who writes with clarity, flair, and elegance. I’m looking forward to meeting her.
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster (great name, grand-daughter of the famous photographer Arthur Pillsbury.) She advocates the return of Common Law Courts, the way it started back when. When judges were elected by you and me, and did not need to be trained liars, sorry, lawyers. It’s about returning the power to the people. She wrote this over a year ago. How to form Common Law Courts
MAY 18, 2007
This endless search is in grave peril in California.
We got a rare glimpse of what goes on, reading about yesterday’s celebrity-lawyer-filled training session held for Loyola law students in their legal lab. The program is named for Judge Larry Fidler who attended, and is otherwise currently presiding in the Phil Spector trial. In the interests of letting a little light into a tangled web of tactical deceit and see how it’s practiced, and at the cost of bestowing free publicity, let’s try to examine these much admired industry players; Gods, heroes, necessary evils or pond lives, depending on your courtroom experiences (if any) with them:
The celebrity attorney mentors of this new crop of law students included Paris Hilton‘s drunk driving specialist Richard Hutton. Then there was Thomas Mesereau Jr. who stood up for Michael Jackson in his famous molestaton case; Mark Geragos, who repped Scott Peterson and Gary Condit and Susan McDougal and Winona Ryder.
Harland Braun, who (for a while) worked for actor Robert Blake and director John Landis, and for a police officer accused of beating Rodney King, and at present Lane Garrison. Prosecutors included John Hueston who worked for the team against the Enron corp. Included too was K.C. Maxwell (a female), a rep for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Richard Gabriel, a jury consultant in many high-profile trials. Oft-quoted Loyola Law School professors Laurie Levenson and Stanley Goldman were also on hand to throw in a few cent’s worth of observation.
I am unaware of any pro se’s being invited to sit in.
Braun made a stunning pronouncement. He said that as a general rule, it is better to keep your client off the stand and away from questions, for fear the truth might come out and destroy all the damage a skillful attorney may have done to the prosecution’s case.
So it’s now out in the open; we learn that TRUTH is not concomitant with JUSTICE!
Would that a few members of the public, prospective jurors and self-representing pro pers had been present to keep them honest with a few hard questions for the benefit of the students. But of course, they would not have been allowed in to monitor this clubby conference of celebrity’s highest paid beauts.
They might have been able to point out that ordinary middle-class members of the public would probably face bankruptcy were they to become clients and put themselves entirely in the hands of lawyers, none of whom are required to disclose their huge fees. But perhaps that is part of the attraction of a career in U.S. civil and criminal law.
READ ALL ABOUT IT!
It goes without saying that a defendant has the right to expect a judge will keep all the participants straight and in line when they are under his eye. But will it happen? I could not help hearing the ringing of a bell and recalling my own experience when I observed the mentoring of a bunch of Loyola law students by the judge presiding at my wife’s divorce trial against me. Actually in the courtroom, and it led to my pressing a 170.1 disqualification motion against Judge Arnold Gold (which was disallowed and failed – by him, of course.) Here’s how I did it:
My Motion to Disqualify