Links to Courts & Judges

Wikipedia would consider the LA Times to be a “reliable source” in their category “Biographies of Living People”. After all, they were the only ones attending the trial to report on it. So let’s analyze the newspaper’s report, forensically, for the sake of the record, just to investigate whether they are reliable. This is what I wrote immediately after the news appeared:
March 13, 2001
These were the low-lifes that the Los Angeles Times was responsible for concocting this story, although only Roug covered our trial.


The public is getting an education on how the stock markets work. The Goldman execs are being asked awkward questions, the over-riding one being "Does Goldman Sachs owe a duty to its clients?"

This question is a little like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  Right now I’m watching an explanation of the meaning of hedging and going short, an attempt to shed light on the mysteries of Wall Street. The real question is one concerning a built-in conflict of interest. "Does Goldman Sachs owe a duty to itself". Goldman Sachs has clients, and also makes markets. The result is inevitable.

A comment on the usefulness of Subcommittee probes: I’d like to see the entire Supreme Court arrayed in front of a Congressional subcommittee. I’d like to see them asked questions about what lies behind their frequent determination that a plea before them be dismissed without explanation, just a bald-faced straight denial. One of their own, a lawyer, sits confined in a jail cell for over a year (read below). He has pled before this court of last resort that he be released immediately, over the objections of Judge Yaffe, whose sentence is suffused with the demands of self-interest, on behalf of all of the Los Angeles judges. And Justice Ginsburg (a woman) is silent.

We need to revise the rules.  The court of last resort is, and should be, the lawmakers who sit on the Hill. And the White House.

Monday, April 26, 2010.

So our revered "Supreme" Court let it be known today that they weren’t in the least bit troubled by Richard Fine’s imprisonment, now for over a year in solitary at Los Angeles’ notorious Men’s Central jail, nor for the loss of his license to practice law.

The order, issued today under case number 09A827 (09-1250), states

FINE, RICHARD I. V. BACA, SHERIFF, ET AL. The application for stay addressed to Justice Ginsburg and referred to the Court is denied.

So now what is our answer to those other powers who jail their political prisoners? For make no mistake, that is what Richard is. Do we practice what we preach? Are we stain free? This will make Americans sick, a cowardly response to the lower courts’ intransigence. I hope a band of "ladies in white", headed by his daughter, will patrol outside the jail, until justice is seen to be done.

Consider this a guest column:

Dear Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsberg and U.S. Supreme Court En Banc,

My name is Victoria Fine and I am the daughter of Richard I. Fine, whose fate you will determine in your upcoming conference on April 23, by considering his case Richard I. Fine vs L.A. County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca.

I am writing to you to ask you to release my father from the horror he and my family have endured during the last 13 months of our lives. He has raised me to trust in our country’s justice system to uphold freedom, democracy and moral right. I admit that as of today, as my father sits in solitary confinement, I have very little faith left in our American system. But now, as I write to you, I place that faith in your hands to make the decision that will free my father and send him home to my mother and me.

I cannot say I can make a decision better for America than the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. But I can tell you what this decision will mean to my father, to my family and to me.

My father is staunchly moral, aggressively inquisitive and has the most precise intellect of any person I have known. He is a person who sees the right and wrong in black and white but who will always consider the opinions of those who think differently than he does. He is a man who believes no matter how dire your situation, the world will turn to meet you in the middle if you face it squarely. He is a man who, until this last year, was a lawyer and a diplomat and an active citizen in his community.

He is a man who, until this last year, donned a suit and bow tie each day with pride, ready to enter a court to fight for a cause he believed in.

My father has been at every important event in my life until this last year. His time in solitary confinement has made it difficult for him to be the father I have known for the last 24 years. I can’t call him when I need advice, or support, or when I need to hear his voice. When I visit him, he is not the man I know, a great man, a proud man. In jail, he is a 70-year-old man with failing heath and the only thing I recognize is his optimistic smile. I have not held his hand for a very long time.

In my father’s absence, our family has been fractured. My parents have no livelihood, no home, no future until my father is released and his legal license restored. My mother and I look towards the future and face only a huge and gaping question mark.

Please remember, that as you review my father’s case on April 23, you are considering the future of a man, not a policy. You are considering the fate of a father, a husband, a friend and a deeply concerned citizen, who has dedicated his life to upholding the decisions you make in your court.

Thank you in advance for your deep and thoughtful consideration of this case.


Victoria E. Fine

(We shall look forward to seeing how the Justices respond to her direct plea.)


Mr. Fine’s daughter Victoria Fine is letting it be known that there will be a rally in front of the dreaded Stanley Mosk Courthouse on Tuesday morning April 20 at 7:30. This will be, for me, my very first rally.

A Facebook page has been created with the battle cry FREE RICHARD I. FINE!

We’ve been waiting for a very long time for this. Richard Fine may not have sat in Men’s Central Jail‘s solitary confinement for over a year in vain. Let us hope his cause will catch fire. The integrity of our justice system is at stake. This article, written by his daughter Victoria who works for the Huffington Post, explains in great detail, under the title MY DAD TRIED TO RIGHT A WRONG.


April 9, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the merits of Mr. Fine’s protest against his coercive confinement for more than a year in solitary, having failed to convince the state’s Supreme Court, and also the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal to release him. The conference hearing will be held April 23. Hopefully, he will have his license to practice restored (see below). He may be one of the few attorneys left capable of acting with the integrity and transparency of a Pro Per. Read Troy Anderson’s report of this most important development.

March 4, 2010

Let us all salute (now disbarred) attorney Richard I. Fine, for today, March 4, 2010, marks the FIRST ANNIVERSARY of his solitary confinement in an L.A. County jail for the crime of challenging a judge in the course of a courtroom procedure. The details can be found here and here, and is a cause for bewilderment and shock. Judicial Watch, the ACLU, and other watch-dog agencies have their work cut out, in order to correct this astonishing abuse of judicial power.  Whatever happened to the writ of Habeus Corpus?

Me? I was jailed for 24 hours by Judge Gold one day before I was to start defending myself in his Family Court.  But this senior gentleman, Richard Fine, now starts his 366th day in solitary confinement, where apparently he can’t now chew his food, having lost his teeth.

I am frequently contacted by pro se (aka pro per) would-be litigants, asking for advice. Of course, I tell them I am not an attorney and cannot give advice. That market is cornered by licensed attorneys. However, there are numerous "self-help" sites, claiming that if you get the procedures right, you’ll be fighting your opponent in court on a level playing field.  That promise is a cruel joke.

The pro se goes to court thinking that the judge will act as a sort of umpire, or referee.  A session in chambers might even settle differences, but the pro se is never invited into the judge’s inner sanctuary, while an attorney is.  Court rules only, and you’d better know what you’re doing.  The pro se is put under oath, and the opposing attorney is not (in fact, the client may not even be there.)  And if the smart attorney opposite you sneaks in a few hearsay comments on behalf of the non-appearing client, it’s assumed by new-comers that the judge will call a foul.  But it doesn’t work that way, and if brought to the attention of the court of appeal by way of a writ, it will be ignored. And so the outraged pro se seeks to have the judge replaced, and the same judge looks at the motion and denies it.

The system as it is set up gives judges huge leeway, and one might be forgiven for thinking that there are 2 groups, one consisting of "good, fair-minded" judges, and the other of "bad, corrupt" judges. I have come to believe that they are all the same. If a visionary judge sets out on the path of true justice, it won’t be long before the temptations strewn about the office overcome any chance of their continuing on that path. Money is the goal and sole objective, quietly distributed among associated disciplines, and taking place under a cloak of immunity. And what kind of a deal is THAT?

It is my belief that the U.S. system, especially as it applies to Family Court and Probate Court, needs to be fundamentally reformed.  As it now exists, it is open to charges of corruption, even to the point of bearing signs of a RICO ("if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck…" well, you know).   And if you think that any D.A. in the country is going to investigate, think again.

I now bring you the following dissertation on the subject, and it should be read thoroughly from beginning to end, because it makes its points and provides authorities in a sound and reasonable manner.  It deals with the real world as it is, not the virtual world of our Constitution, which is studiously ignored all the time. It’s headed "bad judges", but I think the word "bad" should be removed. And suggestions on improving the judicial appointments system are made.

My site stands for REFORM, and is intended to get people thinking. There’s a groundswell of unhappy self-represented near bankrupt litigants, and it is time for them to get out of their chairs, and as Howard Beale said in the movie Network:   "I’M MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY MORE!"

This will link you to the article here.  Read it and be stunned. And let me hear from you.

It’s my birthday today, which reminds me of another birthday, spent in jail. There was some interest from the press at the time, and I consented to be interviewed.

It was with the respected Los Angeles Times. What they did to me gives the best example of why the press is not to be trusted, if they have an agenda, which they usually do.  It set the tone for me up until the present time.  With Nightingale, Lynn Redgrave seeks to continue the spin. And she doesn’t grant interviews, a normal process in the promotion of a play.  What the lawyers did, some might say was foster criminal fraud behavior, covered up by the courts and the L.A. Times.  So read this, and let’s not hear any more of the nonsense in critics’ reviews:



Spent the day before the long Labor Day weekend in traffic court. I had received in the mail a picture of me at an intersection at the wheel of my car, from the front and rear, showing the license plate number. There I was, stopped behind the line, as the light had turned red. Next picture was of me making a right hand turn, (from Sunset on to Cahuenga, which was permitted). This was witnessed, and the fine was $436, send it in by (date). The witness? 2, maybe 3, video cameras.

I spent half a day in the line down at the courthouse giving them a check, and a demand that I wanted to go to trial on this. I felt, and continue to feel strongly, that we do not (yet) live in a police state. If it’s ok to put its citizens under surveillance, I’m not so sure I wish to continue to live here. 

Continue Reading The $436 question

I don’t know Mr. Marciano, never met him, and I don’t wear Guess jeans.  I also have no interest (yet) in his run for governor of California.  So why do I bring him up here?

Because, folks, what he’s doing will be of enormous help to pro pers and pro ses everywhere, so pay attention.

He was in, and because of the heavy-handed actions of another gorilla judge in Los Angeles Superior Court, is now out, of a lawsuit, and it’s costing him a default judgment of millions of dollars which includes punitive damages. And by the way, I have no feelings about the merits of the case he got involved with one way or another, because it hasn’t come to trial, and I can’t examine it.

Unlike most self-represented defendants, he is a multi-millionaire (he and his brothers founded Guess? Jeans), so he uses powerful lawyers who smell his money and will work hard for him (maybe). Here’s what I know:

1. He is Jewish, not a wannabe jew like me, and like Madoff, not afraid to attack other jews. By that I mean that Madoff treated everyone as equals.

2. He is not a celebrity, so the celebrity factor is absent.

3. When he writes to Governor Schwartzenegger, he gets a reply, unlike me who was ignored.

4. Judge White will not dare send him to the Twin Towers to prevent him showing up for his court date, unlike what Gold did to me. On my birthday, too. Judicial abuse. Elder abuse. Terrorism run amok in Family Court, tolerated by the authorities. Unless you’re profiled as part of a socio-economic minority.

5. I couldn’t afford to sue Judge Arnold Gold. My lawyers took all my cash (over $600,000), and Gold evicted me from my mortgage free home to raise more cash which he then gave to the other side’s lawyers. He left me with less than three thousand dollars as my community property share of the proceeds, after looting my family’s inheritance. Read all about it on this site.

My life is too short, and besides, he already gave me a heart attack. And as a pro se, I would have continued to be treated with contempt by the American justice system, the media, and the L.A. Times.  I would have been thrown out of court, possibly to spend what’s left of my life on the sidewalk.

Marciano is suing judge Elizabeth White in Federal Court, and also accusing California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George of ignoring Constitutional guarantees. Ron George must be taking notice, and getting a little nervous, especially as Marciano hired Ron George’s son as his lawyer. Brilliant move. Hope it doesn’t backfire at the California Supreme Court level, George would have to recuse himself. Too obvious a conflict of interest.  Same goes for the Judicial Council, who oversee the ethics of not yet "retired" judges.  Stay tuned for this, could be a lot of fun.

So, read all about his Constitutional case on Marciano’s website.  It’s full of really useful information. Put it in your Favorites folder.  And remember, he’s paying millions to his lawyers, and the other side’s lawyers.  It won’t cost us a cent! We’ll be intellectual piggy-backers!

We applaud what he’s doing, and we support his cause. Let him know that we do, he supplies his personal contact numbers.  Let’s hope he’s successful with his appeals, reverses judge Elizabeth White, and gets into court so his case can be heard.  And if he’s still up for Governor, we might even vote for him. For sure he’d check new judge applications closely for their mental health, job suitability, and worthiness to be paid out of our tax dollars.


Filed paperwork