Will the Corruption Finally End?
Involved Players in the silencing of Dr. Richard I. Fine, exposing the majority of California Superior Court Judges to accepting bribes. If this is what the top justice and Supreme court do when an ethical BAR member exposes bribery and corruption, it only confirms how corrupt the entire BAR and court system is
Title: Carol Pulliam, Petitioner v. University of Southern California
Docketed: February 17, 2023
Lower Ct: Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District
Case Numbers: (B304749)
Decision Date: August 23, 2022
Rehearing Denied: September 8, 2022
Discretionary Court Decision Date: November 16, 2022
TIMELINE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS OF PETITION TO SUPREME COURT
Feb 14 2023 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 20, 2023)
Mar 09 2023 Waiver of right of respondent University of Southern California to respond filed.
Mar 22 2023 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2023
Apr 17 2023 Petition DENIED May 12 2023 Petition for Rehearing filed
May 23 2023 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/8/2023
How many Judges does it take to keep Judicial Corruption from being stopped?
David P. Yafee, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Ronald M. George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court
Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell
Judge James A. Bascue
Michael G. Nott Justice
Corrupt Judge Roger W. Boren
Kathryn Doi Todd Justice
Richard I. Fine’s SBX 2 11
Richard I. Fine’s Bill Amending SBX 211 & related Government Code Sections; Establishing State of California Commission on Judicial Oversight & Victims Compensation for Judicial Misconduct & Judicial Abuse of Power
Feb 14 2023 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 20, 2023)
May 12 Rehearing of Amend SBX 2 11
Dr. Fine’s personal experience as an attorney whose clients were harmed by the judicial corruption, as the attorney exposing the judicial corruption and as a victim of the judicial corruption formed the basis for the founding of the movement and campaign.
In July, 1998, Dr. Fine won an injunction in the case of Steven White and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Connell stopping the California government from paying bills without an appropriation, i.e. Budget. This ended 26 years of “Annual Budget Crises”. The injunction stopped the California government from paying the Governor, the Legislators, the state employees and the judges during the “crisis.” The judges were angered by this injunction.
On September 15, 2000, Ronald M. George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, told the Annual Meeting of the California Judges Association in San Diego that the county payments to state Superior Court judges “were wrong and may be unconstitutional.” The statement was reported in the Metropolitan News, a 3,000 person circulation legal newspaper. Previous to this statement, the public was not aware of these payments, much less their illegality.
Due to the judicial hatred caused by the injunction and the illegal county payments to the judges, Dr. Fine became aware: (1) that in 1999 he lost the case of Silva v. LA County District Attorney Garcetti, in the LA Superior Court when state Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant dimissed the case at the end of trial after the LA County District Attorney’s Office admitted to wrongfully withholding $14 million of child support payments from mothers and children in court papers and on the witness stand; (2) that in 1999, after winning an $11 million judgment and an injunction in the LA Superior Court against LA County in the case of Amjadi and LACAOEHS v. LA County Bd. of Supervisors, requiring LA County to stop putting $45 million per year in environmental fees in the LA County General Fund and requiring it to place such in a “special fund” restricted to use for environmental purposes, state Superior Court Judge Kurt Lewin denied him attorneys fees; and (3) that after winning an injunction in the LA Superior Court against LA County and LA County Metro Transportation Authority in the trial court stopping LA County from taking $150 million and borrowing $100 million of state transportation funds from the LA County Metro Transportation Authority and using such in the LA County General Fund, he lost an appeal in the case of Veltman v. LA County and the LA County Metro Transportation Authority when state Superior Court Judge J. Stephen Czuleger was sitting as an appellate judge “by designation”.
Neither Judges Lewin, Chalfant or Czuleger disclosed that they were receiving illegal payments (“bribes”) from LA County while they were presiding over the cases.
Dr. Fine then exposed such illegal payments and the denials of due process in state appellate motions and briefs commencing in 2000 – 2001, federal lawsuits in 2002, motions to disqualify and recuse state superior court judges in 2002 and in subsequent cases commencing in 2004.
The financial loss to LA taxpayers due to such illegal county payments was approximately $1 Billion. The illegal payments were not only being paid to state Superior Court judges sitting in the California Superior for the County of Los Angeles, but were being paid in 34 counties to 90% of the approximate 1,900 California Superior Court judges many of whom became California Appeals Court justices and California Supreme Court justices thereby corrupting the entire approximate 2,000 judge Superior Court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court California judicial system.
The result was that 38 million Californians were being held “hostage” and being denied their Constitutional rights to “access to the courts”, due process and a fair trial by less than 2,000 corrupt judges and justices who had taken illegal payments from counties and courts in addition to their state compensation.
The LA Superior Court judges retaliated against Dr. Fine with a secret conspiracy and concert of action commencing as early as 2000, of a “visceral hatred” against him, wanting “revenge” against him, wanting to “silence him” and “wanting to take him out of circulation” for his keeping the illegal payments before the courts and the Legislature.
LA Superior Court judges retaliated by making biased judgments, denying relief and attorneys fees in all cases in which Dr. Fine was involved, filing false contempt charges filing false charges with the California State Bar and ordering an illegal coercive, solitary confinement in the LA County Jail, amongst other things.
In 2000- 2001, the LA Superior Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell unlawfully acting as a “temporary judge for pre trial proceedings” after judgment was entered in the class action case of DeFlores et al., v. EHG et al., (DeFlores case) refused to pay Dr. Fine approximately $2 million in attorneys fees awarded pursuant to the terms of the judgment; acting as a “temporary judge for pre trial proceedings” in the case of McCormick et al., v. Reddi-Brake Supply Corp., unlawfullly refused to approve a settlement agreement with a $20 Million judgment after it was approved by the class and unlawfully removed Dr. Fine as “class counsel” resulting in the class members receiving very little money in a settlement agreement under a new class counsel; acting as a “temporary judge for pre trial proceedings” in the class action cases of Debbs v. California Department of Veterans Affairs, Churchfied v. Wilson and PSO v. Sony, PSO v. Sharp and PSO v. Toshiba unlawfully decertified the previously certified classes and unlawfully removed Dr. Fine as class counsel in each case causing the class members to receive nothing instead of a substantial settlement as no other “class counsel” could be found; and acting as a “temporary judge for pre trial proceedings” in the case of Shinkle and Crawford v. City of Los Angeles unlawfully refused to certify the class and subsequently Superior Court Judge David Horowitz granted a summary judgment against the plaintiffs without just cause.
In 2001, LA Superior Court Presiding Judge James A. Basque made a secret baseless complaint to State Bar against Dr. Fine.
In 2001, the LA Superior Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell unlawfully acting as a “temporary judge for pre trial proceedings” after a judgment had been entered in the DeFlores case entered a false contempt judgment against Dr. Fine. Dr. Fine took a writ of habeas corpus to the state Court of Appeals challenging the jurisdiction of LA Superior Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell to act as a “temporary judge” after a judgment was entered and the parties had only stipulated to him as a “temporary judge for pre trial proceedings.” The Court of Appeals, (Justices Boren, Nott and Doi Todd) upheld the contempt in a published opinion Fine v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 651 (2002) and to the California Supreme Court which “denied review.”
Dr. Fine took a writ of habeas corpus to the U.S. District Court. The U.S. District Court issued an order to show cause why it should not immediately issue a writ of habeas corpus against the LA Superior Court. The LA Superior Court (LA Superior Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell) responded by voiding and annulling the original contempt order. (Fine v. Superior Court, USDC Case No. CV-02-4647 GLT (SLG))
Justices Boren, Nott and Doi Todd of the California Court of Appeals never removed the published opinion even though they knew that it was void as no underlying contempt order existed, thereby libeling Dr. Fine everyday by making the false statement that Dr. Fine was guilty of contempt while knowing that such was not true. By refusing to remove and de publish the opinion, they violated the U.S. Supreme Court cases of U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1898) and Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920).
In 2002, Dr. Fine moved to have every LA Superior Court judge in every case in which Dr. Fine was the attorney or party recused. Only Judge Richard Hubbell complied.
In 2003, the LA Superior Court retaliated by LA Superior Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell again falsely claiming to have jurisdiction in the DeFlores case and filing a second false contempt charge and LA Superior Court Judge J. Stephen Czuleger holding Dr. Fine in contempt while each of them committed “extrinsic fraud upon the court” as they each knew that the LA Superior Court had stated in the case of Fine v. Superior Court, USDC Case No. CV-02-4647 GLT (SLG) that Commissioner Mitchell did not have jurisdiction in the case. The same events occured, except this time the U.S. District Court denied the writ as Dr. Fine was not “in custody”. The contempt was later “voided”.
In 2003, the 2001 LA Superior Court false charges against Dr. Fine with the California State Bar were converted into a formal Notice of Disciplinary Charges (NDC). The State Bar dismissed the 2003 false charges on the eve of trial in response to Dr. Fine’s motion to dismiss.
In 2004 -2007, the LA Superior Court retaliated against Dr. Fine through the actions of Judge Sousson G. Bruguera in the consolidated cases of Coalition to Save the Marina, Marina Tenants Association et al., v. County of Los Angeles et al., Judge Elihu Berle in the case of Coalition to Save the Marina et al., v. County of Los Angeles, Marina Pacific Associates et al., and Judge Dzintra Janevs in the case of Coalition to Save the Marina and Hans Etter v. County of Los Angeles et al. Each judge took illegal payments from LA County, refused to disqualify themselves and dismissed the cases in which Dr. Fine was the attorney against LA County and developers in Marina del Rey, California. California Court of Appeals justices acted in concert with the LA Superior Court judges and refused to disqualify the Superior Court judges when writs were taken.
Additionally, in 2004 Judge Richard Stone in a LA Superior Court case of Winston Financial Group, Inc. v. Fine retaliated against Dr. Fine by evicting Dr. Fine from his residence, even though the evidence showed that the Winston foreclosure was false. Previously, in October, 2000, Winston Financial Group instituted a lawsuit against Dr. Fine and his wife to foreclose on a promissory note on their residence. Winston and its attorneys committed fraud upon the court by concealing from the court and Dr. Fine and his wife that Winston was not the real lender on the promissory note. In 2007, Dr. Fine brought a motion to overturn the 2001 settlement based upon the fraud upon the court. Judge John P. Shook retaliated against Dr. Fine by denying the motion. Judges Stone and Shook violated the U.S. Supreme Court cases of U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1898) and Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920).
In 2004, the LA Superior Court again retaliated by secretly filing false charges against Dr. Fine with the California State Bar.
In 2006, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the California State Bar acted in concert with the LA Superior Court by issuing a false Notice of Disciplinary Charges against Dr. Fine and not disclosing that the charges came from the LA Superior Court. The charges were based solely on documents Dr. Fine filed in courts, which are protected by the First Amendement.
Subsequent to the filing, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the California State Bar stated in court papers and oral argument that it was not prosecuting Dr. Fine for exercising his First Amendment Rights. It specifically stated that it was not prosecuting him for the substance of his documents, his statements or his rhetoric. This left nothing for it to prosecute in its Notice of Discipinary Charges.
During the State Bar proceedings, Dr. Fine exposed Richard Honn who was the State Bar Court Hearing Judge on his case as being a member of the Board of Governors of the Southern California Special Olympics which received a $30,000.00 donation from LA County during the State Bar proceedings. Judge Honn refused to disqualify himself.
Dr. Fine exposed Sheldon Sloan, the President of the California State Bar as being the lawyer against him representing the interests of Jerry B. Epstein, the General Partner through the Epstein Family Trust of Marina Pacific Associates, a developer of LA County owned land in Marina del Rey, California on leases obtained from LA County, in the then current case of Coalition to Save the Marina et al., v. County of Los Angeles, Marina Pacific Associates, et al.
Dr. Fine exposed Jeffrey Bleich, the President Elect of the California State Bar as being a partner of the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson representing LA County negotiating a lease with Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North in a second current case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles, Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North in which Dr. Fine was the attorney representing the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association suing LA County and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North over which Jerry B. Epstein was the General Partner through the Epstein Family Trust.
Dr. Fine exposed LA City Controller Laura Chick, the Public Member of the Board of Governors of the California State Bar for having allowed a “$5,000.00 behest” to be given in her name one day after she approved an LA City Controller Report in favor of Playa Vista, a developer in the case Etina et al., v. City of Los Angeles and Playa Vista Corp. in which Dr. Fine was the attorney against the City of LA and Playa Vista.
The failure of Sheldon Sloan, Jeffrey Bleich and Laura Chick to disclose their conflicts of interest was a misdemeanor. However, they were never prosecuted.
Despite the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the California State Bar’s statements that it was not prosecuting Dr. Fine for exercising his First Amendment Rights, in 2007 and 2008, State Bar Court Hearing Judge Richard Honn and the State Bar Court Review Department Judges Remke, Epstein and Stovitz (Pro Tem) violated the First Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court precedents- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (“the right of a citizen to criticize the performance of the government and the courts is beyond cavil”) and U.S. and California statutes and acted in concert with the LA Superior Court by recommending disbarment on the 2006 set of false charges.
The California Supreme Court refused to grant Dr. Fine’s Petition for Writ of Review, thereby automatically ordering a void disbarment.
According to official Supreme Court biographies and the time of illegal county payments, five (5) of the six (6) justices who voted – Chief Justice George and Associate Justices Chin, Corrigan, Kennard and Moreno took illegal payments from counties or courts when they were Superior Court judges and received retroactive immunity from California criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action under Section 5 of SBX 2 11, and the sixth (6th) – Associate Justice Baxter was a member along with Chief Justice George who was the Chairman of the California Judicial Council which wrote SBX 2 11. The denial of the Petition for Writ of Review demonstrated that the California Supreme Court justices were acting in concert with the LA Superior Court.
In October 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court violated the First Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and U.S. law and denied a Petition for Writ of Certitorari.
In 2011, the State Bar Court judges, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the California State Bar, the Board of Governors of the California State Bar and the California State Bar admitted in papers filed in the 9th Circuit appeal of the case of Fine v. State Bar of California et al., challenging the actions of the State Bar Court judges, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the California State Bar, the Board of Governors of the California State Bar and the justices of the California Supreme Court that the 2008 State Bar Court disbarment recommendation was not based upon the 2006 charges, but on Dr. Fine’s actions of filing lawsuits against the judges for taking the illegal county payments. Dr. Fine was never charged with such action of filing lawsuits against the judges for taking the illegal county payments, nor could he have been as such conduct was protected by the First Amendment and the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) Review Denied 12/23/2008 which held that such payments violated Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution.
Subsequently, Dr. Fine filed three (3) motions in the California Supreme Court to set aside the void disbarment based upon the “fraud upon the court” by the California State Bar and the LA Superior Court. Such motions were not opposed by the California State Bar, yet were denied by the justices of the California Supreme Court.
According to official Supreme Court biographies and the time of illegal county payments, four (4) of the seven (7) justices who voted to deny the motions – Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justices Chin, Corrigan and Kennard took illegal payments from counties or courts when they were Superior Court judges and received retroactive immunity from California criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action under Section 5 of SBX 2 11 and a sixth (6th) – Associate Justice Baxter was on the California Judicial Council which wrote SBX 2 11. The denials of the motions again demonstrated that the California Supreme Court justices were acting in concert with the LA Superior Court.
In 2007, the California Superior Court further retaliated in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles, Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North in which LA County was a party and Dr. Fine exposed LA Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe for taking illegal payments from LA County in which neither Judge Yaffe, nor LA County disclosed. Dr. Fine exposed LA County for making an illegal vote in favor of developer Jerry B. Epstein’s controlled companies, Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North. Dr. Fine exposed developer Jerry B. Epstein and his entities’ undisclosed contributions to LA County Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe given six weeks before the LA County Supervisors’ vote on his development making their votes illegal under California law.
Dr. Fine exposed the LA County Supervisors’ vote as being void and illegal.
Judge Yaffe refused to remove himself from the case after he was disqualified and entered an illegal judgment against Dr. Fine. Judge Yaffe then held an illegal contempt hearing against Dr. Fine to force Dr. Fine to give personal financial information to aid the enforcement of the illegal judgment. Judge Yaffe was both the judge and a witness in the contempt proceeding. He admitted to taking the illegal payments from LA County (“bribes”). On March 4, 2009, he held Dr. Fine in contempt of court and ordered him to serve solitary, coercive confinement in the LA County jail until he answered questions about his finances to enforce the illegal judgment.
The U.S. District Court Judge John F. Walter denied Dr. Fine’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Ninth (9th) Circuit Justices Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw affirmed the denial in a “Not For Publication” Memorandum Opinion, only applicable to Dr. Fine.
Each of the Ninth (9th) Circuit Judges had a conflict of interest but refused to disqualify themselves in response to Dr. Fine’s motion to disqualify. Justice Reinhardt was married to the Director of the Southern California ACLU which was receiving money from LA County for monitoring the LA County Jail. Justice Trott was a former member of the LA District Attorney’s Office and was receiving $12,000.00 per year in payments from LA County. Justice Wardlaw had investments in LA County bonds, was married to William Wardlaw, a partner in an investment firm that did business with LA County, and with her husband were major supporters of LA County Supervisor Zev Yaraslovsky to run for Mayor of Los Angeles.
Each of these courts violated the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
In May, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court violated the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent and denied Dr. Fine’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. All of these courts illegally acted in concert with the LA Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and LA County Sheriff Leroy Baca to protect their unconstitutional and illegal actions.
In July 2010, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Judge Yaffe admitted that he made a false order during the case. This admission proved that all of Judge Yaffe’s actions were additionally unconstitutional. Dr. Fine petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court and informed each of them of the fraud upon the court. Still no court would let Dr. Fine out of jail.
Dr. Fine was illegally incarcerated for eighteen (18) months from March 4, 2009 until September 17, 2010, when Judge Yaffe suddenly ordered his release.
Over two (2) years later, in December, 2012, Alan Parachini, the LA Superior Court Public Information Officer from 2002 until November, 2010 admitted in an interview that the LA Superior Court judges, and in particular Judge Yaffe, had a “visceral hatred” against Dr. Fine, wanted “revenge” against him, wanted to “silence him” and wanted “to take him out of circulation” for his keeping the illegal payments before the courts and the Legislature.
The 2012 Parachini admission was the first time that the LA Superior Court and its judges’ conspiracy and concert of action against Dr. Fine became public. The Parachini admission was additional conclusive proof of Judge Yaffe’s constitutional violations and the concealment of such.
Dr. Fine filed motions to have the illegal denial of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus set aside based upon the “fraud upon the court” by the LA Superior Court, Judge Yaffe, LA County Sheriff Leroy Baca and their attorneys concealing this information from the U.S. District Court, the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. District Court denied the motion. The 9th Circuit refused to file the motion. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to file the motion. These actions further violated U.S. Supreme Court precedent and U.S. statutes specifically allowing such motions to be heard and the void decisions set aside. These actions further demonstrated that these courts illegally acted in concert with the LA Superior Court, Judge Yaffe, LA County Sheriff Leroy Baca and their attorneys.
Dr. Fine also sought to have the corrupt judges who received the illegal payments prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the IRS, the California State Attorney General, the District Attorney and the Grand Jury. No one did their sworn duty to uphold the law and prosecute the judges.
Dr. Fine was not alone in being deprived of his constitutional rights by corrupt judges and those judicial officers illegally acting in concert with them . Almost every person who has appeared in court has his/her own horror story.
These actions by the corrupt judges and those judges and justices who acted in concert with them demonstrated to Dr. Fine that no person will receive a fair trial or hearing in the present corrupt judicial system and that government officials will not perform their sworn duty to prosecute the corrupt judges.
The Vote for Justice videos show Dr. Fine’s story, describe the corruption of the judicial system, the failures of the judicial system, demonstrate why no one will receive “access to the courts”, due process and a fair trial under the current corrupt judicial system and show how we can eradicate judicial corruption and restore our Constitutional rights.
In February, 2023 he filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Carol Pulliam v, University of Southern California, Case No. 22-782 to end the corruption of the California and related federal court systems from the unlawful county and court payments to California trial judges.
Upon denial of the petition in April, 2023, Dr. Fine filed a Petition for Rehearing.
Dr. Fine has also drafted legislation for California to establish a commission to oversee the judiciary and compensate the victims of judicial misconduct and judicial abuse of power, can be adopted to other states.
* Short Resume of Dr. Richard I. Fine, Ph.D.
Dr. Fine holds the following degrees, diplomas and certificates – Degrees: Ph.D. – Law (International Law) – University of London, London School of Economics & Political Science, 1967; Doctor of Law – The Law School, University of Chicago, 1964; B.S. – University of Wisconsin, 1961; Diplomas: Diplome d’Etudes Superieures du Droit Compare – Faculte Internationale pour L’ Enseignment du Droit Compare – Strasbourg, France, 1967; Certificates: Certificate of Comparative Law – International University of Comparative Science – Luxembourg, 1966; Certificate of Private International Law 1966 Session – Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague, 1966; Certificate of Public International Law 1965 Session – Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague, 1965.
He is the author of numerous publications on the subjects of antitrust, international and comparative law.
Dr. Fine is presently a Strategic Consultant (Richard I. Fine & Associates, http://www.richardfinelaw.com) with emphasis in the areas of judicial corruption and anti – corruption, legal services oversight and international and U.S. law.
Dr. Fine was the Consul General of the Kingdom of Norway to Southern California from 1995-2010. He practiced law for over 45 years in state and federal courts, including cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and as an international lawyer. During such time, he was a prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice – Antitrust Division, Founder and Chief of the Antitrust Division of the LA City Attorney’s Office (the first municipal antitrust division in the U.S.), Special Counsel to the Governmental Efficiency Committee of the LA City Council where he was retained to investigate the former mayor and his administration for corruption, worked in the London office of a large international law firm and maintained his own practice of the Law Offices of Richard I. Fine & Associates.
Dr. Fine is known for having been a leader in the legal profession. He was a member of the BNA Antitrust Advisory Board (Washington, D.C.) and the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law in addition to being Founder and Chairman of the Antitrust Trade Regulation Law Committee and Section and Organizer of the International Law Committee of the State Bar of California, Founder and Chairman of the Antitrust Section, and Chairman of the International Law Section of the LA County Bar Association and Chairman of the Committee on International Economic Organizations of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association, amongst other things.
In the civic area, Dr. Fine has been on the boards of various charities and has been a Distinguished Visitor to the Claremont Graduate University – School of Religion.
Dr. Fine received numerous awards for his work, including a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition – awarded by the U.S. Congress “in recognition of outstanding and invaluable service to the community”; a California State Assembly Certificate of Recognition – awarded “for outstanding services to the community”; a California State Board of Equalization Resolution Certificate of Recognition – awarded for “sincere and grateful appreciation for outstanding dedication and service to the taxpayers of the community”; a Lawyer of the Decades 1976-2006 – awarded by the Black Republican Women’s Council and the Judea Christian Alliance; a Champion for Court Reform – American Hero – awarded by the Full Disclosure Network; and a Champion of Truth and Justice – awarded by Freedom Law School.
Dr. Fine continues the fight against judicial corruption today.
“The void contempt decision which the Court of Appeal justices refuse to remove, knowing the underlying order of contempt was voided and annulled by the court in response to a U.S. District Court Order.”
Contempt order against Dr. Richard I. Fine
Fine v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 651
May 12 US Supreme Court Amend SBX 2 11 Petition for Rehearing filed
MORE ON DR. RICHARD I. FINE AND AMEND SBX 2 11
- What is Wrong with the County Payments to Judges?
- TODAY OUR CHOICE IS: (1) VOTE “NO”; or (2) CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDER A CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM!
- The Dirty Truth Behind California’s $400 Million of “Supplemental Judicial Benefits”
- The Campaign for Judicial Integrity
- Supreme Court of the United States CAROL PULLIAM, Petitioner vs. USC On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari RICHARD ISAAC FINE
- SBX 2 11 gave retroactive immunity from California criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to the judges?
- Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Final 2020 Report Conservatroships
- Richard I. Fine’s SBX 2 11
- Richard I. Fine’s Bill Amending SBX 211 & related Government Code Sections; Establishing State of California Commission on Judicial Oversight & Victims Compensation for Judicial Misconduct & Judicial Abuse of Power
- Richard I. Fine Motion Los Angeles Superior Court Null 08/27/10 Document
- Richard I. Fine Motion Los Angeles County Auditor Judicial Benefits Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Renewal Motion 01/31/11 Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Null Void 03/02/11 Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Notice Void Null 08/06/10 Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Motion to Disqualify, Null & Void Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl 03/08/11 Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Motion Null Dec 2010 Document
- Richard I. Fine Broadcast Amend SBX 211 get restitution for Court Victims and Citizen Oversight
- Richard Fine, The Bravest Man in the Legal Field
- Oaths, Laws, Codes, Bills & Legal Canons are useless because no one enforces anything
- Keep contacting California’s State Senators and State Assembly Members urging them to support & enact Campaign’s Amendment to SBX 2 11
- Vote 4 Justice Richard I. Fine Videos