Incarceration of Attorney Richard I. Fine (Part 1)

An attorney who spent years fighting against the practice of counties making additional payments to judges has suffered disbarment and been thrown in jail over the last several weeks. Richard Fine, 69, claims that his legal problems stem from his crusade against the practice. But the Los Angeles Superior Court and the plaintiff's attorney at the center of the Sturgeon case say they aren't related.

Fine is a real estate attorney who has raised objections to "local judicial payments" in several cases. Last May, he sued the California Bar Association, according to attorney Gary Zerman, who has staged several small protests demanding Fine's release. Fine has repeatedly argued that these payments violate the State and U.S. Constitutions, including citizens' "implied right to honest services" from elected officials.

Fine claimed not only that judges might have to repay the money they had received, but that any judges who took the payments could be forced to leave the bench, and any rulings they had handed down could be invalidated.

Fine has argued that the Los Angeles judges have never ruled against the County of Los Angeles in court since the payments began. Many of his legal problems appear to stem from a real estate case, Marina Tenants Association vs. Los Angeles County, and the judge in that case, David P. Yaffe, who, he claims, has retaliated against him for trying to draw attention the payments issue.

He was disbarred on Feb. 11 and arrested on March 4. Zerman said the court has a vendetta against him. seeking to draw attention away from the fact that they're maintaining the judicial payments at a time when "L.A. County is shutting down court rooms, laying off court staff and increasing court fees."

Los Angeles Superior Court spokesman Alan Parachini said the Marina case was "unrelated." The disbarment proceedings had been going on for months. Fine, he said, was then held in contempt of court for practicing law without a license for attempting to continue the case after his disbarment and for refusing to answer a judge's questions as part of a debtor's examination on money he owes.

The plaintiff's attorney in the Sturgeon case, Sterling Norris, praised Fine's work in publicizing the payments issue. But Norris noted that Fine was not involved in the Sturgeon case. He declined to say whether Fine's activism had anything to do with his current legal issues.

Following Fine's March 4, 2009 hearing, Judge Yaffe sentenced him to prison, and he was ordered to L.A. County Central Men's Jail, Twin Tower #1. With the help of supporters, Fine filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Request for Immediate Release. The major issues addressed in Fine's Writ of Habeas Corpus are summarized as follows:

Can Judge Yaffe legally sit in a contempt proceeding where one of the parties [Fine] has raised the issue that Yaffe took illegal payments from another of the parties [County] in the case?
The original Declaration and Order to Show Cause supporting the contempt proceeding did not give notice of all the documents used in the proceedings.
The lawyers used by the court in the contempt proceeding were lawyers who were actually working for the benefit of the party whose order they were trying enforce.
The commissioner who required Fine to answer questions was neither a judge nor duly-appointed referee and did not have the legal authority to order Fine to answer questions.
The underlying order requiring Fine to pay money to the County and Del Rey Shores Developers was unconstitutional because there was never any notice given to Fine, and he was not present at the hearing when such order was made.
The charge of practicing law without a license is a criminal charge, and the absence of a jury trial option was a denial of due process.
No evidence was presented in court to support the charges upon which Judge Yaffe had held Fine guilty for a) not answering questions from a commissioner, and b) practicing law without a license.
Judge Yaffe had taken illegal payments from the County, a party to the case, and therefore was not qualified to sit as a judge.
No order by the California Supreme Court was presented at the contempt trial that ordered Fine to be "inactive" or "disbarred."
Judge Yaffe was disqualified from the case by Civil Code Section 170.3 (c) (3) for having taken money from the County and not disclosing the receipt of this money. Judge Yaffe did not respond to this complaint, thereby consenting to the disqualification.

On April 7, 2009, the Sherriff of Los Angeles County was ordered to respond to Fine's Writ of Habeas Corpus. In response, Fine was informed on May 1, 2009 that his incarceration for contempt was indefinite though application of the doctrine of "coercive confinement."

“The use of coercive confinement resulting from civil contempt has been approved and found appropriate by the United States Supreme Court, federal district and appellate courts and California state courts, regarding the right of a civil judgment creditor to pursue and of a trial court to impose for purposes of an individual’s compliance with a valid court order.”

From the court's response, prepared by the Ventura law firm of Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham
on behalf of Los Angeles County Superior Court and Judge David P. Yaffe.

Adapted from: "Judicial Critic Richard Fine Fights for Freedom; Sheriff Baca to Defend Judge Yaffe?" Full Disclosure Network, April 8, 2009, http://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/04/judicial-critic-richard-fights-for.html, accessed 05/10/09. See also: "Coercive Confinement; Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption," Full Disclosure Network, May 5, 2009, http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/539.php, accessed 05/22/09.