Former U.S. Prosecutor Jailed Almost 1 yr, in Contempt of Court Files Demand for Release: Full Disclosure Network(R) Reports

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Full Disclosure Network® reports breaking news developments in the on-going cable television series "Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption" concerning judicial ethics and judicial conflicts of interest.  

Richard I. Fine, a prominent former U.S. Anti-Trust Attorney, holding a Ph.D. in International Law, has been an Honorary Consul General of the United Kingdom of Norway for  the past decade.  Fine has been held in the L. A. County  Central Mens Jail for eleven months for contempt of court and has filed a formal Demand For Release with Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe.  Representing himself, from his solitary "coercive confinement" jail cell, Fine contends Judge Yaffe's illegal order has held him unlawfully since March 4, 2009, without bail, a release date or a hearing date.

In his filing, Fine describes how Judge Yaffe was personally involved in the case and that he illegally sat in judgment of his own actions, while accepting illegal payments from a party (L.A. County) to the case before him.  (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs. County of Los Angeles Case BS109420)

The demand for release is based upon grounds cited here (http://tiny.cc/Grounds) and other reasons set forth in Memorandum of Points and Authorities (http://tiny.cc/PandA).  Fine has been denied a trial and has not been convicted of a crime.  The issues now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal are whether or not the Trial Court Judge (David Yaffe) should have recused himself from sitting in judgment,  thus raising the question as to why Richard Fine is being  held in solitary "coercive confinement."  

Cited as grounds for Fine's demand for release was the U. S. Supreme case of L A Times reporter William T. Farr (In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), who raised moral objections to a contempt of Court Order of "coercive confinement".  That case, placed a maximum of five days where was no substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, thus the commitment would become punitive in nature. (In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976).

LINKS & VIDEOS:

What is the Full Disclosure Network?                     http://tiny.cc/Backgrounder406

"Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption" (6 min)       http://tiny.cc/preview687    

Sheriff Denies Full Disclosure Access (4 Min)        http://tiny.cc/DeniedAccess

Contact: Leslie Dutton of Full Disclosure Network, +1-310-822-4449, or [email protected]

SOURCE Full Disclosure Network