Friday, March 27, 2009

What would Dr. Phil or Nancy Grace do if it happened to them?

Very deep video sent to me:

Monday, March 23, 2009


The fig leaf is falling off and exposing the obscene corruption of the current capitalist society in its current period of capitalism's decay.



Los Angeles County Loots Federal Stimulus Money to Give its Judges a 26% Illegal bonus

March 17, 2009

By Dan Ackroyd

Los Angeles, California -
The nation is outraged over the $165 million in bonuses which AIG is paying to those who created the massive financial fraud that has devastated the U.S. and the world.

Los Angeles - and most of California - has its own AIG - it's the California judges' cartel!

This year, the County of Los Angeles will give to each of its 450 judges a bonus equal to 26% of their salaries. This will cost the county approximately $20 million this year, and a similar or greater amount in each succeeding year.

As the county is deeply in debt, this is not surplus money which the county has tucked away. No. Instead it will cut back on services to citizens and lay off workers in order to give the judges this 26% pay increase.

The county will then say to the federal government that it needs its stimulus money to provide these services and hold on to the workers. In effect, the county is using the federal stimulus money to give a pay increase of 26% to its judges. That is a version of AIG receiving $180 billion from taxpayers, and then turning around and paying $165 million in bonuses.

But the situation is even worse.

For the last 20 years, the County of Los Angeles has been illegally paying these bonuses to its judges. The total is estimated to exceed $300 million. According to a former United States Department of Justice prosecutor, Richard Fine LA County Payments to LA Superior Court Judges Cost Taxpayers Almost 1 Billion Dollars and - Denied Constitutional Rights to the People of LA County -January 07, 2009 -By Richard I. Fine, Los Angeles, California

Watch Richard Fine's explanation why SBX 11 which the lobby of state public officials and judges passed, and why it was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009. Fine explains why giving perks and immunity to California judges is illegal.

In October 2008, a California Court of Appeal, in Spurgeon v the County of Los Angeles, ruled that such payments were unconstitutional, as the constitution specifically restricted judges' pay to the California legislature. On December 23, 2008, the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld that ruling.

Did the county stop paying those bonuses? No. Did the judges stop taking those bonuses? No.

Instead, behind the scenes and out of the public eye, the judges took taxpayer money from the operating fund of the courts and hired a lobbyist at $10,000 a money to get a bill passed in the legislature overturning the Sturgeon decision. Ronald George, the California Supreme Court chief justice, also intervened, using taxpayer money to lobby for the bill.

The bill, SB 11, was introduced into the California legislature on February 11, 2009 by Darryl Steinberg (D-Sacramento). Even though the legislature was consumed with trying to pass a budget bill to close a $42 billion deficit, it passed the bill without any public discussion in 4 days. By February 20, 2009, the governor had signed it.

Not only did the bill overturn the Sturgeon decision, but it also granted immunity to the judges for illegally taking the $300 million over the last 20 years.

As 55 of California's 58 counties give these bonuses to their judges. the true cost far exceeds the $300 million in Los Angeles County. It begins to make the AIG bonuses look miniscule in comparison.

Of course, if the counties had not illegally spent that taxpayers' money, there would be less need for the federal bailout money.

In essence, the judges are feeding at the public trough without shame or remorse. They are telling the homeless and umemployed that they do not count, as long as the judges get all that they can get.

The honorable thing for the judges would be to pay back the money and resign. Instead the same judges involved in taking illegal payments and not disclosing these Judicial benefits have jailed Richard Fine for exposing their illegal actions. These judges have denied Fine access to pen or paper, access to library or the ability to file the papers in Federal court to defend himself

The people of Los Angeles should remove its county supervisors, and file a lawsuit against these judges.

Alternatively, the federal government should subtract all the bonus money, both past and present, from the stimulus funds given to the county.

Either way, another $300 Million AIG should not be allowed to be committed in Los Angeles and California by judges citizens elect to uphold the laws and the constitution.

View Comments (1) | Post a comment

For more information, please check out the articles listed below:
Lawmakers Pass Bill to Keep Local Benefits for Trial Judges - Kenneth Ofgang

Veteran attorney in L.A. held on contempt of court charges - Victoria Kim



Atty Richard Fine, Imprisoned for Freedom Fighting - Brooke Kelley

Please Join The Citizens of California Tomorrow To Rally For Judicial Reform - Disclosure Watch - Dr. Shirley Moore


President Obama will Hold Town Hall Meetings in Southern California this week - Sandy Meyer

Friday, March 20, 2009

Action Alert: Tell Nationally-Syndicated Talk Show Host That Dads Aren't Deadbeats

March 16th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks
“Consider the number of American deadbeat dads who spend money week after week on their cigarettes and beer but nothing for the children they’ve fathered along the way.” –Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz
A few days ago nationally-syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz slammed “deadbeat dads who spend money week after week on their cigarettes and beer but nothing for the children they’ve fathered along the way.”
While there certainly are parents of both genders who don’t come through for their children, Boortz’s statement is a wild generalization contradicted by established research—most fathers who can pay their child support do so. These fathers often pay despite being unfairly driven to the margins of the lives of the children they’re paying to support.
[To learn the facts about "deadbeat dads", see my coauthored column When Beating up on 'Deadbeat Dads' is Unfair (Houston Chronicle, 1/7/07).]
Boortz’ show is ranked seventh in overall U.S. listeners, with 4.25+ million per week. It can be heard live on the web here or on your local affiliate here.
What we want you to do:
1) Boortz show airs live from 8:30 AM to 1:00 PM ET Monday through Friday–we want you to call him at 877-310-2100 while he’s on the air and tell him he’s wrong about American fathers.
2) Contact his advertising sales manager Dave Keiser at (404) 897-6293 and and let him know you’re unhappy with Boortz’s insulting, inaccurate generalization.
3) Email Boortz here.
If Neal Boortz is interested in having a representative of Fathers & Families on the show, he can contact Dr. Ned Holstein at 617 542-9300 or Glenn Sacks, MA at 1 800 439-4805.
This entry was posted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 at 9:07 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Supreme Court Orders Disbarment of Attorney Richard I. Fine

Have you heard the news???


The California Supreme Court yesterday ordered that a prominent Beverly Hills attorney be disbarred for filing a stream of disqualification motions and other papers containing what the State Bar Court found to be false and frivolous charges regarding members of the state bench.
The high court, at its weekly conference in San Francisco, voted 6-0 to deny review and to adopt the State Bar Court’s recommendation that Richard I. Fine lose his license to practice law. Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar was absent and did not participate.
Honn was declared involuntarily inactive in October 2007 after Hearing Judge Richard Honn said Fine’s “remarkable academic and professional background” as a leading antitrust and taxpayer rights lawyer did not justify his “improper and vindictive reactions” to rulings of Commissioner Bruce Mitchell and other judicial officers.
‘Never-Ending Attack’
The hearing judge said Fine “engaged in what amounts to an almost never-ending attack on anyone (including attorneys and judicial officers) who disagreed with him or otherwise got in his way.” Fine, Honn said, “kept digging himself into deeper and deeper problems” and failed “to appreciate the harm he has imposed on so many people and on the court system.”
Fine, the onetime head of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s antitrust unit and counsel for the plaintiffs in a number of highly publicized class actions and taxpayer suits, has blamed his troubles on state judges and other officials whom he accuses of retaliating against him for his years of challenges to the benefits paid to Los Angeles Superior Court judges by the county.
Fine claims that judges who receive the benefits have a conflict of interest in any case involving the county, and that they have, over the years, improperly failed to disclose the conflict and to disqualify themselves from cases to which the county is a party.
The Court of Appeal last year ruled in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles that the benefits are unconstitutional because they have not been authorized by the Legislature. The court did not say that judges who have been receiving the benefits had a conflict of interest as contended by Fine, but Fine—who was not involved in the Sturgeon case—said the decision vindicated him.
Fine told the MetNews he intends to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court based on what he said are violations of his constitutional rights to free speech and due process of law. He has argued, among other things, that Honn had an undisclosed conflict of interest because the disciplinary charges stemmed from his battle with the county, which gives $30,000 a year to Special Olympics of Southern California, on whose board Honn serves.
Honn’s participation in the case violates the “implicit right to honest services” and should be investigated as a violation of federal fraud statutes, Fine said.
Federal Suit
The now-disbarred lawyer is also suing the State Bar in federal court, arguing that the statute that permits disbarment for acts of moral turpitude not amounting to crimes violated the Due Process Clause. That suit, pending before Judge Dale Fisher in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, has been on hold pending the outcome of the State Bar proceedings, Fine said. (Dale Fisher is a former L.A. County Judges, she gets a L. A. County pension another stacked deck)
“This is political payback for my having exposed the corruption in the judicial system,” Fine said yesterday. “....I would have to question whether the California Supreme Court .....even read the papers....This is on one of the greater travesties of justice...They want to take the lawyer who has saved the taxpayers more than $1 billion dollars and put him out of the bar when they have done nothing about the corruption in the judicial system.”
He added that there is “not one scintilla of substantive evidence” that he has violated ethics rules.
In other conference action, the justices: This involves a Deputy DA that sued the County.
•Left standing a ruling by Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal, which threw out a $1.5 million verdict in favor of a former Los Angeles deputy city attorney who was discharged after angrily suggesting to a clerk that then-Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner (now Judge) Joseph Biderman “would have to answer to the Creator” for a judicial ruling which she opposed.
The panel ruled in Magnandonovan v. City of Los Angeles, B192892, that the hostile language directed at Biderman was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to discharge Lynn Magnandonovan, and that her pretext evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a reasonable inference of intentional retaliation.
Magnandonovan admitted to making the offending comment to Biderman’s court clerk after Biderman took Magnandonovan’s motion to revoke a convicted child molester’s probation off calendar when Magnandonovan failed to timely appear for the hearing. Biderman testified that he understood Magnandonovan’s remarks as a “veiled reference” to his homosexuality, and that he “felt very personally insulted”; “was very upset about it”; and “was in shock about the whole thing.”
While allowing the ruling to stand, the high court declined to order publication of the Court of Appeal opinion.
•Declined to review a ruling by the First District’s Div. Four that the State Bar’s subrogation rights against an attorney whose clients were reimbursed by the Client Security Fund are not limited to the amount of a litigation settlement between the lawyer and the clients. The case is State Bar of California v. Statile (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 650.
•Agreed to decide whether police violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered a mentally disordered man’s home to confiscate his gun after taking him into custody outside for posing a danger to others.
The Third District Court of Appeal ruled last October in People v. Sweig (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1145, said there was no constitutional authority for the warrantless entry in the absence of exigent circumstances. The panel rejected the prosecution’s argument that the entry was justified under the “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment.

Copyright 2009, Metropolitan News Company

This extra money has tainted all cases involving the County. Their appears to be a practice and pattern of this through out the State. Read Fine's Bio


Greetings,This is the beginning of the down ship for people regarding SB-11. The nation is so outraged, this is an example of what they are doing Minn. for starters. Please take a look at this YouTube. Now,Attorney Fine is being held in jail, he is being denied pencil, paper and pen. Also, he is being denied the right to represent himself. All because he exposed the courts, Fine also exposed the fact the in the years of 2005-2007, no L.A. Judge ever ruled against the County when they were defendant's in a case. If immunity is being giving to the judges and their cohorts, why can't all those people that were denied due process for the last past twelve years have their cases revisited. if immunity was good for the goose, it should be good for the gander. The three branches of govt are to be for checks and balances, how is this a check and balance when you admit in your Bill that the judges took the money when it was unlawful to do so and then you turn around and not only give them immunity but make it twelve years retroactive. Lastly, being that L.A County has a 11 percent unemployment rate, how do you justify paying those judges in this specific County 21 million a year extra. I see this money being better used for jobs, services and a host of other things. God bless Huff and Dutton for not going alone with this terrible bill. In addition, people in your district will suffer the most, as Due Process certainly won't ever be given to them, as it really never was, as one can see the jails, cps and the police brutalities. One hopes that Fine is not injured in this jail all because he spoke out. One more thing, what this bill state is that the entire state is corrupt. In other words, if one branch of government is exposed, will they have the ability to come to the state house and have immunity granted, all against the people.Fine You Tube Click here: YouTube - Disclosure Watch Town Hall MeetingFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASESaint Paul MinnesotaFebruary 27, 2009Minnesota Legislators to Discipline Judges. In response to dozens of petitions by the citizens of the state of Minnesota, an Ad Hoc committee has been scheduled to hear the evidence of the corruption within the Minnesota Judicial Branch.Spearheaded by minority whip Rep. Dan Severson, the bipartisan joint committee will convene on March 13th, 2009 at the State Office Building at 9:00AM in room 300N.The ad hoc committee was formed because the chairs of the senate and house committees that oversee matters of the judiciary have refused to hear the citizen petitions concerning corruption in the Minnesota Judicial Branch.The evidence to be presented to the ad hoc committee is massive and includes transcripts being altered, bribery, extortion, denial of access to the Grand Jury and numerous state and felonies by certain district and appellate court judges. Bills of impeachment against many judges will be brought.Never before in the history of the state of Minnesota, and perhaps the nation, have the legislative committees charged with overseeing the matters in the judiciary refused to listen to the evidence of crimes being committed by judges. Article Six Section Nine of the Minnesota Constitution clearly directs it is the intent of the people for the Legislature to discipline the Judicial Branch. The courageous legislators that have agreed to participate in the Ad Hoc committee number over a dozen and more are joining as citizens from across the state meet with their legislators and encourage participation. Additionally, a press conference will be held the week of March 9th, 2009 to discuss the introduction of judicial reform bills and the agenda for the Ad Hoc committee.Here is a copy of your Bill SB-11, I highlighted your admission in RED.Enrolled:SB 11, Steinberg. Judges: employment benefits. 11, Steinberg. Judges: employment benefits. The California Constitution requires the Legislature to prescribecompensation for judges of courts of record. Existing law authorizesa county to deem judges and court employees as county employees forpurposes of providing employment benefits. These provisions were heldunconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of the obligation ofthe Legislature to prescribe the compensation of judges of courts ofrecord. This bill would provide that judges who received supplementaljudicial benefits provided by a county or court, or both, as of July1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from thecounty or court then paying the benefits on the same terms andconditions as were in effect on that date. The bill would authorize acounty to terminate its obligation to provide benefits uponproviding 180 days' written notice to the Administrative Director ofthe Courts and the impacted judges, but that termination would not beeffective as to any judge during his or her current term while thatjudge continues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the electionof the county, when that judge leaves office. The bill also wouldauthorize the county to elect to provide benefits for all judges inthat county. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report tothe Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, the AssemblyCommittee on Budget, and both the Senate and Assembly Committees onJudiciary on or before December 31, 2009, analyzing the statewidebenefits inconsistencies. This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer oremployee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or besubject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefitsprovided to a judge under the official action of a governmentalentity prior to the effective date of the bill on the ground thatthose benefits were not authorized under law. This bill would provide that nothing in its provisions shallrequire the Judicial Council to increase funding to a court for thepurpose of paying judicial benefits or obligate the state or theJudicial Council to pay for benefits previously provided by thecounty, city and county, or the court.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of thefollowing: (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to address the decision ofthe Court of Appeal in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167Cal.App.4th 630, regarding county-provided benefits for judges. (b) These county-provided benefits were considered by theLegislature in enacting the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Actof 1997, in which counties could receive a reduction in the county'smaintenance of effort obligations if counties elected to providebenefits pursuant to paragraph (l) of subdivision (c) of Section77201 of the Government Code for trial court judges of that county. (c) Numerous counties and courts established local or courtsupplemental benefits to retain qualified applicants for judicialoffice, and trial court judges relied upon the existence of theselongstanding supplemental benefits provided by the counties or thecourt.SEC. 2. Section 68220 is added to the Government Code, to read: 68220. (a) Judges of a court whose judges received supplementaljudicial benefits provided by the county or court, or both, as ofJuly 1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits fromthe county or court then paying the benefits on the same terms andconditions as were in effect on that date. (b) A county may terminate its obligation to provide benefitsunder this section upon providing the Administrative Director of theCourts and the impacted judges with 180 days' written notice. Thetermination shall not be effective as to any judge during his or hercurrent term while that judge continues to serve as a judge in thatcourt or, at the election of the county, when that judge leavesoffice. The county is also authorized to elect to provide benefitsfor all judges in the county.SEC. 3. Section 68221 is added to the Government Code, to read: 68221. To clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies in terms withregard to judges and justices and to ensure uniformity statewide, thefollowing shall apply for purposes of Sections 68220 to 68222,inclusive: (a) "Benefits" and "benefit" shall include federally regulatedbenefits, as described in Section 71627, and deferred compensationplan benefits, such as 401(k) and 457 plans, as described in Section71628, and may also include professional development allowances. (b) "Salary" and "compensation" shall have the meaning as setforth in Section 1241.SEC. 4. Section 68222 is added to the Government Code, to read: 68222. Nothing in this act shall require the Judicial Council toincrease funding to a court for the purpose of paying judicialbenefits or obligate the state or the Judicial Council to pay forbenefits previously provided by the county, city and county, or thecourt.SEC. 5. Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity, orofficer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur anyliability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action becauseof benefits provided to a judge under the official action of agovernmental entity prior to the effective date of this act on theground that those benefits were not authorized under law.SEC. 6. The Judicial Council shall report to the Senate Committeeon Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee on Budget, andboth the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary on or beforeDecember 31, 2009, analyzing the statewide benefits inconsistencies.SEC. 7. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provisionof this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidityshall not affect other provisions or applications that can be giveneffect without the invalid provision or application.

Probate Judge Nancy C. Francis out of Washtenaw County have violated the law

Re: "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh seeking the "truth:"Closure seems to be such a beautiful word to use when the truth comes out.The more John Walsh searched for the truth, the more time passed, but he never stopped seeking the "truth" of who was responsible for his son's death. It is good to hear he has finally received some closure, with police closing the case and blaming a now-deceased convicted killer.Adam's parents have gone through a lot like other parents who have lost their child to an untimely death. Other parents have sat by and watched their children slowly slip away from them because of some terminal illness. I wonder which would be more painful. Both sets of parents would wonder why it happened to their child.The "truth" can be a beautiful thing for a parent like me who sought for justice for my children but I found the Washtenaw Court to be corrupted by Judge Nancy C. Francis who has violated the law to protect a criminal who abused and neglected my children. The judge along with her assistant (Juliet Pressel) and the opposing counsel have tried to quiet me by causing financial problems for me then separating my children from me, then trying to financially ruin me. If the "truth" could send my former wife to prison would the "truth" be a good thing or not under this circumstance? Our court system is supposed to be set up to seek the "truth" but can manipulate because the lack of the public awareness, greedy attorneys and people who like to commit perjury. Our legislators throughout this nation of ours are not enforcing judges to honor the law in the family courts. Now my children and other children suffer throughout this country because the system has failed them. Furthermore, I was shocked that a state worker for Child Protective Services (Joyce Mansfield) would allow abuse and neglect to continue to my children because of her personal relationship with the judge. My name is Charles Wright and I'm willing to testify before Congress and/or polygraph examination about the corruption. I have the proof.