Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

 

JAILS, DUE PROCESS, DOLLARS, and JUSTICE – what’s the connection?

WHY IS THIS 70-yr-old MAN IN JAIL?

Los Angeles Attorney Richard I. Fine

A petition has been created to free Richard Fine, gentleman attorney with distinguished career of many examples of success over forty years, a kidnapped, targeted individual (TI), Falsely Imprisoned Person (FIP) in hospital solitary “coercive confinement” under horrendous circumstances and conditions in what ACLU stated is absolutely the “worst” jail in America.

Richard Isaac Fine (1940) established the Law Offices of Richard I. Fine & Associates in 1974. He received his Bachelor of Science from University of Wisconsin (’61); Doctor of Law from University of Chicago (’64) and Ph.D. in International Law at London School of Economics, University of London (’67). He received a Certificate from Hague Academy of International Law, a Certificate of Comparative Law from International University of Comparative Science in Luxembourg, and a Diplome d’Edudes Superieures du Droit Compare from Faculte Internationale pour L’Enseignment du Droit Compare in Strasbourg.

Before opening his firm, Mr. Fine was founding chief of the first U.S. municipal antitrust division for the City of Los Angeles; Special Counsel to the Governmental Efficiency Committee of Los Angeles City Council; and member of the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division in Washington D.C. Mr. Fine has practiced law with an international law firm in London and a law firm in Los Angeles. He served Southern California as Consul General for the Kingdom of Norway.

Crusader

Known as a “crusader,” the “taxpayer advocate attorney,” the “peoples’ lawyer,” and now, as of March 4, 2009, “America’s forgotten political prisoner,” Mr. Fine has challenged and corrected government corruption.

Oh yes, and among the corruption he uncovered was also (1999) that $13 million in collected but UNPAID child support was sitting around, and he attempted to DO something about this (See near bottom of the next quote). The connection with Family Court Services, it’s coming, be patient:

Vol. 15, No. 45 — December 6, 1999

Published Date November 12, 1999, in Washington, D.C. http://www.insightmag.com

New Scandals in L.A. Court

——————————————————————————–

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

——————————————————————————–

Insight has more details on an alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association and the possible extortion of civil litigants by some officers of the court.

As the old Neil Diamond song has it, “L.A.’s fine, the sun shines most the time and the feeling is laid back.” Sunny L.A. is so laid back that alleged corruption within the Superior Court of Los Angeles goes unchecked and nary a thought is given to investigate possible connections of ongoing criminal indictments to schemes and players already exposed (see “Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?” May 3).

. . . . But Marvin Bryer of La Crescenta, Calif., is anything but laid back. A retired computer analyst, Bryer spent years collecting court and bank documents concerning suspicious financial relationships between attorneys, court professionals and judges of the Superior Court. After Insight exposed the secret “coffee-and-flowers” bank account of the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association, or LASCJA, Bryer filed a lawsuit against the Family Court Services Special Fund, one of the names used by the LASCJA.

. . . . Bryer contends in his lawsuit that, among other things, the LASCJA was using a “bogus” name to route money to its own bank account gained from minimum continuing legal education, or MCLE, classes and other lawyer-supported ventures associated with the Superior Court. Because the LASCJA illegally was using the County of Los Angeles employer identification number, or EIN, it still is unclear whether the money deposited into the judges’ account belonged to the taxpayers of Los Angeles or to the judges — a question Bryer hopes to have answered by his lawsuit. . . .

(In a recent post, Raw Milk Wars – 1, in middle section, inbetween the L.A. Sheriffs’ showing up with guns out to get some Raw Foodists, and obviously later (when one threw Mr. Fine, above, in jail, I linked to an ongoing, over a decade-long attempt by a taxpayer’s association for Los Angeles to get the City (not county) to pay back $30 million in funds that had no right to hold onto. It has been a FIGHT so far, which makes me think that maybe we shouldn’t let those taxes, or fees, GO until we see the direct mail chute to the project they are funding. THIS story ties into the origins of the family law system. Mr. Fine was after corruption, in Los Angeles circles, in general, not specifically to the family law system. It was his JOB…)

Having lunch paid for by the plaintiffs or defendants happens in most jury cases in Glendale,” says Stoll. “It’s maintenance of the jury,” Stoll continues. “They don’t have to pay by credit card; the bailiff will accept a check. It’s been going on for years.” {DOES A BETTER LUNCH GET A BETTER VERDICT AT THIS LEVEL, TOO?}

. . . . Perhaps it has, but is it based in law? According to the judge who assures Insight he has cleaned up the “coffee-and-flowers” fund, there’s no way. “It would be wrong,” says Chavez, “for any attorney to tell a client that they had to pay for lunch. I’m not aware of it happening. . . . There is nothing in the law that says someone has to pay for lunch for a jury — absolutely nothing.” Chavez adds, however, that “sometimes people do want to pay for the jury’s lunch, but if they do the jury never knows who paid for it.” Just benevolence, you see.

. . . . So while the court in Glendale appears to be keeping the jurors and bailiffs fed in a bizarre act of enforced charity, Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti has run into trouble with the $13 million he has been withholding from child-support payments under exotic circumstances. Insight’s May report on this resulted in a lawsuit filed by Richard Fine in the name of John Silva of Sylmar, Calif., an aggrieved parent who has paid child support since 1984 that records indicate was never forwarded by Garcetti to Silva’s children. Fine has just won the right of discovery against the district attorney on his way to forcing disbursement of the huge fund. Although Garcetti tried to get the class-action lawsuit dismissed because, as Fine recalls, “he said he was doing the best he could and therefore we didn’t have a right to sue him,” the judge ruled in favor of Fine and the case continues to move forward.

. . . . “We’ve learned from discovery that they have 100,000 files that date as far back as 1984 involving more than $13 million held by Garcetti,” says Fine. “We’ve got to request that the files be matched up — the payer and payee — and then require Garcetti to distribute the money. This is one of the greatest human tragedies I’ve ever handled. People are knocking on his door asking for money owed to them and he’s basically saying forget it. People have lost their homes and gone hungry and he couldn’t care less. This is a prime example of bureaucratic laziness. If we changed the structure and paid the employees of his department based on the number of cases that got paid, I guarantee that all $13 million would get paid out in 30 days.”

. . . . The California Legislature apparently concurs with these sentiments and recently passed a law, to become effective in 2001, removing the collection of child-support monies from Garcetti and all district attorneys throughout the state. Despite these victories the district attorney still is garnishing Silva’s paycheck for alleged child-support arrears for which Silva has receipts from Garcetti’s office. Garcetti’s enforcement personnel refuse to acknowledge Silva’s proof that he paid the support and continue to seize money from his payroll check against an alleged $60,000 arrearage.

. . . . Silva’s monthly payments vary depending on his biweekly income. His take-home pay is approximately $1,200, of which Garcetti often will leave him with $200 to care for a family of four. In fact, two weeks after Silva’s story ran in Insight , Garcetti took all but one dollar of his $1,200 paycheck. Silva didn’t bother to cash the check and soon will file a lawsuit against Garcetti.

. . . . Fine understands what’s happening to the man responsible for the class-action lawsuit that is seeking to stop these practices. “This appears,” he says, “to be retribution. They continue to mess with John because they’re trying to get back at him for filing the suit.”

Copyright © 1999 News World Communications, Inc.

WHY IS THIS MAN IN JAIL?

Richard Fine is a a tax payer advocate who exposed massive judicial corruption in LA County and is rotting away in prison. While there has been no trial, sentence or conviction against him, he has been in solitary confinement for the last 15 months.

The discovery of judicial corruption, coupled with a violation of the Brown Act by the Los Angeles County Supervisors could justify the firing and criminal charges against the LA County Supervisors, the California State Los Angeles Superior Court Judges, the California State Legislators and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, among many others.

WHY DID HE GET DISBARRED?

THE FIGHT AGAINST ILLEGAL JUDICIAL BENEFITS & COURT CORRUPTION
Internet exclusive Full Disclosure® Video News Preview (6:32)
Release Date: November 14, 2009

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Something screwy about the arrest, too:

False Records Published online by the Sheriff’s Department regarding Richard Fine, Inmate #1824367
Through a long correspondence with the Sheriff”s Department, including intervention by Supervisor Michael Antonovich, the Sheriff’s Department refused to allow access to the arrest and booking records of Richard Fine, which were public records by California Public Records Act. Eventually, a letter from the Sheriff’s “Risk Reduction” Unit, issued in response to Supervisor Michael Antonovich stated that the Sheriff’s Department was not required by California Public Records Act to produce papers that did not exist. [2]

Please also notice that the Sheriff’s online Inmate Information Center listed Richard Fine as arrested and booked by the Municipal Court of San Pedro. There is no Municipal Court in San Pedro for almost a decade. Moreover, the Sheriff’s Unit at the Annex of the Superior Court at San Pedro stated that it had no booking facilities at all, and denied that Richard Fine was ever booked there. Needless to say, media reported that Richard Fine was taken by the Sheriff’s Warrant Detail, albeit with no warrant at all, at the Superior Court of California, Central District, Judge David Yaffe courtroom, downtown LA.

The Sheriff’s Department would not correct the false records it published in the online Inmate Information Center even after numerous requests.

False Records Published Online by the Superior Court of California in Collusion with the County of Los Angeles regarding Marina v LA County (BS109420) – the case in which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested.

Please notice that the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles continues to deny access to the true Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA county, the case where Richard Fine was purportedly arrested. Instead – false records were published online as “Case Summary”, with the disclaimer that such records should not be relied upon.

Of particular notice should be the fact that the proceeding of March 4, 2009, in which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, failed to be listed as a proceeding of the case at all.

It should also be noted that the case file included no valid warrant and no valid judgment/sentencing for the purported jailing.

In short
Richard Fine has been falsely arrested for a full year, under the guise of false hospitalization, with no medical reason at all. Such false arrest and false jailing was covered up by the online publication of false records by both the Court and the Sheriff’s Department, and denial of access to the true records in the case.

—

A LITTLE MORE, late 1990s, ON SOMETHING SLUSHY IN L.A. FAMILY LAW SYSTEM, SIMILAR PLAYERS, PLUS A FEW:

Child-custody cases always are heart-wrenching, but a three-month probe by Insight has unearthed an added twist for parents with cases before the Superior Court in Los Angeles. Emotionally distraught litigants are questioning whether a cozy financial connection between judges, attorneys and some court-appointed professionals in the City of Angels is affecting the outcome of their cases. Friends of the court are concerned that, at the very least, there is a strong appearance of impropriety.
. . . . Private bank accounts that benefit judges are at the heart of this brewing scandal — one that state and local agencies resolutely have failed to investigate, adding further suspicion. Bank accounts funded in part by fees from local lawyers and others involved in the family-court system are troubling litigants. Many feel it is impossible to know whether they’re facing a judge who has benefited financially from an attorney appearing before the court.

Deuteronomy 16

18Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. 19Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. 20That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

 

. . . . Former presiding judge Robert Parkin tells Insight that an account critics dub a slush fund is nothing more than “coffee-and-flowers” cash for the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association, or LASCJA. But documents obtained by Insight show the bank account served a great many purposes and that the judges’ association, a private organization, did not pay taxes on funds run through the account for the benefit of its members — who also would be subject to taxes.

. . . . Law-enforcement sources are nervous and concerned about the LASCJA accounts. They and county officials tell Insight not the least of the concerns is that for years county employees, paid by the taxpayers, were at the same time working on the LASCJA’s books. This is because before filing for federal tax-exempt status in late 1997, the LASCJA was using the federal employer-identification number, or EIN, of Los Angeles County, which in turn covered the fact that the judges were not paying taxes on the outside income they moved through their association. .

Put a little more blunt, they filed for their own taxpayer# AFTER they got caught — like how many years after . . . Plenty of years. . . . .

. . . “On the face of it, there appear to have been one or several laws that may have been broken, but without specific information it is impossible to know what statutes are applicable,” says Beth Miller, a spokeswoman for California Secretary of State Bill Jones. At the federal level a spokesman for the IRS who declined to be named said that an act of this nature “may fall under Section 72.061 of the tax code — fraud and false statements.”

. . . . How much money is involved? Plenty. Just one of the LASCJA Bank of America account statements shows this alleged “coffee-and-flowers” fund with a balance of $110,000, according to copies secured by Insight.

. . . . Parents with business before the Superior Court say they feel caught in a web of judicial deceit that borders on an organized racket. But for years their requests for an investigation fell on deaf ears, as elected officials and law-enforcement agencies did nothing. Enter Marvin Bryer, a retired computer analyst in La Crescenta, Calif.

. . . . Bryer became ensnared with the family-court system after his daughter, Karen, was faced with losing custody of her 2-year-old son. Having spent nearly $100,000 on attorneys and research fees, Bryer took matters into his own hands and has been campaigning for a probe of a system that he claims “purposefully profits off the conflict of the families in litigation.” He says, “I felt violated, almost numb, when I learned that the judges were making money through the child-custody system. The judges have too much power, and nobody is monitoring these guys.”
. . . . In July 1994, Bryer challenged the internal finance auditor of the family court, Gregory Pentoney, to turn over all records of donations to the court from members of the Los Angeles County bar. It was in those records that he found two “donation” checks totaling $6,750 to the judges’ fund, requisitioned through the bar association by the mother of the man Bryer’s daughter was resisting in her custody case. This was regarded as compromising family-court judges in Los Angeles County from hearing the case and it was moved to Orange County.

 

CALIFORNIA CONCILIATION COURTS — THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA

CAN YOU SAY “1939” ?? Because if you are too non-feminist to read the California Now 2002 Court Report (covering the above topic, plus a lot more), you are too lazy or biased to put together a little legal/judicial/financial history. Oh yeah, and adding the mental health professionals, make that “/psychological.”

This 170 pdf has a chapter 9, called LOSS OF DUE PROCESS, pdf page 6

Page 61, by Mary Bryer (possibly related to Marv?) is called

 

COURT CANCER METASTASIZES

FROM CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS

TO

ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS

(= “AFCC”)

This section (please download — link above & here: )

I am not going to do your homework for you. But here are some cliff notes and pointers:

• 1939 — Judges, Attorneys and Mental Health Professionals got together and passed State Law SB 737.
  

• “Each and Every County would pay for marital counseling to unclog the courts from divorce cases.”
  

You mean, people were divorcing between the World Wars? Yep! Musta been mentally ill, to want to divorce. Must be stopped. (Shades of Freud . . . Women & Madness/Chesler).

For comparison, women got the vote in 1920. They began demonsttrating for it a few wars ealier. I think this site says it well enough:

Votes for women were first seriously proposed in the United States in July, 1848, at the Seneca Falls Woman’s Rights Convention organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. One woman who attended that convention was Charlotte Woodward. She was nineteen at the time. In 1920, when women finally won the vote throughout the nation, Charlotte Woodward was the only participant in the 1848 Convention who was still alive to be able to cast a vote, though she was apparently too ill to actually cast a ballot.

Some battles for woman suffrage were won state-by-state by the early 20th century. Alice Paul and the National Women’s Party began using more radical tactics to work for a federal suffrage amendment to the Constitution: picketing the White House, staging large suffrage marches and demonstrations, going to jail. Thousands of ordinary women took part in these — a family legend is that my grandmother was one of a number of women who chained themselves to a courthouse door in Minneapolis during this period.

In 1913, Paul led a march of eight thousand participants on President Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration day. (Half a million spectators watched; two hundred were injured in the violence that broke out.) During Wilson’s second inaugural in 1917, Paul led a march around the White House.

For a little more comparison, if you want to complain about taxes, or for that matter, having a centralized government running your personal affairs, including marriage & divorce don’t blame a woman! Which gender (that’s a mistaken concept, but IF you’re going to blame a gender, and not the actual individuals responsible, at least get their GENDER right…)

We as a gender didn’t dream up The Creature from Jekyll Island (Federal Reserve) CODIFIED BY CONGRESS IN 1913, ALONG WITH THE PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX. Many of us were incubating a different kind of “critter,” who would grow up, if male, to go fight in some war and possibly die there. That’s not a system I would’ve made up.

I don’t think I would’ve thought it up. I don’t think MOST women would’ve thought up any centralized octopus critter to reach into our lives and run them like a machine which didn’t respond to feedback when it ran over something.

SO, AROUND THE TIME ALICE PAUL et al. were PICKETING WOODROW WILSON’S INAUGURATION, THIS NATION’S TOP BRAINTRUST (SUPPOSEDLY) WERE — SECRETLY — THINKING UP THIS — and don’t tell me this isn’t relevant today, you HAVE been awake, right?

It is unfortunate, but understandable, that young people in the United States are not taught (in the government’s schools) the history and operation of their country’s most powerful financial institution, The Federal Reserve System. Created in 1910, codified by Congress in 1913 (along with the personal income tax), this “system” facilitated the US government’s ability to inflame the nation’s citizens for the purpose of supporting the European war of 1914-1918 (World War I). Warfare provides a source of immense borrowing and provides banking corporations with huge profits in the form of interest income. Several of these same Wall Street banks financed Adolph Hitler two decades later.

Readers desiring an insight into the international interests and subsequent political relationships of the bankers who created the Federal Reserve System can click here.

{{The link will go to a 2008 essay on a Libertarian Site endorsing Ron Paul, as he was wanting to undo the Fed. (Sigh!). HOWEVER, as we read about the suspension of civil rights, the nationalization of what we can EAT, and I just on 07/21/2010, after talking about Monsanto, and rape racks to keep female cows constantly pregnant and jacked up on hormones (and developing the “veal” industry so that non-milk-producing male calves could be eaten properly, what a hell of a short life either gender of bovine lives, and how hellish, with the further impact of earlier menstruation for girls (plus health problems for humans of both sexes, but particularly more for certain ethnicities), one has to wonder whether there wasn’t a BETTER way to stop slavery than the civil war. I’ll post part of the LEWROCKWELL.com essay (author, another young white male, but still):

“To understand how recent the Federal Reserve System is, my own parents were alive when it was created in the USA. The adoption of “central banking”, a concept indispensible to enforcing policies determined by big central government, is as old as Alexander Hamilton and The Federalists. Central banking has been tried and thwarted in the past. Today it is alive and well. For a brief background of this subject, read this fascinating essay.”

When Ron Paul proposes abolishing the Federal Reserve Board and returning to the gold standard, he is taking Jefferson’s position in his great debate with Hamilton over the propriety of a government-run bank. As explained in my forthcoming book, Hamilton’s Curse, Hamilton wanted a big, expansive and intrusive central government that would centrally plan the economy and pursue “imperial glory” in foreign affairs. He wanted America to imitate the British empire. In order to achieve this, he knew that a government-run bank would be necessary. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that the sole purpose of government was to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, and that such a bank would be a danger to liberty. The two men debated the issue in long essays submitted to President George Washington, who eventually adopted the position of his fellow Federalist, Hamilton. (The Federalists in Congress played a role by passing legislation that enlarged the District of Columbia so that it would be adjacent to Washington’s property on the Potomac River. They had blocked Washington’s request for this until he signed the bank bill.)

It was a Jeffersonian Democrat, President Andrew Jackson, who would de-fund Hamilton’s Bank of the United States some forty years later, after it had fueled decades of political corruption and economic instability. Hamiltonian central banking was subsequently revived by one of his political heirs – Lincoln – and then cemented into place by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

Ron Paul also calls for a dramatic reduction in government debt by abolishing unnecessary and harmful government bureaucracies, such as the U.S. Department of Education, as well as a foreign policy that defends America instead of attempting to centrally plan and police the entire planet.. . .

Hamilton, on the other hand, wanted a large national debt because it would tie the affluent of the country to the government, just as welfare ties the poor to the government today. The affluent would be the government bondholders, he argued, and would therefore provide political support for all the tax increases he had in mind to assure that they would be paid their principal and interest. He called the national debt a “blessing.”. . .

The income tax has centralized all political power in Washington, D.C., eviscerated the independence of the states, and has made tax slaves out of millions of Americans.

{{Sorry to point this out, friends, but it has put us at war with one another, vying for scraps of blessings (including protection from each other) from the Big D.C. Dogmaster. How ironic that Washington, D.C. had to fight the 2nd Amendment. NOW, as to “domestic violence,” women want protection from this government against their men. And, when that runs to welfare, HELP. This puts another ongoing war in place, and gives power back up the chain, and we are, quite literally, a nation of schoolchildren, PAYING the schoolteachers in the employ of this system to teach us things we probably could’ve networked and figured out, given a minimal help, ourselves.}}

“The dominance of the Hamiltonian, Big Government philosophy, and the marginalization of Jefferson and his ideas, is the fundamental source of America’s biggest problems, including a foreign policy that has run amok; a tax system that treats citizens like medieval serfs; an arrogant and unresponsive central government; the evisceration of the states as independent political sovereignties; the economic boom-and-bust cycle that is generated by “the Fed”; the eagerness of Washington politicians to strip away more and more of our civil liberties; and the infantilization of America that has been created by a gargantuan welfare state.“

Thomas J. DiLorenzo

“The Jefferson of Our Time” (i.e. Ron Paul)

posted in LewRockwell.com on Jan. 7, 2008

Once again, Ron Paul’s call for the abolition of income taxation is a genuine Jeffersonian sentiment.

. . .

NOW, LETS GET HONEST would like us to think about that 1939 Lobbying for a law by Judges, Attorneys and “Mental Health Professionals” to infantilize divorcing couples and counsel them, and force Each and Every County to pay for it.

What we will see is, the people (or organization) that came up with this “brilliant” idea was going to do it at taxpayer expense — without itself paying taxes, until it was caught.

NOW, back in 1913, when this Creature was reinstated, perhaps if these men had — well, had not been born and raised in places where the primary religion was not based on ENMITY in the world, and the need to dominate it, helped by an inferior being, perhaps they wouldn’t be dealing century after century with DOMINATORS. (Just a theory. . )

yin yan by ~Caellean

Yin yan soap

>>>>caellean YIN YAN>

Is it POSSIBLE to BALANCE this world if we can’t BALANCE A BUDGET? And is it possible to BALANCE a (national) BUDGET if power within even basic relationships isn’t balanced, because of a collective Judaeo-Christian-Islamic conscience that is fighting other religions, and in order to keep this up, has to keep the women down?

The women who helped get this vote were radical all right, and took mocking and heat for it, and mocked right back:

Opposed by a well-organized and well-funded anti-suffrage movement which argued that most women really didn’t want the vote, and they were probably not qualified to exercise it anyway, women also used humor as a tactic. In 1915, writer Alice Duer Miller wrote,

Why We Don’t Want Men to Vote

• Because man’s place is in the army.
• Because no really manly man wants to settle any question otherwise than by fighting about it.
• Because if men should adopt peaceable methods women will no longer look up to them.
• Because men will lose their charm if they step out of their natural sphere and interest themselves in other matters than feats of arms, uniforms, and drums.
• Because men are too emotional to vote. Their conduct at baseball games and political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force renders them unfit for government.