Deliver Your News to the World

Ninth Circuit Judge Restores Appeal Rights for Richard I Fine in Civil Contempt Case: Full Disclosure Network Update


Los Angeles CA Full Disclosure Network’s continuing coverage of “the news behind the news” from the current series “Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption” covering the on-going case of prominent former anti-trust Attorney, Richard I Fine.

On Monday, August 10th Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Andrew Jay Kleinfeld issued an Order restoring Richard I. Fine’s right to appeal that was previously denied with prejudice, by the lower District Court. At issue was the Civil Contempt of Court Judgment Order signed by L A Superior Court Judge David Yaffe on March 4, 2009 remanding Fine to the custody of the L. A. County Sheriff for an indefinite period of time, without bail, without a release date or a hearing date. For court documents cited in this report refer to URL:

Judge Kleinfeld’s Order states: “Under Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), appellant need not show that he is probably correct or that there is a substantial likelihood that he is correct in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. A Certificate of appealability is required if he demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims ”debatable" (Id. at 338.) ...........

* “Accordingly, appellant is granted a certificate of appealability in the issue of whether the trial judge should have recused himself. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3); see also 9th Cir.R.22-1(e)”

Fine has been in solitary coercive confinement for five and half months based on Judge Yaffe’s judgment Order. At the time of sentencing, Richard Fine raised the issue with Judge Yaffe that his sentence would be held illegal. In his Emergency Request for Release, Fine describes the conditions and circumstances of what he believes are unlawful actions by the District Court.

Judge Kleinfeld’s Order further states that that once the appellant provides payment for filing and docketing fees, within 14 days, the following briefing schedule shall apply. The opening brief is due September 9, 2009, the answering brief is due October 9, and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.

While the Order restoring Appeal Rights also denied Fine’s request for immediate release, today Full Disclosure interviewed him from his jail cell where we said the required filing and docketing fees were submitted to the U. S. Court of Appeals today and that he is currently re-drafting his request for immediate release to facilitate reconsideration of his Emergency Motion for Immediate Release.


 Ninth Circuit Court
 Richard I Fine
 Callif. Court Corruption
 Civil Contempt of Court
 Judicial Abuse

This news content may be integrated into any legitimate news gathering and publishing effort. Linking is permitted.

News Release Distribution and Press Release Distribution Services Provided by WebWire.