Los Angeles, March 11 – in response to an article in the ABA Journal, titled: 70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, posted the correction, copied and linked, below. 
Dr Zernik concluded: The case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.
70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case
Posted Mar 10, 2010 1:03 PM CST By Sarah Randag
A year ago, a Los Angeles County superior court judge sentenced lawyer Richard Fine to jail indefinitely after he refused to provide personal financial information in an attorney fee dispute.
Now? He is still in jail, Dan Walters writes in a column for the Sacramento Bee, if not still a lawyer: TheState Bar of California indicates that he has been disbarred.
Fine has been a longtime critic of Los Angeles County’s practice of giving its judges nearly $50,000 in extra pay over their state salaries, and that it creates a conflict of interest for judges hearing cases involving the county, Walters writes. And, on top of that, Fine says that because of the extent of his criticism, it’s a conflict for any judge to hear a case involving him.
A state appellate court agreed with Fine in 2008, saying the payments violated California’s constitution. But the legislature passed a retroactive authorization of the payments last year, Walters writes.
Fine has petitioned for his release, but the California Supreme Court refuses to interfere, and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied his petition, Walters writes.
“Fine holds the key to his jail cell,” Kevin McCormick, an attorney for the Los Angeles court, said in an appellate brief. “By simply agreeing to answer the questions and produce documents concerning his assets, that he has a legal obligation to provide, his coercive confinement will end.”
Joseph Zernik Mar 11, 2010 12:19 PM CST
Please stand corrected, being the ABA Journal, regarding the facts in the Richard Fine Case:
1) Richard Fine was never sentenced for Contempt, there is no valid court record such as judgment or sentencing in the case – Marina v LA County (BS109420). Neither is there any Assignment Order for the Judge in the case, or Appointment Order for the purported Debtor Examiner, Murray Gross, whose authority Mr Fine therefore justly disputed.
2) Neither was the March 4, 2009 proceeding that was described by media as the “Sentencing Hearing”, ever included in the informal, online, litigation chronology (which comes with a disclaimer).
3) However, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles continues to deny access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS10940) the case, in ancillary proceedings of which Mr Fine was purportedly arrested, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
4) Neither was there ever a valid warrant for the arrest of Mr Fine.
5) Accordingly, the Sheriff’s Department denied for months access to the Arrest and Booking records, in disregard of California Public Records Act.
6) Even after numerous complaints, the Sheriff’s Department insisted on keeping falsely publishing online that Richard Fine was arrested at and by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro, when media reported that the arrest took place on March 4, 2009, in downtown Central District of the Superior Court Courthouse, in the city of Los Angeles.
7) In response to inquiry by Supervisor Antonovich, the Sheriff’‘s Bureau finally responded that California Public Records Act did not require it to produced records which did not exist.
8) In her scholarly June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) – the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine – US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, never mentioned the word Warrant in a case highlighted by warrantless arrest, neither did it mention the caption of the case of the Superior Court , which purportedly was under reviewed. Moreover, the habeas corpus petition was concluded without the Register of Actions of Marina v LA County ever being produced, therefore, with no foundation at all for any other record in the case.
9) Respondent Sheriff refused to respond on the habeas corpus petition.
10) The Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe joined the case as Intervenors, through false representation by Attorney Kevin McCormick, was failed to file certification of Counsel of Record, failed to ever provide any declaration by his clients, or ever file any record provided by his clients. In short, he was likely employed as false counsel, with ” no communications with client” clause.
11) Accordingly – none of the Minutes, Orders, Judgment in Fine v Sheriff, was ever entered as valid court records – all were served on Richard Fine with no valid NEFs (Notice of Electronic Filing) at all. Neither would Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court allow access to inspect and to copy the NEFs in Fine v Sheriff, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
12) The Clerk of the US District Court, Los Angeles, Terry Nafisi, has continuously refused to answer on the question whether the online PACER docket in Fine v Sheriff was an honest, valid, and effectual record of the US District Court. Such docket would not be certified either.
13) Clerk Nafisi would not answer on whether Donna Thomas, who was listed as conducting transactions on the docket of Fine v Sheriff, was at all authorized as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
14) Likewise, in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) Mr Fine’s petitions at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, – June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition, issued in the names of Kozinski, Paez and Tallman, was an unsigned order, which was served with no NEF at all.
In Short, the case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.
 ABA Journal article and comments: