Dr. Richard I. Fine

Help pass Los Angeles California Dr Richard I Fine bill amend SBX 2 11 Help stop the corruption

Who is Dr. Richard I. Fine? Richard I. Fine, (Doctor of Law; Ph.D Law-International Law). He is a patriot and lawyer (presently qualified to practice before the United States Supreme Court). He was disbarred from California and “unlawfully incarcerated in solitary coercive confinement without charges being made” for 18 months in the Los Angeles County jail in retaliation for exposing (Dishonorable) Judge David Paul Yafee #29399 and all of the Los Angeles County Superior court judges for accepting unlawful payments/bribes from the county. These payments resulted in literally no one winning a case against the county when a judge made the decision. Dr. Richard I. Fine FULL BIO His Amend SBX 2 11 Legislation that can stop judges from getting away with legally accepting bribes (from tax payer’s funds) awarded by those in charge Dr. Richard I. Fine Videos Richard I. FINE – part 1 Richard Fine, a Champion for Justice, Part 1 Why Won’t the ACLU Help Jailed Attorney Richard Fine? #556 Trailer Interview: Richard Fine with Bill Windsor of Lawless America Family Law Report – Richard Fine Part 2: Miscarriage of Justice & Abuse of Power Richard Fine Knocks Off Another Judge #VB98 Richard Fine: His Darkest Moment in the LA County Jail #580-581 Trailer Richard FINE reveals HOW to fight Corrupt Judges The Imprisonment of Attorney Richard I. Fine Attorney Jailed Denied Rights for Exposing Judicial Corruption, Richard Fine California Richard Fine Teaches the Public How to Fight Corruption (5 of 5) National Safe Child Show-Richard Fine-Attorney Disbarred for Exposing Corruption in the Courts Richard Fine, an Anti-Corruption Champion, Part 1 of 2 Richard Fine, an Anti-Corruption Champion, Part 2 of 2 Free Richard I. Fine! Family Law Report – Richard Fine Part 1: Judicial Bribery &… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

TODAY OUR CHOICE IS: (1) VOTE “NO”; or (2) CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDER A CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM!

Vote no or live under a corrupt judicial system Governor Gavin Newsom did not support Los Angeles California Dr Richard I Fine bill amend SBX 2 11 to hold judges accountable

CALIFORNIA VOTERS GUIDE TO STOP JUDICIAL CORRUPTION ON 11/8/2022 THIS IS YOUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECTLY END CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL CORRUPTION. VOTE “NO” TO EVERY CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICE SEEKING RE-ELECTION. VOTE AGAINST EVERY CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE SEEKING RE-ELECTION IN EVERY COUNTY VOTE AGAINST THE GOVERNOR AND EVERY INCUMBENT LEGISLATOR SEEKING RE-ELECTION. Richard I. Fine, Doctor of Law, Ph.D. Law (International Law), Chmn. Campaign for Judicial Integrity; Co Chmn. Judicial Reform Comm., DivorceCorp. Explains: “Since the mid 1980s, California counties and Superior Courts have paid approximately 90% of the California Superior Court judges “supplemental or local judicial benefits” in addition to the judges State compensation. These payments are over $400 million. The Superior Court judges receiving the payments became California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court justices, corrupting the entire California judicial system.” Fine continued: “In 2008 the California Courts held the payments violated Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution. The judges responded by hiring a lobbyist who engineered the enactment of SBX 2 11. SBX 211 made the payments temporally legal and gave California retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to the judges who received the payments and the counties, county supervisors and employees who made the payments.” Fine further stated: “The Superior Court judges are disqualified but sit on cases. Examples are: (1) child custody and family law cases; (2) class action cases; (3) conservator and elder cases; (4) constitutional cases; (5) contract cases; (6) criminal cases; (7) death, estate, and probate cases; (8) eminent domain cases; (9) environmental cases; (10) personal injury cases; (11) property cases; (12) regulation cases; (13) tax cases; (14) traffic cases; (15) trust cases; and (16) zoning cases, amongst others.” Fine concluded:… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE