|
"THE GREAT WRIT" AND THE STORY OF DR. RICHARD FINE by Alberta Rose Jones, May 18,
2011 (copyright protected) I took time off to take care of my son fulltime. I am now in
the courts fulltime. I have eight cases to date. My biggest challenge has been the issue of "habeas corpus"
and extradition. I love the "law". It is a shame how it is being "abused." The ones abusing it
are the ones who should be "safe" keeping the true meaning of the word "law". In America we pride
ourselves as being a nation of "laws". I never thought I would say that we are a nation of "abusers"
of the law. Who are the biggest "abusers"? Our judges, clerks, district attorneys and public defenders as well
as private attorneys. It is a "game" for them. A year ago someone told me about a man named "Dr.
Richard Fine." Who is Dr. Fine? Well first off he is former United States Attorney as a prosecutor. He
was locked up for "18" months in the Los Angeles County Jail. I am not saying what he did is right or wrong.
His efforts to free himself and what he entailed in securing his freedom is what bothers me. I am reviewing his
legal documents as a history lesson on the "Great Writ" also known in simple terms "Writ of Habeas Corpus."
He was 70 years old when he was confined for "contempt" of court. I am trying to determine who
is telling the truth the judges who wrote orders, answers, etc. in his case, or Mr. Fine and his numerous supporters. Who
is telling the truth? Why would a United States District Court Magistrate Judge strike a "habeas corpus".
It's unheard of as far as I am concerned. Then the whole thing with 'striking' documents filed in court. That
bothers me. Mr. Fine who was confined in solitary confinement, was unable to leave the jail or to have
visitors; so who best to help him but a "friend" as they say. A
writ of habeas corpus by a next of friend. Why would a United States Judge strike a habeas corpus? Because it
was not filed by Mr. Fine himself or an attorney? The document was signed as "next of friend." The man
was in custody for "contempt" a simple 5 day stay in jail would suffice not 18 months. I will be posting i.e.
cutting and pasting documents from the case to prove my concerns. .. more later...I have several legal cases I am working
on completing. I will be writing when I feel a need to take a break. This is a very interesting legal case and
took place in California. In my simple review of the documents, statements made by judges in the case greatly concern
me. It shows a total lack of concern for the well-being of this man. Below are parts of the Habeas Corpus of Dr.
Richard Fine when he filed a habeas corpus in the United States District Court. The decision of the U.S. District Court Magistrate
Judge is bothersome in one aspect and one aspect alone... Judge Carla M. Woehrle repeatedly stated that the "maximum"
confinement for contempt in court is "five" days. Dr. Fine was placed in confinement on March 4, 2009.
Judge Woehrle signed her order on June 12, 2009. Her order was signed refusing to release Dr. Fine and he was
in custody in excess of "5" days. On June 12, 2009, Dr. Richard Fine had been in custody "100" days.
As one reporter stated: Fine's conduct may have been bizarre,
but no more so than that of judges who would indefinitely imprison a 70-year-old attorney simply because, it would appear, they considered him to be a pest.
Dan Walters,
a columnist for Sacramento Bee
|
