Failure of mainstream media to cover this critical case, dishonest manipulations/adulteration of court records, and distribution of disinformation, make the case increasingly fit in the tradition of repressive regimes. Severe abuse of Human Rights pursuant to International Law is alleged.
What’s new? Here goes the 1,2, 3…
1) Requests forwarded to the Royal Norwegian Ambassador for protection of Att Richard I Fine under International Law.
2) Mainstream media fail to report on the case, while disinformation is circulated.
3) Abuse of First Amendment rights of Att Richard I Fine continues through ongoing dishonest manipulation of court papers at the U.S. District Court, LA, similar abuse noted at U.S. Court, District of Columbia. Requests were filed for international monitoring of respective cases in U.S. Courts in LA and in Washington DC.
More on the 1, 2, 3…
1) Requests forwarded to the Royal Norwegian Ambassador for protection of Att Richard I
Fine under International Law.
Noted Anti-Trust Attorney, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Richard I Fine, is also Royal Consul General of Norway in Southern California. He is indefinitely jailed for contempt since early March, 2009, under conditions that area alleged as severe abuse of human rights per International Law. Accordingly - requests were forwarded to the Royal Norwegia Ambassador for monitoring of the conduct of U.S. Courts, and for the protection of the rights of Att Richard I Fine pursuant to International Law . Any such international court action may also benefit th 10 millions residents of LA County, whose human rights are allegedly routinely abused by the LA Superior Court. In particular – the estimated 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons) left imprisoned after the massive Rampart corruption probe, 1998-2000, with 200 investigators assigned to the case, but no final report ever written…
2) Disinformation circulated in the case of Att Richard I Fine
The latest disinformation being circulated is in the form of a legal opinion that LA Superior Court Judges were exempt from disclosing the taking of "bribes" by the California Government Reform Act! Such claims intend to undermine Att Richard Fine's position in his Habeas Corpus Petition (see details below). Manipulation of information regarding Att Richard I Fine is proceeding for weeks, while mainstream media outlets fail to cover the story. A few weeks ago false news was circulated that Att Richard I Fine's Habeas Corpus petition was denied. Later - a false record was distributed as the Habeas Corpus petition.
3) Abuse of First Amendment rights of Att Richard I Fine continues through ongoing dishonest manipulation of court papers at the U.S. District Court, LA, similar abuse noted at U.S. Court, District of Columbia
Att Richard I Fine's own reply paper in Fine v LA County Sheriff Dept (the Habeas Corpus Petition) was removed from the records at the request of respondent - the LA County Sheriff Department. The reason: finding of "discrepancy" - Att Richard I Fine's paper was missing his signature. Needless to say, it was the Sheriff's Department itself that created the conditions preventing Att Richard I Fine from signing his papers. In Zernik v Melson et al, 1:2009cv00805, filed May 1, 2009, in U.S. Court, Washington DC, specific allegations were made of prior dishonest manipulation/adulteration of court records in the case of Att Richard I Fine in U.S. District Court, LA were detailed.
On May 11, 2009 two papers were mailed Priority USPS to the DC Court: (1) Statement for the disqualification of a U.S. judge Richard J Leon for a cause, and (2) Ex parte application for an order to compel U.S. Dept of Justice to protect Att Richard I Fine's First Amendment rights - to file petitions in court. On May 13, 2009, both papers were stamped "Filed", as it was later found out. For the remainder of that week it was claimed that such papers had never
been received in the U.S. Court, District of Columbia, even after a "search of the building". On Sunday, May 17, 2009 the papers finally appeared on the docket, outside of normal operating hours of the court. Moreover, the papers that appeared on the docket included some pages
with no security header imprint. Consequently - requests were filed with their Excellencies the Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Norway and the State of Israel, for monitoring of the conduct of U.S. Court in this matter. Similar requests were filed with international human rights organizations.
1) All LA Superior Court Judges took payments that were ruled "not permitted" and would be called by a layperson "bribes".
Judges of the Superior Court of California, according to the California Constitution are allowed to be paid only by the State government in Sacramento. As it turns out, ALL judges of the Superior Court of LA County, were offered, and accepted for years additional pay of about $45,000 per judge per year. The judges never publicly disclosed the additional payments that they were receiving. Specifically - they never disclosed such payments to parties appearing before them in cases where LA County was party to litigation. However, for a number of years, the LA Superior Court judges consistently issued judgments by court in favor of LA County.
2) Such payments and other evidence were the basis for claims of LA-Judiciary Racket (LA-JR) in Zernik v Melson et al.
On May 1, 2009, action was filed in U.S. Court, District of Columbia (Zernik v Melson et al, 1:2009cv00805) "to compel U.S. Officer to perform his duties". U.S. Officers in this case were Kenneth Kaiser - Assistant Director of FBI, and Kenneth Melson - Director of U.S DOJ, and the duties that they allegedly fail to perform - protecting the civil rights of 10 million residents of LA County, California. Severe violations of Civil Rights in LA County such as in the case of Falsely Jailed Att Richard I Fine, or the Rampart-FIPs, are alleged as stemming from widespread corruption of the judges of the LA Superior Court.
The complaint alleges that the LA-JR in its current manifestation appeared in the mid-1980s, in conjunction with the installation of a fraudulent computerized case management system at the LA Superior Court and elimination of the public records that are the Book of Court essential safeguards for the integrity of the court for centuries. The alleged fraudulent case managemen system - Sustain, was and is produced by a secretive corporation by the same name, controlled by The Daily Journal - the largest legal newspaper in California. The system was installed at a time that the Honorable Ronald George - today Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court served in leadership positions in the LA Superior Court. The action further claims that FBI and US Dept of Justice have tolerated and patronized such corruption for at least 3 decades. Remedies are sought in the form of declaratory relief and court orders to compel the US Dept of Justice to take corrective action.
3) Disqualification was sought of Judge Richard J Leon in Zernik v Melson et al, based on his service as Minority Counsel in the Iran-Contra scandal.
The case of Zernik v Melson at al was assigned to the Honorable Richard J Leon, U.S. Judge. However, review of his biography revealed that he had served as Minority Counsel in the Iran Contra scandal investigation. As part of that scandal, in the early years of the Reagan Administration, the CIA engaged in wholesale distribution of illicit drugs in LA, in order to generate funds for other illicit purposes, which were explicitly prohibited by U.S. Congress. The issue was discussed in detail in the complaint, and it was alleged as a crucial part of evidence of deliberate corruption of the justice system in LA County, California, by the U.S. Government.
4) Scandalous allegations? Not so! Prosecution of California judges for racketeering is nothing new, moreover - complaints based on civil racketeering were heard against the LAPD in the aftermath of the Rampart scandal...
Previous cases where California judges were convicted for racketeering included cases in San Jose and in San Diego:
In 1990 Robert P. Aguilar, presiding judge of the U.S. District Court, San Jose, was prosecuted for racketeering pertaining to his relationship with teamster members. 
In 1996, in a San Diego Superior Court corruption case, three judges and a lawyer were prosecuted under RICO: Former San Diego Judge Michael Greer admitted taking $75,000 in bribes in exchange for having given a lawyer preferential treatment. Others involved were Judges G. Dennis Adams, James A. Malkus and attorney Patrick R. Frega. Newspaper reports suggested that although the prosecution was limited to three judges, the corruption was widespread. USA v Fregar, Case No: CR-96-00698-ER, US Court, Southern District of Calfronia; USA v Frega,Case No 9750100, 179 F.3d 793, 810 n.21 (9th Cir. 1999).
More closely relevant to matters that underly that issues at hand - in 2001, in the aftermath of the Rampart scandal investigation, civil RICO complaints were heard in the U.S. District Court in LA against the LAPD! 
5) Att Richard I Fine was among the leaders of efforts to expose the "not permitted" payments to LA Superior Court judges, and he has been subjected to extreme retaliation ever since
Noted Anti Trust Attorney, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, and General Consul of the Kingdom of Norway in Southern California, Richard I Fine was among the leaders of the efforts to expose such payments. In October 2008, the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, San Diego, ruled that such payments were "not permitted".
Even before that ruling was issued, the Judges of the California Superior Court, LA County, had engaged in retaliation against Att Richard I Fine, which included his disbarment. The disbarment was affected through an administrative procedure of the State Bar, on charges of "Moral Turpitude". Such provision is typically applied in cases of sexual misconduct related to Attorney-Client relationships. In the case of Att Richard I Fine, Moral Turpitude was construed to be found in the filing by Att Richard I Fine of complaints against LA Superior Court judges on behalf of his clients.
Since early March 2009, Att Richard I Fine has been indefinitely falsely jailed on Contempt, no bail allowed. Conditions of his jailing are not entirely clear, but are obviously outside the range that would be deemed reasonable. Reliable information indicates that he is held in what is described as "Solitary Confinement", and has never been allowed outside under the sky in over two months. For a while he was not allowed any visitations at all, and was also not allowed any paper and pen.
Upon review by competent International Court of jurisdiction, the treatment of Attorney Richard I Fine is likely to be deemed extreme abuse of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, part of ratified International Law.
6) Mainstream media fail to cover the case of Att Fine, while disinformation is circulated, and court records are subject to alleged dishonest manipulation/adulteration
The two sources deemed reliable under the circumstances are: (1) Full Disclosure Network, Ms Leslie Dutton, and (2) AHRC.SE - American Homeowners Resource Center. A few weeks ago false news was circulated that Att Richard I Fine's habeas corpus petition was denied. Attempts were made to organize false protest of such denial. A couple of weeks later, a document was circulated by email, which was falsely represented as Att Richard I Fine's Habeas Corpus Petition. Again, checking on the official U.S. District Court, LA, showed that the document was false and misleading. The reason that such disinformation was at all possible, is that Att Richard I Fine was denied his First Amendment rights - to file petitions in court. None of his papers after his arrest was signed by him in person.
7) False legal opinion circulated - that the LA Superior Court judges were not required to disclose taking the "not permitted" payments, which would be called by a lay-person "bribes." 
The failure to disclose the "not permitted" payments, was a key in the claims of Att Richard I Fine. The failure to disclose such payments was also a key in his demand for disqualification of Judge David Yaffe, in the same proceeding that ended with Judge Yaffe’s ruling to indefinitely jail Att Fine for contempt. The false opinion now being circulated was particularly alarming, since it was represented as coming from an individual who claimed to be member of a group
named "Free Richard Fine". Such opinion purported to be founded on the California Government Reform Act, which she cited verbatim as Cal Gov Code §82048, where exemptions from certain disclosures were conveniently written for California judges. Such opinion entirely failed to includes reference to the Cal Code of Judicial Ethic, Canon 3E(2) which says:
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding
in which disqualification is required by law.
(2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the
record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of
disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.
With the October 2008 San Diego Court of Appeal ruling that ALL judges of LA Superior Court took payments that were "not permitted", it is evident that this was far beyond
"reasonably relevant", it was a material conflict of interest. Therefore, regardless of the Cal Gov Code, the judges had to disclose to ALL parties in EACH case where LA County was a party - that they were receiving "not permitted" payments from LA County. The claims made by Att Richard I Fine included the fact that the judges never did so, while consistently issuing judgments by court in favor of LA County... In lay person’s language it would be called “bribes”…
The legal opinion now being circulated, that such conditions at the Los Angeles Superior Court would be permitted by the California Government Reform Act are ludicrous. We who live in Los Angeles, are seeking the protection of Att Richard I Fine by the Royal Courts of Norway, under International Law. Following are some relevant Articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified International Law.
Article 2: "No distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs."
Article 7 "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."
Article 8 "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.''
Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
 Criminal RICO prosecution against U.S. Judge in California - USA v Robert P Aguilar:
Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, repeatedly resulted in an error message:
- "The webpage at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?59286 might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address."
This type of error message had never been encountered in any other case. The records in this case were not marked as sealed, they were simply excluded from the Pacer docket. This writer is not aware of any Rule of Court or any law or regulation that allows selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets by the courts, at will. In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978).
 Civil RICO complaints against LAPD - Hunter v Gates et al:
Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, revealed the following - Neither original complaint, nor first, second, nor third amended complaint are accessible online. The records were not marked as sealed, they were simply not included in the Pacer docket. This writer is not aware of any law, Rule of Court, or regulations, which allow the courts selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets, at will. In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978). Of note - the judge presiding in this case, the Honorable Gary Feess is the Overseer for Civil Rights in LA, per the Consent Decree!
 DISCLAIMER: The writer is not an attorney by a long shot, moreover, he has no formal legal education, his writings must therefore be deemed a Lay-Person's opinion.