Thursday, August 13, 2009

Swarzenegger - The People's Governor... is he?

Conditions in the state prisons in California are so bad, and there's so much overcrowding that a group of federal judges has given the governor 45 days from August 4 (so end of September) to improve conditions, or they may step in. Read the story by Mike Zapler.

September 29 is the day the U.S. Supreme Court justices will hold a conference and consider taking Attorney Fine's case. 
Information regarding Attorney Fine will be distributed to the justices for conference on September 29, 2009. 

Check it out: Video made by Attorney Fine at a town hall meeting just before he got locked up. The governor has a duty to protect the people of his state; however, Arnold Schwarzenneger signed a bill (SBX 211) giving retroactive immunity to the judges who accepted the payments which Richard Fine has been trying to get returned to California taxpayers. Judge Yaffe jailed Attorney Fine soon after, and he's been trying to get released ever since! His writ of habeas corpus was denied. His Certificate of Appealability is pending in 9th Circuit Court.

Attorney Fine has committed no crime, yet he's been kept in jail since the beginning of March... on false contempt of court charges. This is nonsense! The governor was wrong to sign a bill giving the judges immunity from prosecution for accepting the illegal payments. SBX 211 was snuck into a budget package which the governor approved in February of 2009. 

A story at the Metropolitan News-Enterprise explains. Justice Patricia Benke reversed a lower court's grant of summary judgment to the county; and on December 24, 2008 the California Supreme Court denied a review of that decision...Merry Christmas! The authority to determine compensation for the judges belongs with the state legislature, not the county.  

I sent an email to Governor Arnold Swarzenegger, asking him to release Mr. Fine. 
This country is desparate for a return to law and order. Our government officials, right along with large corporations, are the biggest violators of our rights!


This will make your jaw drop!

I thought I'd post a case which I found while researching certain portions of the Maine Health Security Act (MHSA). It's Pease v. Kester. The judge in this case who let the doctor off the hook is Judge Marden; he's the judge who affirmed a decision in one of our cases. He's also the judge who denied Dennis Dechaine's motion for post-conviction review after DNA test results proved his DNA did not match the DNA found on the murder victim; that DNA, which is believed to belong to the killer, has yet to be identified.

Here's a link to the Maine Supreme Court decision which affirmed the Superior Court decision by Judge Don Marden in Pease v. Kester, dismissing the rape victim's claim... saying it was governed by the MHSA... provisions of the Act, make it near impossible to get your case to trial. The doctor hid behind the laws governing medical malpractice; but was this a medical malpractice case? The operation was obviously a success!

Here's a link to Dan Clement's show, where you can access a summary of the case in a conference call on 8-13-09. No case better illustrates why we need healthcare reform, judicial accountability, and tort reform than does Pease v. Kester. Well, my son's case Aaron Michaud v. Blue Hill Memorial et al makes the point quite well also... his was one of an obvious medical misdiagnosis. Justice Ellen Gorman granted summary judgment to defendants after they admitted a valid claim existed to defend against... preventing us from getting to trial.

A link to the 1017-page healthcare bill - H.R. 3200

I was sent a link to the healthcare reform bill by a woman named Meredith.

She summarized some of the provisions: "Page 317, Doctors: You are now prohibited from owning and investing in healthcare companies!"

If this is true, it should stir some serious debate in Maine especially, because most doctors here get their liability insurance through the physician-owned Medical Mutual Insurance Company of Maine; the doctors are shareholders of the insurance company which provides them liability insurance for malpractice. I wrote about this in older posts, and how because of it plaintiffs with cases of medical malpractice have difficulty securing a law firm to represent them, or a doctor to testify on their behalf. You see, if a law firm represents just one doctor, they don't want to take your case because they'll be going up against their client's company, so to speak. They consider that a conflict of interest. Not being able to obtain a lawyer is one reason why victims of medical malpractice have little to no chance of winning their cases in Maine.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Summary on Richard Fine

A Los Angeles Times story by Victoria Kim is a good place to learn why Attorney Richard Fine was sent to prison by Judge Yaffe.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Kathryn and K2GS - Trial by the public

The judicial system is broken - maybe beyond repair. On Wednesday, I hope to discuss Attorney Richard Fine's case and that of Dennis Dechaine with Kathryn and other judicial reform advocates at Kollective Acquisitions at the BlogTalk Radio .

Kathryn is into green construction, that is building homes which are friendly to the environment; and she promotes social responsibility as well. She has set aside Wednesdays as "Justice Day." She will take a few cases, discuss them, and ask listeners to give their verdicts... a sort of trial by the public. The call-in number to her show is 347-945-7100. The time of the call will be 11:30 a.m. eastern time... that's 8:30 a.m. pacific.

To submit a case, write to Kathryn at and to send your verdict on a case, email her at

Souter remembered - "Alden" and "Kelo" decisions

As he exits the scene soon, I think about Justice Souter's dissent in a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a group of roughly 60 probation officers and a violation of 1938 Federal Standand Labor Laws (FSLA) by the State of Maine. The officers, one whose last name was Alden, had been jipped of their overtime pay and both the state and federal courts turned their backs on them. Souter dissented in the U.S. Supreme Court case.

From Wikipedia: Alden v. Maine

From Cornell University: Syllabus in Alden v. Maine (98-436) 527 U.S. 706 (1999)

And here's a June 24, 1999 article by David Savage of the LA Times, Rulings Give States Broad Immunity Against Lawsuits, which mentions the decision and others regarding federalism and the sovereign rights of states.

However, most people will remember Souter as the justice who was part of the majority in Kelo v. City of New London, and whose home in Weare, New Hampshire Clarence Darrow Clements tried to take by eminent domain and turn it into the "Lost Liberty Hotel." The U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed the Connecticut Supreme Court decision which allowed the taking of private property by eminent domain, for the benefit of a developer who promised to improve the neighborhood... people's homes were leveled.

So how is the redevelopment project going? It isn't. About Fort Trumbell from Tom Blumer:

Out of balance...

Here's an article by Laura Lynn, Los Angelos Family Courts Examiner, and Michael Warnken, judicial reform activist:

How to end the corruption in court

While increasing representation is part of the solution; we need to hold those representatives accountable or all is lost. While Californians only have 1 representative per roughly half a million people, Mainers (Mainiacs some call us) have 1 representative per about 8000 people... and we're in trouble because we haven't really got their ear!