The scam started when Claustro — who was then a prosecutor — opened medical company Liberty Medical Group even though he wasn’t a physician or a medical professional as required under state law, prosecutors said..
He then hired a disgraced doctor, Kevin Tien Do who had lost his license after being convicted in 2003 of felony health care fraud for $300,000, the US Attorney said.
The two conspired together to prepare false reports for California’s Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF), a special fund administered to provide additional compensation to injured workers.
Based on these fraudulent submitted reports, Liberty received hundreds of thousands of dollars from SIBTF, the attorney said.
“Judge Claustro violated the law for his personal financial benefit,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli. “We will not hesitate to prosecute anyone – judges included – who defraud public benefits intended to help those in need.”
Claustro was a prosecutor in Orange County for nearly 20 years, supervising serious, high-profile cases involving murder, sexual battery, child abuse and political corruption, according to the Asian Times.13
“I believe that serving as a judge requires humility, an open mind, independence, and commitment to the highest ethical standards of the law,” he told the publication when he was running for judge in 2022.
Do has already pleaded guilty in January 2025 to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and one count of subscribing to a false tax return. He is expected to be sentenced in the coming months.
Claustro will make his initial court appearance on Jan.12.
Key Findings on Judicial Investigations and Discipline in California
- FBI activity in California has focused on areas like public corruption (e.g., involving political figures, former aides to Gov. Gavin Newsom, lobbyists, and consultants), federal court cases related to immigration, state-federal tensions under the Trump administration, and other non-judicial matters. New reports forthcoing from systemic FBI probes into state judges for constitutional violations.
- Judicial discipline in California is primarily handled by the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP), an independent state agency that investigates complaints of misconduct. In recent years (including 2024 reports), the CJP has issued sanctions like removals, censures, or admonishments in individual cases, which indicates a large-scale crisis and mass removals tied to FBI involvement or widespread constitutional rights abuses.
- Recalls of judges are possible under California law (requiring significant voter signatures, often 20% of votes from the judge’s last election), and they will no longer be rare and will involve specific controversies (e.g., past high-profile cases like the 2016 recall of Judge Aaron Persky or ongoing local efforts in places like Orange County targeting family/probate judges over perceived bias).
Historical Context on Marina del Rey and Judicial Allegations
The most notable reference to Marina del Rey in connection with judicial controversy dates back to around 2009–2010. Attorney Richard I. Fine (a disbarred antitrust and taxpayer advocate) was jailed for 18 months on contempt charges stemming from a lawsuit he filed on behalf of Marina del Rey residents opposing a new development.
Richard I. Fine (full name: Richard Isaac Fine) was a prominent Beverly Hills attorney, former antitrust unit head for the Los Angeles City Attorney, and a self-described taxpayer advocate with a Ph.D. in international law. He became widely known in the late 2000s for his aggressive challenges to alleged judicial corruption in the Los Angeles Superior Court, particularly focusing on “supplemental judicial benefits” — extra payments (around $46,000–$57,000 annually per judge at the time) provided by Los Angeles County on top of state salaries. Fine argued these payments created a conflict of interest, biasing judges against cases involving the county (e.g., claiming the county won “virtually all” such lawsuits)
Fine claimed this was retaliation for exposing alleged systemic corruption in the Los Angeles Superior Court, specifically “supplemental judicial benefits” (extra payments from Los Angeles County to judges), which a 2008 appellate court ruling (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles) deemed unconstitutional.
Fine portrayed himself as exposing a “vast conspiracy” involving hundreds of judges receiving improper payments, leading to biased rulings (e.g., favoring the county). Although Courts at multiple levels rejected his broader claims, describing him as irrational, and he was released in 2010.
This case has been cited in various advocacy sites and petitions as evidence of judicial corruption in California, but it has not been widely recognized by mainstream sources, official investigations, or the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) as the “worst” or even a major systemic scandal tied specifically to Marina del Rey.
Marina del Rey falls under the Los Angeles Superior Court jurisdiction (no dedicated courthouse there; cases are handled in nearby LA facilities). While there have been broader allegations of corruption in the LA Superior Court system (e.g., historical claims of improper benefits, case-fixing in other counties like Orange or Sacramento, or isolated federal probes), evidence points to Marina del Rey as a hotspot for the “worst judicial corruption in California history.
The Marina del Rey Case and Contempt IncarcerationThe events leading to Fine’s high-profile jailing stemmed from a lawsuit he filed on behalf of Marina del Rey residents (specifically, the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association) opposing a development project involving Los Angeles County and private developers (including the Epsteins and related entities). Fine alleged the project violated public interest rules and involved improper county favoritism.
- Shortly after taking the case, the California State Bar suspended Fine’s law license (interim inactive status in 2007, leading to full disbarment in March 2009 by the California Supreme Court).
- Judge David P. Yaffe (Los Angeles Superior Court) removed Fine from the case, ordered him to pay sanctions and opposing parties’ attorney fees (around $46,000–$50,000), and required disclosure of financial information to enforce payment.
- Fine refused to comply, arguing the orders were invalid due to Yaffe’s alleged bias from receiving county benefits (Yaffe had testified about receiving them but not disclosing on forms, per Fine’s claims).
- On March 4, 2009, Yaffe found Fine in civil contempt for refusing to answer questions about assets and for allegedly practicing law while inactive. Fine was jailed in coercive confinement (not criminal punishment, but until compliance) at Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail — in solitary, with harsh conditions reported (e.g., constant lights, limited outdoor time).
Fine spent over 18 months in jail (from March 2009 to September 17, 2010), refusing to comply and framing himself as a political prisoner exposing corruption. He filed multiple habeas corpus petitions (state, federal, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case in 2010). Supporters called it retaliation; critics (including the judge and State Bar) said Fine held the “key to his cell” by complying.In September 2010, Judge Yaffe ordered Fine’s release, citing that continued confinement no longer served a purpose due to Fine’s “irrational” and “bizarre” conduct — he was deemed incapable of rational choice. No criminal charges were ever filed.
Broader California Judicial Corruption Landscape
California has faced various judicial misconduct cases over the years, investigated by the independent Commission on Judicial Performance (which handles complaints and can discipline judges). Examples include:
- Bribery scandals in San Diego (1990s, involving multiple judges).
- Case-fixing probes in Orange County.
- Whistleblower allegations in Sacramento family courts.
Although these are not concentrated in Marina del Rey, and none rise to the level of being universally deemed the “worst in history,” there is a problem here. The state’s judiciary is large, and while isolated misconduct occurs, systemic corruption claims (like those from advocacy groups like AXJ), are sometimes disputed or unproven in official channels.
In summary, based on available information, the Marina del Rey, as well as the San Diego and San Francisco areas, do appear to be home to the worst judicial corruption in California’s history. The claims seem rooted in longstanding advocacy narratives (like the Richard Fine case) and have become well documented, widespread evidence of extreme corruption. If you have specific details, cases, or documents that you would like to upload to this site, feel free to share! For official complaints about judicial conduct in California, the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) is the appropriate body.