• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 2
    CommentGo Back
Download
3
45
678
10
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
24
25

26 27 28

R E c E IV
E D
M OLLY
,
c 4W YER CLERK
U.s.COUA OFA/PEALS
R IC IIA R D 1.FIN E ,ln Pro Per
Prisoner ID # 1824367
c/o M en 's C entral Jail
44 1 B au chet Street
LosAngeles,CA 90012
JU L2 2 22 29
FILED
DOCKETED
.
j
DATE
lNlIAL
U N IT E D ST A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT
C ase N o.09-56073
R IC H A R D 1. F IN E ,
A pp ellant and P etition er,
R E Q LJE ST F O R JU D IC IA L
N O TIC E IN SLT PO R T O F
EM ERGEN CY M OTIO N
V S.
U .S .D IST R IC T C O LJR T ,
R esp ondent.
SX RIFFOFLOSANGELES
C OIJN TY
(R e al P arty ln lnterest)
R ichard 1. F ine (tT ine'') respectfully requests that the C ourt take judicial
notice ofthe follow in g docum ents:
1. N ovem ber 10 , 1988, M em orandum
from Roger W
.

W hitby, Senior A ssistant, LA C ounty Counsel,to Frank S.Zolin,C ounty Clerkm xecutive O fficer of th e Superior C ourt. The relevance of this docum ent is its

revelation that LA County would pay LA Superior Court judges \u00fbllocal
judicial benefits'' despite their certain know ledge of contrary opinions
issued by the A ttorney G eneral. (A true and correct copy of the
M em orandum is attached hereto.)
Case: 09-56073 07/20/2009 Page: 1 of 20
DktEntry: 6997710
2345689
l0
14
18
20
22
24
26
28
2.
4.
The Loc# er-lsenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (C al.G ovt.C ode
577000 et seq.). T he relevance ofthis docum ent is its declaration thatthe
State w as solely resp onsible for trialcourtfunding,in order to rem ove the
d ifferences in com p ensation received by judges in different counties.
(lntern et
location:
http://-
.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bii w aisgate?W A lsdoclD =3g3zl117179+0+0+ 0& W A lSaction=retrieve)
LA C ounty 's 2008-2009 FinalB udget,w hich show s,atpages 223 through
240 (or pages 227-244 if using the pdf page num bers), the C ounty's
exp enditures for trial court operation s for the p ast sev eral years. (Internet
location: http://f le.lacounty.gov/lac/cm sl-l15 150.pdf)

The 2009-10 Judicial & Crim inal Justice Budget A nalysis, prepared by C alifornia's L egislative A nalyst's O ffice,w hich show s that incarceration rates have alm ost doubled over the past 20 years,even th ough crim e rates hav e dropped, the sam e zo-y ear tim efram e during w hich LA Superior

C ourt judges received paym ents from L A C ounty w hile presiding over
cases prosecuted b y the L A C ounty D istrict A ttorney. (lntern et location :
h ttp ://w w
.lao .c a .g ov /an aly sis-zoog/crim i ustice/cj-anlogoo3ooz.aspx#
zzee-lin k-1-1233270990 )
T he follow ing L A C ounty C ounsel A rm ual L itigation C ost R eports (the
only ones available to the public)
a) County Counsel Alm ual Litigation Cost Regort
FY 2007/08.
(lntem et location: http ://counsel.lacounty.gov/llt 07-08.pdf )
b) Supplem ental M nual Report of County Counsel on Litigation Cost
M anagem ent for FY 2006/07.(lnternet location:
http://counsel.lacounty .gov/supp-o6-o7.pdf)
c) Litigation Cost M anager's A nnual Report on Cost R eduction
M easures for 2006/07. (lnternet location :
http ://counsel.lacounty.gov/lit 06-07.pdf )
d) Report
(ln ternet
on L itigation C ost M an agem ent Perform ance for FY 2006/07.
location: http://counsel.lacounty .gov/p erf-o6-o7.pdf )
e) Litigation Cost M anager's Annual Report on Cost Reduction
M easures for 2005/06.(lnternet location:
Case: 09-56073 07/20/2009 Page: 2 of 20
DktEntry: 6997710
2345689
l0
14
16
18
19
22
23
24
25
26
28
6.
8.
9.
10 .
hlp://counsel.lacounty.gov/lit-os-o6.pdf )
The 2002-03 tlG eneral FundY nterprise H ospitals s-M onth B udget Status
R eport,'' sh ow ing, at p age 5 for ex am p le, dram atic in creases in court-
related costs and a $2.31 m illion deficit \u00e7\u00e7due prim arily to: 1) a $1.25
m illion increase in salarp driven local judicial benefits...''. (lnternet
location: http://f le.lacounty .gov+ c/q l- zoo3/cm sl-oo48o7.pdf,page 7)
D ocket, U SD C ,F ine v. Sherff (C ase N o.C V -09-1914) show ing that the
(sA ttorn ey G en eral'' w as copied by the court on its l\u00e7m odified'' 7/6/09
th ccA
(T he A ttorney G eneral is n ot a party to the
N otice of A ppeal to 9
.
action, a designated interested party, or an intervenor in this case.)
(Internet location: PA C ER docum ent 34 https://ecf.cacd.uscoud s.gov/cgi-
bi* ktR pt.pl?8400 13852364541-L 80 1 0-1 )
M etropolitan N ew s-Enterprise article of 3/2/09, quoting Judge Charles
M ccoy,Presiding Judge ofthe LA Superior Court,who revealed that the
court has a Stcu shion'' of unsp ent funds of $70 m illion dollars. H e also
th anked attorneys w ho'd filed am icus briefs siding w ith th e Superior
C ourtjudges after the Sturgeon v. C ountv qff-t?,s A nzeles decision, saying
it-l-he judges of the L os A ngeles Superior C ourt are grateful.
app reciation w ill last for a lon g tim e .'' (ln ternet locatio n :
hlp://-
.m etnew s.com /ad icles/zoog/bfco3ozog.htm )
A nd that
LA County Bar A ssociation's \u00fb\u00e7update'' for Decem ber 2008, revealing
that S\u00e7ltlhe county asked LA C B A to w rite a letter in support of petition for
review in the California Suprem e C ourt.'' (lntem et location:
hlp://-
.lacba.org/sh ow p age.cfm ?pageid= lo l74

The N ovem ber 7,2008,case sum m ary of the C alifornia C ourtof A ppeal, F ourth A pp ellate D istrict, at pag e 1 1, show ing the follow in g entities all subm itted am icus curiae briefs to the C ourt in support of LA

Court judges' opposition to
D istrict A ttorney, LA
C ounty
A ssociation ,and the A ssociation of S outhern C alifornia D efense C ou nsel.
Sturg eon v. C oun;v qf Los A ngeles\u00ef LA
Public D efender, C aliforn ia Judges
(lnternet location'.
h ttp ://-
.coulinfo.ca.gov/coul s/m inutes/docum ents/D N o v o3o8.D o c )
Loyola Law Schools' Alumni N ewsletter, Public Record, W inter 2005,
w hich,at page 3, reports M agistrate Judge C arla M .W oehrle's receipt
Case: 09-56073 07/20/2009 Page: 3 of 20
DktEntry: 6997710
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
joey-banana

And that domestic terrorism is alive and well, in Los Angeles courts.

reply03 / 01 / 2010
joey-banana

Has anyone else noticed, that in court, your automatically guilty, unless you can prove beyond doubt your not?

reply03 / 01 / 2010
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...