Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
USDC Disbarment - Dkt 2 - Response to Order to Show Cause re Disbarment

USDC Disbarment - Dkt 2 - Response to Order to Show Cause re Disbarment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 171|Likes:
Published by Honor in Justice

More info:

Published by: Honor in Justice on Oct 07, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/11/2015

pdf

text

original

-1-
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RICHARD I. FINE
c/o Men\u2019s Central Jail
Prisoner ID # 1824367
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In the Disciplinary Matter of
Case No. MC-09-129 ABC

RICHARD ISAAC FINE
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE DISBARMENT FROM

California State Bar No.: 55259

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

The disbarment would be improper, as the disbarment in California was unconstitutional and void. A timely Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 11, 2009.

Such Petition shows that the words \u201cmoral turpitude\u201d in California Business and Professions Code \u00a7 6106 being applied to truthful pleadings filed in courts violates the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and the right to petition the government to redress a grievance. As such, California Business and Professions Code \u00a7 6106 is unconstitutional.

Such Petition further shows that California Business and Professions Code \u00a7 6007(c)(4)
is unconstitutional as a denial of due process for lack of notice.

Most important, such Petition showed that the six justices of the California Supreme Court who denied Fine\u2019s Petition For Review, Motion To Strike the Notice of Disciplinary Charges, and motions to recuse themselves denied Fine due process by not recusing themselves. Four of them had received illegal payments from counties while sitting as Superior Court judges and were then given retroactive immunity for such acts from criminal prosecution, civil liability and discipline by Senate Bill SBx2 11 enacted February 20, 2009, as

-2-
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
part of the \u201cbudget package\u201d, two of the Justices were members of the Judicial Council of
California, who wrote Senate Bill SBx2 11.

Fine was disbarred on the single charge of \u201cmoral turpitude\u201d for filing pleadings in courts. Two pleadings were Federal civil rights lawsuits showing that the payments from Los Angeles County to Los Angeles County Superior Court judges violated Article VI, \u00a7 19, of the California Constitution. This position has been upheld in the case ofSturgeon v. County of

Los Angeles (167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) rev. denied 12/23/08), prior to the time that the

California Supreme Court denied review in the disbarment case. The California Supreme Court knew from the ruling inSturgeon, supra, that Fine\u2019s actions were not only protected under the First Amendment, but that Fine was also correct on the substantive law in his pleadings. They also knew from the history of the case that Fine had been severely denied due process by the State Bar Court. In particular, Fine had been found \u201cnot guilty\u201d on three counts of making false statements in pleadings by the State Bar Hearing Judge. These were the only charges of such conduct. The State Bar did not appeal such Finding.

Despite this non-appeal, the State Bar Review Department, without notice and in violation of State Bar Rule of Procedure 305, reversed the Hearing Department on these counts. This was also a denial of due process.

Additionally, the State Bar stated in its responsive brief on review, in responding to Fine\u2019s First Amendment argument that the entire State Bar case consisted of pleadings filed in courts, that it was not prosecuting Fine for the content of his statements, his speech or his rhetoric. This left nothing in the case.

The State Bar Court Review Department found Fine \u201cguilty\u201d of \u201cmoral turpitude\u201d for filing truthful pleadings in courts which were correct under the law (except where they violated due process as shown above). The California Supreme Court denied review, with full knowledge of these actions.

In addition to the above, further reasons mandate that the U.S. District Court not disbar Fine. The case of Fine v. State Bar of California, et al, Case No. CV-08-2906 JFW (CW), is still before the District Court with a Motion To Set Aside the judgment. The case was filed in

-3-
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
May 2008. The defendants moved to dismiss or have the Court abstain in June 2008. Fine
filed a timely opposition and defendants did not file a reply.

The complaint sought a declaration that California Business and Professions Code \u00a7 6106\u2019s words \u201cmoral turpitude\u201d were unconstitutional as they applied to pleadings filed in courts as the statute in addition contained the words \u201cdishonesty\u201d and \u201ccorrupt\u201d, that California Business and Professions Code Section 6007(c)(4) was unconstitutional due to lack of notice, and to enjoin defendants from disbarring Fine.

After a number of months without a ruling, Fine filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction to declare the statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin the defendants from disbarring Fine.

The defendants responded that they would give their opposition in their opposition to the motion for the preliminary injunction. They never filed an opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Approximately ten months after the Motion To Dismiss was filed, the Magistrate Judge recommended, and the Judge ordered, over Fine\u2019s objection, that the Court abstain. This was done despite the fact that the State Bar case was over and no reason for abstention existed.

The six California Supreme Court justices who denied review should have recused themselves. In addition, due process was denied when the Hearing Department Judge did not recuse himself for being on the Board of Governors of a charity, with a representative of Los Angeles County, that received $30,000 from Los Angeles County while he was deciding Fine\u2019s disbarment case and holding that acts of filing the two Federal civil rights cases against Los Angeles County for making illegal payments to Los Angeles Superior Court judges was \u201cmoral turpitude\u201d.

Fine has moved to set aside the judgment in case CV-08-2906 JFW (CW) that the
June.8, 2008, U.S. Supreme Court decision of Caperton, et al. v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., et
al, 556 U.S.- (2009) and cases cited therein mandate the recusal of the California Supreme
Court justices from the disbarment case, and require the Court in Case CV-08-2906 JFW (CW)

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->