RICHARD I. FINE
c/o Men\u2019s Central Jail
Prisoner ID # 1824367
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RICHARD ISAAC FINE
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE DISBARMENT FROM
THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
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.
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
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
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
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.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?