High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
t!--- F$ ? . -
y?
, u
1 RIC 1. FINE, In Pro Per
2 Prisoner ID # 1824367c/o Men's Cenkal Jail
3 441 Bauchet Skeet
4 Los Angeles, CA 90012
5
6 UMTED STATES COURT OF HPEALS
7
FOR THE NGTH CIRCUIT
89
RIC 1. FINE, Case No. 09-560730Petitioner,
11 D
.
C. No. 2:09-cv-01914 J'FW (CW)12 vs. D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07943 JFW (CW)
13 E>RGENCY PETITION FOR
14 SI-TEIUFF OF LOS ANGELES wRIT OF A'I'E To
COUNTY, et a1, IM>DIATEIY ORDER TRIAI,5
Iuspondents cotm'r To ENTER WRJ'I- OF
16 / e p s j
,., . .
HABEAS CORPUS IN USDC
lZ%7n Dkryr , 'j toCASE NO. CV-09-07943 OR, v.e .,okr;q,,
.
: s jssto ouosp To suow1;.
Ig v() y , ? ;y.rjy
,
y cxussf .
ltt'b
19 xcgs-sn
--
..
20 Petitioner (hereinlver ççFing as been incarcerated since March 4, 2009 in
21
the Los Mgeles Colmty Jail tmder ''coercive incarceration'' pursuant to a
22
23 March 4, 2009 contempt order issued by LA Superior Court Judge David P.
24Yaffe
.
That contempt order is presently on appeal before this Court in the
25
instant case. The issue certified for appeal is ''whether the trial court judge6
27 Judge Yaffe) should have recused himself'. Oral argument is set for the weekè
28
of December 7-11, 2009.
-
1-
Case: 09-56073 11/12/2009 Page: 1 of 55 DktEntry: 7128989
1 Duting the Diskict Court proceeding and the appeal proceeding
,
the
2
Respondent Sheriftl the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe (the latter two of
4 whom are not respondents) in CV-09-1914 JFW (CW) made false statements to
5
the Court. These statements showed that Fine's ''coercive incarceration'' was
6
limited to 5 days under CCP j1218, and should not have been ''lmlimited''.
8 This was pmicularly tnle as Fine was refusing to answer questions on
9
''moral'' grounds such as contesting the jurisdiction of Judge Yaffe to preside0
11 over the case and dematlding his recusal. The Court will note that tltis is the
12
issue on appeal.
13
14 The LA Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and Sheriff Leroy Baca knew that they
15
could not hold Fine for more t11a11 5 days tmder In Re Farr
,
36 Cal.App.3d 577 (1974)
16
and In Re ïnlliam z: Farr, 64 Ca1.App.3d 605 (1976). Tltis created an independent7
ls violation of the tnking of Fine's liberty without due process of law
.
19
Additionally, the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe admitted in their
20
21 appeal brief for the ftrst time that the contempt was both ''miminal'' and ''civil''22Tltis admission proved that Fine was denied his Sixth Amendment right t
o ajury
23
trial pttrsuant to the B&P Code j 6126 criminal charge of practicing 1aw without4
25 license or holding himself out to practice law
.
26
Finally, Diszct Court Magiskate Judge Carla M. Woehrle and Judge Jolm
27
28 F. Walter violated 28 USC j 2243, thereby denying Fine due process and
-
2-
Case: 09-56073 11/12/2009 Page: 2 of 55 DktEntry: 7128989
l causing his incarceration on Founds separate 9om those of the contempt
2
proceeding.
3
4 On October 30, 2009, Fine filed a Petition for Writ of Habe% Corpus for
5
setting forth those new and different grounds, USDC case no
.
CV-09-7943 JFW
6v
(CW). The Petition named the U.S. District Court (referring to actions of
B Ma istrate Judge Woehrle and Judge Walter), the Sheriff of Los Angeles
9
Cotmty, the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe as respondents
A true and011 correct copy of the Petition, marked as Exhibit çi1'' is attached hereto and
12
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
13
14 The Petition was assiNed to Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge
15Woehrle
.
Each of them should have recused themselves. See In Re Murchison,
16
349 v. U.S. 135 (1955) - tçNo man can be ajudge in llis own case'' and itno man7
18 is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome''
cited in
19
Caperton v. W.Z Massev Coal Co.. Inc., 566 US (2009) decided Jtme 8,0
21 2009, Slip Opinion page 10. Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle were
22
made aware of the Caperton precedent itl case no. CV-09-19l4 JFW (CW) but
23
iNored it.4
25 Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle violated due process when they
26
denied the Petition as ''successive'' absent a writ of mandate from the Ninth
27
28 Circuit. A mze and correct copy of Judge Walter's Order denying the Petition
.
3-
Case: 09-56073 11/12/2009 Page: 3 of 55 DktEntry: 7128989
Add a Comment
joey-bananaleft a comment