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

Petitioner (hereinafter \u201cFine\u201d) has been incarcerated since March 4, 2009 in the Los Angeles County Jail under "coercive incarceration" pursuant to a March.4, 2009 contempt order issued by LA Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe. That contempt order is presently on appeal before this Court in the instant case. The issue certified for appeal is "whether the trial court judge [Judge Yaffe] should have recused himself". Oral argument is set for the week of December 7-11, 2009.

TO IMMEDIATELY ORDER TRIAL COURT TO ENTER WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN USDC CASE NO. CV-09-07943 OR ISSUE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

During the District Court proceeding and the appeal proceeding, the Respondent Sheriff, the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe (the latter two of whom are not respondents) in CV-09-1914 JFW (CW) made false statements to the Court. These statements showed that Fine's "coercive incarceration" was limited to 5 days under CCP \u00a71218, and should not have been "unlimited".

This was particularly true as Fine was refusing to answer questions on "moral" grounds such as contesting the jurisdiction of Judge Yaffe to preside over the case and demanding his recusal. The Court will note that this is the issue on appeal.

Additionally, the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe admitted in their appeal brief for the first time that the contempt was both "criminal" and "civil". This admission proved that Fine was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial pursuant to the B&P Code \u00a7 6126 criminal charge of practicing law without a license or holding himself out to practice law.

On October 30, 2009, Fine filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for setting forth those new and different grounds, USDC case no. CV-09-7943 JFW (CW). The Petition named the U.S. District Court (referring to actions of Magistrate Judge Woehrle and Judge Walter), the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe as respondents. A true and correct copy of the Petition, marked as Exhibit \u201c1\u201d, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full.

The Petition was assigned to Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle. Each of them should have recused themselves. See In Re Murchison, 349 v. U.S. 135 (1955) - \u201cNo man can be a judge in his own case\u201d and \u201cno man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome\u201d, cited in

2009, Slip Opinion page 10. Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle were made aware of theCaperton precedent in case no. CV-09-1914 JFW (CW) but ignored it.

Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle violated due process when they denied the Petition as "successive" absent a writ of mandate from the Ninth Circuit. A true and correct copy of Judge Walter\u2019s Order denying the Petition