FFF
R R R EEEDDD
SSS
OOO T T T T T T IIILLLEEE
2691 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220(310) 638-2825 FredSottile@sbcglobal.net
December 21, 2009Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
One First Street, NEWashington, D.C. 20543RE: Petition for Stay of Execution of Sentence for “Coercive Confinement”Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-56073; USDC Case Nos. CV-09-1914, CV-09-7943Honorable Justice Kennedy:Submitted simultaneously herewith to the Clerk was Petitioner Richard I. Fine’s
Petitionfor Stay of Execution of Sentence for “Coercive Confinement”
. A ten-month unlawfullyincarcerated,
pro per
litigant, Dr. Fine requests release on righteously solid grounds infervent hopes of spending the last month in his home before it’s lost forever toforeclosure as a consequence of his making a principled stand by not relenting onhonoring his oath as an officer of the court.I apologize for the length of this letter, but the courts below have used a convolutedand complicated situation to protect judges and others from the consequences ofengaging in an illegal payment scheme for 20+ years with only
ex post facto
secretlegislation for (temporary) cover. Caught in the middle is an innocent man literallybattling corruption to the end.Until earlier this year, Dr. Fine was an attorney with a very distinguished career as ataxpayers’ advocate, and one who successfully prosecuted many civil rights and classaction matters over the years. He worked for the Justice Department. He founded thefirst Anti-Trust division in Los Angeles County. He has served as Special Consul General inSouthern California for the Kingdom of Norway for more than the past ten yearsDr. Fine was disbarred to try and silence his exposure of the criminal payment schemebetween Los Angeles Superior Court judges and members of the County Board ofSupervisors
(and his exposure of a developer with very influential ties to consecutivepresidents of the State Bar and who benefited from a sweetheart deal costing LACounty taxpayers an estimated $700 million dollars in lost revenue as a result of thesequestionable relationships).
1
Dr. Fine was disbarred for “moral turpitude” for filing civil rights lawsuits concerning certain judges and others’ involvement with the unconstitutional payments.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
December 21, 2009Page 2But as the judges and supervisors were informed early on by two opinions by theAttorney General, the payments to judges were (and remain) contrary to the CaliforniaConstitution. Still, the payments continued uninterrupted. (Inasmuch as the CountyCharter sets the Supervisors’ salaries to match superior court judges’ salaries, there islittle doubt that they have all been receiving the illegal payments as well.)LA Superior Court judges have simultaneously been hearing cases in which LA County isa party, all the while failing to disclose to litigants that they are receiving, presently, over $57,000 per year from the County (with whom they have no employment agreement),and while the County enjoys a near-100% win/loss civil litigation success rate (accordingto the County’s litigation cost management reports).One such judge, David P. Yaffe, jailed Dr. Fine for contempt rather than recuse himselffrom a case in which he has tremendous conflicts. Moreover, he allowed himself to beautomatically disqualified under operation of law when he neglected to respond to aC.C.P. § 170.3 objection, but repeatedly refused to leave the case. He held a hearingthat Dr. Fine was not informed of, then, in Dr. Fine’s absence, ordered him payattorney’s fees of $47,000 to LA County. Dr. Fine was held in contempt and jailed after he challenged the void orders and refused to answer questions at a judgment debtor exam.Judge Yaffe should have recused himself immediately after he was assigned Fine’scase, filed on behalf of homeowners and against LA County and the developer. Hewas paid $46,000 that year from LA County, a defendant in the case. Instead, hewithheld that information from plaintiffs.Judge Yaffe should have recused himself from trying the contempt matter against Dr.Fine because he was ineligible to determine the truth of his own testimony at trial.These events all occurred well before the
ex post facto
law granting immunity, SenateBill SBX2-11, was secretly passed. SBX2-11 has been cited by the courts below asprotecting Judge Yaffe (and all the other judges), even though it has nothing to do withhis obligation to recuse himself from hearing a case in which LA County was a party.In
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles
, brought by Judicial Watch to challenge and stopthe payments, the California Court of Appeals confirmed in its October 10, 2008decision that the payments were not constitutional; the California Supreme Courtdenied review. It is safe to say that everyone involved in the giving and receiving ofthe payments grew fearful when they were exposed and challenged. But rather thanhonestly address the situation, the California Judicial Council (chaired by RonaldGeorge, California Supreme Court Justice and former presiding judge in LA Superior Court in the late 1980s) drafted a bill authorizing the payments and granting retroactiveimmunity for criminal prosecution, civil liability and judicial discipline. (Despite repeatedrequests, there has been no explanation given for why the immunity paragraph of SBX2-11 was not codified.)
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
December 21, 2009Page 3California’s judicial disciplinary body, the Commission on Judicial Performance,immediately requested an official opinion from the Attorney General concerning theeffect of SBX2-11 on its obligation to discipline wayward judges. The request wasquashed by the Attorney General and no opinion issued.It has been almost ten month since Dr. Fine was placed in solitary “coercive”confinement by Judge Yaffe, at whose order Dr. Fine was denied even pencil andpaper with which to fashion an appeal. He was denied access by the media. He wasdenied access to legal materials, and thus has written everything since filed frommemory. He continues to be denied access to any legal assistance whatsoever because of the necessity of providing a financial declaration, the substance of whichwould result in the “void” order being obeyed, a Catch-22 for Dr. Fine.Numerous documents have been improperly withheld from the public in the DistrictCourt’s and the Ninth Circuit’s online files. There are no orders that the documents besealed, nor was there even ever any discussion about it, but the Courts steadfastlyrefuse to post these documents (all of which contain unflattering evidence). In somecases, documents were received but not “filed” until months later, when they couldthen be cast as “moot” in order to arrive at the court’s pre-determined conclusion.Most egregiously, District Court Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla M.Woehrle dismissed a case filed against them and others. “A man cannot be a judge inhis own case,” but Judges Walter and Woehrle ignored this basic tenet.In replying to Fine’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Yaffe referred to a non-existent“order” and engaged in other frauds on the court in defending his actions. Similar frauds were perpetuated on the California Supreme Court in connection with Dr. Fine’sdisbarment. (Those acts are the subject of a pending motion to set aside.)The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed (on December 16
th
) the District Court’s denial of Dr.Fine’s writ of habeas corpus, posturing that Judge Yaffe was protected by SBX2-11,even though it wasn’t in existence at the time, and wouldn’t be for another year. Thecourt’s use of a crystal ball burst all boundaries of credulity.Co-incidentally, the Judicial Council of California just last week issued a report
in whichit recommended that judges who receive more than $1,500 in campaign donationsfrom any party to a future case are automatically disqualified. $1,500 is too muchinfluence, but $46,000 was not enough?Given the absolute truth of the foregoing, Dr. Fine requests that execution of thesentence of “coercive confinement” be stayed pending the outcome of the appealprocess. As he noted in his Petition, this relief has previously been granted under similar circumstances. And as argued to the courts below, the statutory 5-day maximum for criminal contempt has long since expired.
2
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/commimpart.htm
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
A Christmas Plea For Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy
A Christmas Eve Plea for Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine to US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Citing the reasons why to grant his petition for a Stay of Execution from Coercive Confinement in Los Angeles…
(More)
1.7K
Reads
0
Readcasts
2
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
