FFRREED

D S
SOOTTTTIILLEE
2691 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220
(310) 638-2825 FredSottile@sbcglobal.net

December 21, 2009

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
One First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20543

RE: Petition for Stay of Execution of Sentence for “Coercive Confinement”

Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-56073; USDC Case Nos. CV-09-1914, CV-09-7943

Honorable Justice Kennedy:

Submitted simultaneously herewith to the Clerk was Petitioner Richard I. Fine’s Petition
for Stay of Execution of Sentence for “Coercive Confinement”. A ten-month unlawfully
incarcerated, pro per litigant, Dr. Fine requests release on righteously solid grounds in
fervent hopes of spending the last month in his home before it’s lost forever to
foreclosure as a consequence of his making a principled stand by not relenting on
honoring his oath as an officer of the court.

I apologize for the length of this letter, but the courts below have used a convoluted
and complicated situation to protect judges and others from the consequences of
engaging in an illegal payment scheme for 20+ years with only ex post facto secret
legislation for (temporary) cover. Caught in the middle is an innocent man literally
battling corruption to the end.

Until earlier this year, Dr. Fine was an attorney with a very distinguished career as a
taxpayers’ advocate, and one who successfully prosecuted many civil rights and class
action matters over the years. He worked for the Justice Department. He founded the
first Anti-Trust division in Los Angeles County. He has served as Special Consul General in
Southern California for the Kingdom of Norway for more than the past ten years

Dr. Fine was disbarred to try and silence his exposure of the criminal payment scheme
between Los Angeles Superior Court judges and members of the County Board of
Supervisors1 (and his exposure of a developer with very influential ties to consecutive
presidents of the State Bar and who benefited from a sweetheart deal costing LA
County taxpayers an estimated $700 million dollars in lost revenue as a result of these
questionable 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, 2009
Page 2

But as the judges and supervisors were informed early on by two opinions by the
Attorney General, the payments to judges were (and remain) contrary to the California
Constitution. Still, the payments continued uninterrupted. (Inasmuch as the County
Charter sets the Supervisors’ salaries to match superior court judges’ salaries, there is
little 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 is
a 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 (according
to the County’s litigation cost management reports).

One such judge, David P. Yaffe, jailed Dr. Fine for contempt rather than recuse himself
from a case in which he has tremendous conflicts. Moreover, he allowed himself to be
automatically disqualified under operation of law when he neglected to respond to a
C.C.P. § 170.3 objection, but repeatedly refused to leave the case. He held a hearing
that Dr. Fine was not informed of, then, in Dr. Fine’s absence, ordered him pay
attorney’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’s
case, filed on behalf of homeowners and against LA County and the developer. He
was paid $46,000 that year from LA County, a defendant in the case. Instead, he
withheld 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, Senate
Bill SBX2-11, was secretly passed. SBX2-11 has been cited by the courts below as
protecting Judge Yaffe (and all the other judges), even though it has nothing to do with
his 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 stop
the payments, the California Court of Appeals confirmed in its October 10, 2008
decision that the payments were not constitutional; the California Supreme Court
denied review. It is safe to say that everyone involved in the giving and receiving of
the payments grew fearful when they were exposed and challenged. But rather than
honestly address the situation, the California Judicial Council (chaired by Ronald
George, California Supreme Court Justice and former presiding judge in LA Superior
Court in the late 1980s) drafted a bill authorizing the payments and granting retroactive
immunity for criminal prosecution, civil liability and judicial discipline. (Despite repeated
requests, 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, 2009
Page 3

California’s judicial disciplinary body, the Commission on Judicial Performance,

immediately requested an official opinion from the Attorney General concerning the
effect of SBX2-11 on its obligation to discipline wayward judges. The request was
quashed 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 and
paper with which to fashion an appeal. He was denied access by the media. He was
denied access to legal materials, and thus has written everything since filed from
memory. He continues to be denied access to any legal assistance whatsoever
because of the necessity of providing a financial declaration, the substance of which
would result in the “void” order being obeyed, a Catch-22 for Dr. Fine.

Numerous documents have been improperly withheld from the public in the District
Court’s and the Ninth Circuit’s online files. There are no orders that the documents be
sealed, nor was there even ever any discussion about it, but the Courts steadfastly
refuse to post these documents (all of which contain unflattering evidence). In some
cases, documents were received but not “filed” until months later, when they could
then 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 in
his 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’s
disbarment. (Those acts are the subject of a pending motion to set aside.)

The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed (on December 16th) 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. The
court’s use of a crystal ball burst all boundaries of credulity.

Co-incidentally, the Judicial Council of California just last week issued a report2 in which
it recommended that judges who receive more than $1,500 in campaign donations
from any party to a future case are automatically disqualified. $1,500 is too much
influence, but $46,000 was not enough?

Given the absolute truth of the foregoing, Dr. Fine requests that execution of the
sentence of “coercive confinement” be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal
process. 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
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
December 21, 2009
Page 4

Nor will Dr. Fine ever be coerced into violating his oath. His principled stand has cost
him his home and his license, a devastating price to have paid to resist being made a
part of the corruption rampant in LA County.

Ten Million Felonies.

Literally ten million felonies3 were pardoned in February, about 1.6 million of them
committed by superior court judges, when Senate Bill SBX2-11 was passed. It’s
understandable that those involved are desperate to escape the consequences of
their deeds, but it is unconscionable to hold an innocent person in jail while the
charade proceeds.

I and the other members of Dr. Fine’s non-attorney volunteer support team collectively
beseech you to grant Dr. Fine’s petition and order his release It will be far too late to
save his home, but he ought not be denied from spending the last month in it, over the
holidays, with his family. Ultimately, we hope to win the restoration of due process for all
Californians. We are on the right track, as evidenced by the recent statement by
Supervisor Michael Antonovich, a man previously found liable for calling a judge on
behalf of constituents in attempt to influence the outcome of their case, when he
announced that the payments would not be given to “new” judges.

Dr. Fine is almost 70 years old, and his health has deteriorated significantly as a direct
result of his incarceration. He has contracted a staph infection, suffers from edema of
the legs, back pain and now is being medicated for a high cholesterol count.

Please order Dr. Fine’s immediate release.

Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any questions or
concerns. The bulk of the evidence and case history can be viewed online at
http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home

Sincerely,

FRED SOTTILE
FS/mlm

Enclosures

cc: Dr. Richard I. Fine

Brian Shaughnessy, Esq.
Aaron Mitchell Fontana, Esq.
Paul B. Beach, Esq.
Kevin M. McCormick, Esq.

3
http://righttrumpsmight.blogspot.com/2009/12/aha.html