Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 1 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

ORIGINAL
IRMOELLY':
CI.DE
RICLIARD 1.FINE,lnProPer U.S.COUD'. WYl
ERMCLE
-OFAPïP
t:E
.EALSKRD
PrisonerID #1824367 I
c/oMen'sCentralJail DEI)212152
441BauchetStreet Flto
DOCRWED
LosAngeles,CA 90012 DATE
INI
TI
AL
UM TED STATESCOURT OFAPPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCIJIT
RICHARD 1.FINE. CaseNo.09-56073
AppellantandPetitioner,
D.C.No.2:09-cv-01914JFW (CW)
COO INED EG RGENCY
PETITION FORPANEL
SIIERIFFOFLOSANGELES REHEARINGANDREHEAIUNG
COUNTY,etaI, EN BANC OFT11EPANEL'S
AppelleesandRespondents UNPUBLISHED NON.
PRECEDENTMEMORANDLJM
DECISION AFFIRMING DISTRICT
COURTAr DENYING WRIT OF
IIABEASCORPUS
F.R.A.
P.RULE 35
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 2 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ReasonsforReversalofthePanel'sDecisionMandatingtheGrantingoftheWrh.........8
a.Judge affeviolateddueprocessbyjudginghiso actionsinthecontempt
dïn? 8
b.Judge aedidnothave Gt
appearanceofjustice'be use,interalia,hetooka
;1l7n-be'' '
t)'
m.1.
, ()'
1'
1.
r' .............................................................................................9
-
Dueprocesswasviolatedbythedirectpa entstoJudgeYaffefromLACounty,
W
d.Thepanel'sargumentthatGov'tCodej68220,passedaspartofSBM -II,
t'belies''thecriminalityoftheactortheretroactiveimmlmity,istmconstitutional10
EmergencyDecisionisNeededBecatlsetheCo hasReplaced eOppositionas
15
Conclusion
CertiticateofCompliance
18

20
21
22

24
25

28
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 3 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

l 1*
2
rece ent ases
3
()lt1 -t-()111s C tllt)tl ().5r.J tArtl1
-(),2 1:7éi .S;.E I1:!(16)i lti).....................................................5,11
4
apeo eta1vv. -. nxqey onl o.vInc-vet%1v566 .S- (2009).-..-.-..-.....-- ..3p5.6.11
5 tll .
fltk) fA?.Ctlit irit,Z l6)117.:3(11116)(6) 1r.: !()():7).......................................................................1!,6/
6
7
1-
l)s()1)5?.tl ll1 *llaZl11 .E ;.1 5ts21,1 5:75(16 )'
7:3)............................-.........................................15,11
1l
1 tl lrtlll -s()11,6 5zl6) .é;.133,1S5ti(16)1515).......................-.............................................é5,6),1()
8
9
la
tlsp1-1( )A?. lll -tt)tl6)tklS. ,S1t$:1 .é;.t i1()(16 )t
5())..........-.....-..............-......................................-......1$
arinaStrand olony11 o eo ers ssociationv. oun of os ngeles,
10
11
12 th
St geonv.o tyof os geles,167 al.pp.4 630(2008).........................4,7,9,11,12
13
14
11T11t l)rS?. 111 -4),1!17S5 .E ;.1 51( )(16 ):!: 7)....................................................................................15,1()
ftrtlNr. 1 -ll1té 4()()t - ()()kl Ar1'llt,,zl()6) .é 9.15:7(16):7:!).......................-..............................15,1(),11
15
16
tutes
17
18
19
Itll-t-
ll1 -1t (lA/ t)rll113tlllt ()(1()jjt 5EI; !:!()-t$EI;
!1!:!............-.........-.......-.........--.................t$,6),1(),11
20
21
22
ther uthorities
23
liforniaSenate 111G1S 11'' assim
24
25
26 onstI -tutl -onaI rovisions
27 l tll-t-
tllnnl
-Ct (lllstittltitlll, 1 -()l(,1,f;()().6',..............................................................................t1,11
28 l tll
-lrtlrnnl
-ët (llzsti tit)lz; -()1() 7!r()().16),.........................................................................*2,1:!
E;. (lrlstittltil)lz- itll(,1,f;k)().6), 1.55..............................-.............................................t9,11

-1
11-
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 4 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

1 OurentireRepublicwJldestroyedzzlcrctvtohnagleameasl
kraise?
2
3
There can be no doubtwhatsoeverthatthe Panel'safflrmation ofthe
4 DistrictCourt'sdecisiontodenydueprocess(toan attomey ethically and
5
6
lawfullyboundtofollow hissworn oath)infavorofprotecting an illegal
7 paymentschemebeingnow usedtopiggybackjustifîcationforilwreasesill
8
federal judicial income has severely, and most likely permanently,
9
compromisedtheindependenceofthefederaljudiciarybysubvertingitsNinth
11 Circuitto the willofa conuptstatebench,and in so doing hassoiled the
12
13 intepityofthejudicialinstitutionandshnmedthebenchasawholenationwide.
14 PanelJudgeReinhardthimselfhasmitten ofhisuduty to maintain the
15 supremacy ofthe Constitution,and,indeed,ofthe constimtionalstructure
16
17 itself'. Crater,infra. Inexplicably,notonlywerethoseidealsnotitwokedin
18 thepresentcase.theywerewhollycontravened.
19
20
JudgeYaffeallowedhimselftobedisqualitiedlmderoperationoflaw,and
21 onlyanirrelevantcxpostfacto,multiple-subject1aw isavailabletoprofferas
22
23
thoughforlzisdefense.WhenJudgeYaffefailedtorespondtoFine'sCCPj
24 170.3objection,hewasautomaticallydisqualifiedtmderCCP j170.3(c)(4)).
25 SenateBillSBX2-llisnotremotelyrelevanttothisparticularissue,andwould
26
27 notremedytheproblem evenifitwereproperlaw.Therefore,noorderentered
28 byJudgeYaffeafterApril7,2008islegitimateorenforceable.
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 5 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

l ln fact,!LQ orderentered by JudgeYafferegarding theJanuary8,2008

2
3
hearing islegitimate orenforceable inasmuch asFine wasprevented from
4 attendingthatheari
ng.SBX2-11doesnothingtoremedythisvoidordereither.
5
Embarrmssingly,theveryday afterreleaseofthePanel,sdecision in this
6
7 case,Califonzia'sJudicialC'
otmcil,chairedbyChiefJusticeRonaldGeorge,co-
s allthorof SBX2-11, submitted a reportby its Ifommission For lmpartial
9
10 Courts''inresponsetotheCaperton,infraadecision inwhichitrecommended
11 thedisqualificationofjudges9om anyfuturecaseinwhichtheyhavereceived
12
atleast$1,500incnmpaigncontributionsfrom eithersidebecause$1,500is
13
14 Gthenmountthatcreatesaifmancialinterest'''.1
15 $1,500isenoughtotriggerdisqualification,but$46,000isnot?
16
17 Luckily forCaliforniacitizens,somejudgesevidently didnotgetthe
18 memotomnintnin theirsilenceon thesubjectofjudicialincomeandits
19
20
influence. Just last week,Monterey Cotmty, Califomiw Superior Court
21 Presiding Judge Adrienne Grover freely acu owledged what is typically
22 ,
23
tmiversallyacknowledged:thatthesourceofajudgesincomecaninfluence
24 hisdecisions(thushewillbetmlikelytomakedecisionswhichcouldharmhis
25 sourceofincome).JudgeMaldonadoclarifiedthattheprotectionislçsocentTal
26
27 toAmerican valuesthatitwasoneof64 poundscitedintheDeclaration of
22
1 hup://- .coudinfo.ca.gov/'
lc/tiists/commimpan.htm

-2-
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 6 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

1 Independence'',2grotmdssoegregiousastojustifywarandwinthecolonists'
2
3
geedom from tyrantGeorge111.
4 The Panel's obfuscation ofJudge Yaffe's t
nze fears following Fine's
5
, .
exposure ofltisreceiptofcriml
nalpayments,and JudgeYaffe,ssubsequent
6
7 actions to protect that income stream alzd proted himself &om criminal
S prosecution, etc.,isbelied by the factthatSBX2-11would notcome into
9
10 existence foranothervear;itwotlldn'teven be thoughtoftmtilafterthe
11 Sturgeon,infra,decision w% issued itlOctober2008. JudgeYaffehad no
12
crystalballtol
mow ayearin advancethatSBX2-11wouldeven bedrafted,
13
14 muchlessbepassedbyalegislaturewillingtooverlookitsexpostfactonature.
15 SBX2-11mayforgiveJudgeYaffe,scrimes,buthecouldnotknow thatatthe
16
17 time.
18 Andevennow thatSBM -IIhasbeenpmssedaalbeitwith antmcodified
19
20
reloactive immllnity provision,itstillcnnnotprotectJudge Yaffe without
21 judgesagainviolatingtheCalifomiaandU.S.Constitutions.
22
OfcourseJudgeYaffe,sreceiptof$46,000thatyeargaveh1 .
m au,udirect
23
24 personal,substantial,peomiaryinterest''inthematter,asshownbyhisactions
25 (admitted)inconcertwithotherjudgestodeliverLA Colmtyanear-l00%
26
27
28
2 MontereyHeraldarticle,December7,2009.http://- .montereyherald.coenews/ci13939368?source=rss

-3-
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 7 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

1 win/losslitigationrecord3whichhelpedtheCotmtygenerateincometofmance
2
3 thepaymentstojudgestandmembersoftheCotmty'sBoardofSupervisors,
4 who authorize the paymentsand raisesthereto,and whose salaries are,by
5 ,
6
charter,settomatchsuperiorcourtjudgessalaries).
7 The panel's decision conGicts with established U.S.Supreme Court
8 precedentthat''nomancanbeajudgeinl zisowncase''and''nomanis
9
10 permitted to try caseswherehehasan interestin the outcome''(1n Re
11 Murchison,349U.S.133,136(1955),citedinCapertonvW.. 7!MasseyCoal
12
Co..Inc., 566U.S.- (2009)decidedJtme8,2009,Sli pOpinionpg10,.1:a
13
14 judgereceivingabribefrom aninterestedpallyoverwhichheispresiding,
15 doesnotgivetheappearanceofjustice. ''(Offuttv. uS.
,348U.S.11,14(1954),
.
14
17 tjusticemusthavetheappearanceofjustice''(fevinev.ULS.362U.S.610
ls (1960),.ajudgewhoreceivedmoney9om apartydirectlythroughfmes(Tumev
19
20 v.Ohi o,273U.S.510(1927));orfacethepossibilityoftemptationtlzrough
21 paymentsintothecity'sEçfisc.''(Wardv.Monroeville,409U,S.57(1972),or
22
whowascompetingwithaparty(Gibsonv.Berrvhill,411US564,579(1973)
23
24 orwhowasapartytoanidenticallawsuittothatwhichhewasdeciding(Aetna
25 Life
'Ins.co.v.Lavoie,475U.S.813(1986)orajusticewhohadreceived
26
27 conGbutionstolliscnmpaign committee9om apresidentofacompanythat
28
3 LosAngelesCountyLitigationCostManagementReports,2005-2008.hlp://counsel.lacounty.m
oov/ar.asp

-4-
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 8 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

1 subsequentlyappearedbeforehim (Cqperton,supra),a11violateddueprocess
3
bypresidingoveraparty'scase.
4 Thepanel'sdecisionalsoconflictswiththeCaliforniaConstimtion(Article
6
1,Section9)andtheU.S.Constitution(Article1,Section9,C1.3)inthatit
7 violatestheszglosubjectruleoftheCaliforniaConstitutionandmakesanex
8
postfacto 1aw ofCalifomia GovernmentCodej68220byremovingthe
9
10 immlmitygivenunderSenateBillSBX2-11,whichimmlmitywasnotlimitedin
11 t1
*me
12
ThePanelhassuccumbedtotheconcertofcomzptionandtocriminalsin
14 judicialrobes.TheFantofFine'swritwill9eeCaliforniansfrom thetyrnnny
15
ofacomzptjudicialsystem andwillrestoreitscitizens'constitutionalrights.
17 '
lhesearethebattlelinesdrawninthisfighttosavetheRepublic.
A rehearing by the Paneland the consideration by the fullCourtis
19
20
thereforenecessarytosecureandmaintainIlniformityoftheCourt'sdecisions.
ThePanel'selectiontostand100% againstU.S.SupremeCourtprecedentand
22
100% infavorofjudicialcomzptionmustbeaddressedwithoutdelay.
24 Thecertifiedquestion isççwhetherthetrialjudgeshouldhaverecused
himself'.
26

28
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 9 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

1. UndisputedFacts.
Los Angeles Superior CourtJudge David P.Yaffe received illegal
payments9om LA County,aparty beforehim,madeordersin thatparty's
favor,andthenpresidedoveracontemptproceedinginwhichhejudgedlzis
own actions. The illegal payments include misappropriation of flmds,
obstructionofjusticeandbribery.
Thepaymentstotaled$46,366peryear,or27% oflzisannualstatesalary
11 of$178,800. JudgeYaffewasastate-electedjudge. Hetestifiedatthe
13
contemptproceeding thathe did nothave any employmentorotherwork
relationshipwithLA County,thathedidnotreportthepaymentsonhisForm
15 700StatementofEconomicInterests,thathedidnotplacethepaymentsinhis
re-electioncampaignfund,andthathecouldnotrememberanycaseinthelast
threeyearsthathededdedagaingtLA County.
TheLA CotmtypaymentswereheldtoviolateArticleV1,Section 19,of
21 theCalifomiaConstitutioninthecaseofSturgeonv.CounlvofLosAngeles,
167Ca1.App.4tb630(2008),review denied12/23/08.
23
24 lnJune2007,JudgeYaffecommencedpresidingoverthecaseofMarina
25 StrandColonv11HomeownersAssoc.v.CountvofLosAngeles,LA SuNrior
27 Courtcaseno.85109420(theGGMarinaStranl'case).Finewmscotmselfor
28 MarinaStrand.JudgeYaffedidnotdisclosetheLA Countypayments.

-6-
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 10 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

1 WithoutnoticetoFine,withoutFinebeingpresentatthehearingandin
violation oftheCaliforniaPublicResourcesCode,on January8,2008,after
4 Fineleftthecase,JudgeYaffeorderedFinetopayattomey'sfeesandcoststo
5
LA Countyanditsco-applicantfortheenvironmentalimpactreport.
JudgeYaffeadmittedtoreceivil
zgtheLA C'
otmtypaymentswhileinopen
courtandtmderquestioningbyFineonMarch20,2008.OnMarch25th,Fine
ftledandservedaCCPj170.3objectiontoJudgeYaffe.JudgeYaffedidnot
11 respondandwasdisqualifiedasaresultonApril7t
àunderCCPj170.3(c)(4).
JudgeYafferefusedtoleavethecase,however.Insteadaheenteredanorder
13
awardingattomey'sfeesagainstFineonApril15th,afterhe(JudgeYaffe)was
15
disqualifiedandhadabandonedjmisdiction.
On November3,2008,JudgeYaffe signed an orderto show cause re
contemptagaingtFinerelatedtoFine'srefusaltoobeyJudgeYaffe'svoidorder
andanswerquestionsatadebtor'sexaminationhearing,andFine'schallenging
21 JudgeYaffe'sorderforattomey'sfeesasvoid.JudgeYaffepresidedoverthe

23
contemptproceeding,judginghisownactionsandthemzthfulnessoflzisown
testimony,overFine'sobjection.Finefiledtimelywritsofhabeascorpus in
25 thestatecourtsandinfederalcourt,challengzgJudgeYaffe'ssittingasajudge
itlboththetmderlyingMarinaStrandlitigationandthecontemptproceedings.
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 11 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

l Il. TheLA CountyPaymentsWereCriminal.

2
3 AftertheSturgeoncasewœsdecided(inOctober2008),SenateBillSBXZ-
4
5
11wasenacted(0nFebruary20,2009,madeeffectiveMay21St). sBX2-11
6 gave rekoactive immtmity from criminal prosecutiono civil liability and
disciplinaryactiontojudgeswhoreceived,andgovemmentalofficialswho
8
9 gave,countyjudicialbenefitstojudges,effectiveMay 21,2009. ltalso
10 continuedcountyjudicialbenefitsexistingasofJuly1,2008,subjecttoa180-
11
12 daynoticeofdiscontinuancetosittingjudges,effectiveMay21,2009.Tltis
13 latterSectionwascodifiedasGovernmentCodej68220. Thelmmtmity
15
Sectionwasnotcodifiedtandwasthushidden9om thepublic).Noimmunity
16 wmsgivenforthecurrentcotmtypaymentsbeinggivenandaccepted.

12 111. Reasons for Reversal of the Panel's Deeision Mandating the

GrantingoftheW rit.
19
20 a. JudgeYaFeviolateddueprocessbyjudginghisownactionsin
tàecontemptproceeding.
21
22 JudgeYaffeviolatedMurchison,suprw bypresiding overthecontempt
23 proceeding.HewasjudginghisownactionsintheMarinaStrandcase. The
24
paneldidnotevenaddressthiscnzcialissue,eventhoughitwasencomp%sed
25
26 inthecertifiedquestion.
27
Further.theprecedentcitedbythePanelsCraterv.Galaza,491F.3d1119a
28
1132(9t
hCir.2007)isinappositeforthereasoncited,butisdirectlyonpointin
-8-
 '
(
;
'.'
Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 12 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235 j

1 Fine'scaseinitsdiscussionofjudgesperformingççincompatibleaccusatoryand
2
3 judicialroles'',citingMurchison.
4 b. JudgeYaFedidnothaveanHappearanceofjustice''because,
5 interJ/fJ,hetookaGbribe''from LA County.
6 JudgeYaffeviolatedO#tt,suprwbytakingcri minalpayments,including
7
8
misappropriation offtmds,obstruction ofjusticeand bribesforwhichhe
9 receivedretroactiveimmlml
'
ty effectiveMay 21,2009 underSBX2-l1. The
10 panelconcededthesefactsbutdidnotdirectlyaddressthisissue.Seebelow for
11
12 discussionoftherelationshipofGovernmentCodej68220totheimmunity.
13 JudgeYaffe'sadmittedhistoryofmakingrulingsinfavorofLA Cotmty
14
show hisfavoritism,andhisantagonism wasfullyevidentilzhistrea% entof
15
16 Fine.
17 c. DueproeesswasviolatedbythedireetpaymentstoJudgeYaffe
18 from LA County,whowasapartyinacasebeforehim.
19 Thepanelconceded JudgeYaffe'sreceiptofthepaymentsbutdid not
20
21 addressthefactthatLA CotmtywisapartybeforeJudgeYaffeintheMarina
22 Strandc%e.ltignoredthefactthatJudgeYaffewasastate-electedjudgeand
23
thatLA County did nothave any employmentorotherrelation with hl
.
m.
24
25 Underthepanel'sstrained arplmentand itsmisapplication ofTumev,supra,
26 everypartywhohasacasebeforeajudgeisnow allowedto::
payjaj
.
m ojr,wjth
27
28

-9-
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 13 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

1 impunity.Thenextjudgedefendingthebriberychargemaybeexpectedtocite
2
3
thepanel'sopinion.
4 Under the true holdings of Tumey,Monroeville,Gibson,Ltzvojc and
5
Caperton,supra,dueprocesswasviolatedbytheLA Cotmtydirectpaymentsto
6
Judge Yaffe,even ifsuch paymentswerenotcrimilzalordid notviolatethe
8 CalifomiaConstimtion.
9
10 d. Thepanel':argumentthatGovernmentCodej68220,passedas
part of SBM -II,Rbelies'' the criminality of the act or the
11 retroaetiveimmunity,isunconstitutional.
12
ThegenesisandsubjectofSBX2-l1,asstatedintheBill,wastoremedy
13
14 theSturgeondecision.ltwœsnottoamendtl
w CaliforniaCriminalCode.The
15 panel's arplment that allowing colmty payments to recommence would
16
tidecriminalizethepastandpresentpayments''violatesthesinglesubjectruleof
18 theCalifomiaConstitution.
19
Article1,Section9,C1.3oftheU.S.Constitutionprohibitsexpostfacto
20
21 laws,asdoesArticle1,Section9,oftheCaliforniaConstimtion.SBX-211gave
22 retroactiveimmunity9om criminalprosecution effectiveMay 21,2009. The
23
24 panelarguedthattheFantingofjudicialbenetitsavailableonJuly1,2009,
25 starfingonMay21stlçbelies''theretoactiveimmzml
'tyandcriminalacts.This
26
argumentremovestheretroactiveimmlmity,which didnothaveatimelimit.
27
28 Suchremovalestablishedthecri
me,whichwasnotexitingundertheretroactive

-1
0-
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 14 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

immunity.Thusthepanelargumentcreatedanexpostfacto1aw itself'
,i.e.,
establishedacri
mewhereonedidnotpreviouslyexist.
Additionally,thepaneldidnotdiscusswhetherthecurrentpam entsunder
SBX2-11 are constitutionalunder the California Constitution. This is an
underlying question thatmust be answered before the panel can asslzme
anything aboutthe status of the currentpam ents. This issue,not co-

10
incidentally,ispresentlybeforetheCalifomiaCourtofAppealsintheongoing
Sturgeon case. UnderSturgeon,thenew pam entsalso WolateArticle Vl,
12
Section l9,oftheCaliforniaConstimtionbecausetheLegislature'sdutytoset
13
thecompensationofthejudgesstillcnnnotbedelegated.YettmderSBX2-11,
15 suchduty%delegatedtothecountiesinasmuchaseachcotmtysetsadifferent
amountofpaymentandstopssuchpaymentsatwill.

19 IV.AnEmergencyDecisionisNeededBecausetheCourthasReplacedthe
OppositionastheAdvocateinThisCase.
20
21
Actionisneedednow. TheMemorandum ofOpiniondemonslatesthat
22 thejudicialprocessinthiscasehasbeenafarce.SupremeCourtprecedent,as
23
shown above,isclear. ltsupportsFine. YetFinehasbeentmderttcoercive
24
25 incarceration''fornearly 10 months. TheCourthasdenied two unopposed
26 motionstosetFine9eeand oneunopposedmotion forreconsiderationtoset
27
28

-1
1-
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 15 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

Finegee. lthasalso denied an unopposed motion to p'

antthewriton the
openingbrief
Theothersidehasliterally ligiven up''. Thepanelhasthusbecomethe
advocateforjudicialcomzption.Thisshnm shouldce%eimmediately.
V. Conclusion.
Thepanelhaspresented aconclusive argumentfortheHouseJudiciary
Committee'scurrenthearingson theneedtodraftnew recusallegislationby
demonstratingthatthejudiciarycnnnotbe%stedtogovem itselfonrecusal
issues.

15
ThetimehascomeforthejudicialsophistrytoendandtheConstitutions
andRuleofLaw tobeobeyed.
Cllief Justice Ronald M.George stated in a speech to the American
18
19 Academy of AM on October 10,2009,thatthe Califomia governmentis
20 Etdysfllnctional'' HeshotlldHow. HeistheClziefJusticeoftheCalifomia
21
22 SupremeCourqhesupervisesthecomlptjudicialsystem andistheChm'rman
23 oftlleJudicialCouncilofCalifomiawhichdraûedSBX2-l1.
24
Unlesstheenbanchearing isFantedandthemitisgranted,theNinth
25
26 CircuitwillendorseCalifornia'scomzptionanddysfunction,leavingitscitizens
27 tosufferwithoutconstitutional protectionsunderthetyranny ofcriminalsin
28
judicialrobes.
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 16 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

1 JudgesReinhardt,TrottandWardlaw haveoptedforthesideofcri
minals
2
3
andconuption.Itisnow uptotheenbancCourttorestoretheConstitution,the
4 Rule ofLaw and the Republic. Fine respectfully requeststhatatzen banc
5 hearingbepanted, andthatthewritbeFanted,thereby fmally ending over
6
7 twentyyearsofaconuptCalifomiajudicialsystem.Torefusetodosowillbe
8 tocontinuetosubject38millionCalifonzianstojudicialcomzptiononalevel
9
10 fotmdonlyintheworstofthedevelopingandwar-tom countries.
11
12 Datedthis 19 dayofDecember,2009 Respectfullysublnitted,
13
14 BY:
RIC 1.FINE,
15 InProPer
16
17 V1.CertmcateofCompliance
18
19 1certifyunderFRAP Rule32(a)(7)(c)and CircuitRule32-1thatthis
20 COMBINED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING Ae
21 REHEARKNG EN BANC OF THE PANEL'S UNPUBLISHED NON-
22 PRECEDENT MEMOM NDUM DECISION AFFIRMING DISTRICT
aa COURT Ae DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS isproportionately
24 spaced,hasatypefaceof14points,andcontains2,700wordsaccordingtothe
25 wordprocessingsystem onwhichitwmsprepared.Thewordscountedarethose
26 illtheCOMBW ED EMERGENCY PETITION,pages1-13.
27
28 Dated:DecemberX 2009 BY: W/zxx> <Sö'I
-D&r
-
FRED SOTTILE
-1
3-
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 17 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

PROOFOFSERW CE

STATE OFCALWORNIA,
COUNTY OFLOSANGELES

1am FredSottile.Myadlessis2601E.VictoriaStreet,# 108,Rancho

Dominguez,CA 90220.
On December.../X,2009,1servedtheforegoingdocumentdescribedas
COm INED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARTNG AND
REHEARING EN BANC OF TRE PANEL'S UNPUBLISHED NON-
PRECEDENT G MORANDUM DECISION AFFIRMING DISTRICT
COURT AND DENYING WRIT OF HABEASCORPUSoninterestedparties
itltl
zisactionbydepositingatruecopythereotlwhichwasenclosedinasealed
envelopepwith postage fully prepaidpin the United States Mal
'
l,addressed as
follows:
AaronMitchellFontnnn KevinM.Mccormick
PaulB.Beach BENTON,ORR,DUVAL&BUCKTNGHAM
LAWRENCEBEACH ALLEN & CHOI,PC 39N.CaliforniaSleet
100WestBroadway,Ste.1200 P.O.Box1178
Glendale,CA 91210-1219 Ventura,CA 93002
lcertifyanddeclare,underpenaltyofperjurylmderthelawsoftheUlzited
StatesofAmericaand theStateofCalifomiw thatthe foregoing istrue and
con-ect.
Executedonthis /9 dayofDecember,2009,atRanchoDominguez,
California.

&= v
. No m w
FRED SOTTILE
c
a
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 18 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

Case:09-56073 12/16/2009 Page:1of3 DktEntry:7165909

FILED
NOTFOR PUBLICATION DEC 162009
UNITED STATESCOURTOFAPPEALS MOL
U.sL
.Y
COCOR
DT
WY
OFEAR/PCELAELR
SK

FORTI'
lENINTHCIRCUIT

RICHARD 1.FINE, No.09-56073

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C.No.2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
V.
MEMORANDUM *
SHERIFFOFLOSANGELESCOUNTY;
eta1.,
Respondents-Appellees.

Appealâom theUnitedStatesDistrictCourt
fortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia
JohnF.Walter,DistrictJudge,Presiding
SubmittedDecember10,2009**
Pasadena,Califomia
Before:REINHARDT,TROTTandWARDLAW,CircuitJudges.
RichardFineappealsfrom thedistrictcourt'sdenialofhispetitionfor
habeascorpus.Wehavejurisdictionpmsuantto28U.S.
C.j2253,andweaffmn.

Thisdispositionisnotappropriateforpublicationandisnotprecedent
exceptasprovidedby9thCk.R.36-3.
** Thepanelunanimouslyfmdsthiscasesuitablefordecisionwithout
oralargument.SeeFed.R.App.P.34(a)(2).
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 19 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

Case:09-56073 12/16/2009 Page:2of3 DktEntry:7165909

Thedistrictcout'tcorrectlyconcludedthatLosM gelesSuperiorCourt
JudgeYaffe'srefusaltorecusehimself9om Fine'scontemptproceedingswasnot
ççcontraryto,orinvol
vedantmreasonableapplicationotlclearlyestablishedfederal
law''oran(tmreasonabledeterminationofthefacts.''28U.S.C.j2254(d)' ,see
alsoJonesv.Ryan,583F.3d626,636(9thCir.2009)(denovoreview).Ajudge's
failuretorecusehimselfresultsinaconstittztionalviolationwhereCçtheprobability
ofactualbiasonthepartofthejudgeordecisionmakeristoohightobe
constitutionallytolerable.''Capertonv.A.T:MasseyCoalCo.,129S.Ct.2252,
2257(2009)(citationandquotationomi
tted).FineassertsthatJudgeYaffewas
intolerablybiasedbecausehereceivedemploymentbenefitsfrom LosAngeles
County,apartytotheunderlyinglitigation.However,unliketheckcllmstancesof
Caperton,JudgeYaffe'sreceiptofthesebenefitsdidnotgivehim a(tdirect
personal,substantial,pectmiaryinterest''inthematter.1d.at2259(citi
ngTumeyv.
Ohio,273U.S.510(1927:.NorwasJudgeYaffesoCç personallyembroiled''that
hecouldnotpresideimpartially.Craterv.Galaza,491F.3d1119,1132(9thCk.
2007).Fine'sargumentthatheççexposed''JudgeYaffeforreceivinglicriminal
payments''isbeliedbyaCaliforniastatuteexpressl yprovidingthatjudgesççshall
continuetoreceivesupplementalbenetitsfrom thecotmtyorcourtthenpayingthe
benefits.
''SeeCal.Gov.Codej68220,
.seealsoSturgeonv.Count
yofL.
A.,84
 Case: 09-56073 12/21/2009 Page: 20 of 20 DktEntry: 7176235

Case:09-56073 12/16/2009 Page:3of3 DktEntl

'y:7165909

Cal.Rptr.3d242(2008)(rejectingtaxpayer'scontentionthatjudicial
compensationwasanunconstitutionalwasteorgiftofpublicfunds,butfmding
thatjudicialcompensationrequiredstatutoryprescription).
AFFIRMED.