1

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4

5 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

6
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
7

8
RICHARD I. FINE, Case No. 09-56073
Appellant and Petitioner,
9 D.C. No. 2:09-CV-01914 JFW (CW)
10 vs. D.C. No. 2:09-CV-07943 JFW (CW)
11
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGES
12 SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES REINHARDT, TROTT AND
COUNTY, et al, WARDLAW FOR NOT HAVING
13
Appellees and Respondents DISCLOSED VIOLATIONS OF 28
14 USC § 455(a), AND TO VOID THE
15 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
AND OTHER ORDERS
16

17
28 USC 455(a)
18

19
28 USC § 455(a) mandates disqualification of Judges Reinhardt, Trott and

20 Wardlaw. It states that any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United
21
States shall disqualify himself in “any proceeding in which his impartiality might
22

23 reasonably be questioned.”
24
In this appeal of the denial of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the
25

26 certified question was: “whether the trial judge should have recused himself.”
27

28

-1-
 1
The “trial judge” was Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe.
2 His actions were that he took illegal payments from Los Angeles County, who
3
was a party before him in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners
4

5 Association v. County of Los Angeles (the “Marina Strand” case), LASC Case
6
No. BS109420. He did not disclose the payments. He made an order that
7

8 Appellant Richard I. Fine (“Fine”) should pay LA County and its co-applicant for
9
an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) attorney’s fees and costs without notice
10
to Fine, without Fine being present at the hearing, and in violation of the
11

12 California Public Resources Code. Fine had previously left the case. Judge
13
Yaffe then “judged his own actions” by presiding over a contempt proceeding to
14

15 enforce the order and its progeny.

16
The LA County payments to Los Angeles Superior Court judges were held
17

18
to violate Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution in the case of

19 Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), review denied
20
12/23/08. This included the payments to Judge Yaffe. The county payments to
21

22 judges, including the LA County payments to Judge Yaffe, were acknowledged

23
to be criminal in Senate Bill SBX2-11, enacted February 20, 2009, effective
24

25 May.21, 2009. Such Bill gave retroactive immunity from May 21st to any
26
“governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity” from
27
“[civil] liability or ... [criminal] prosecution or disciplinary action because of
28

-2-
 1
benefits provided to a judge ... [that] were not authorized under law.” {2009 Cal.
2 Legis. Serv. Sec. Sess. Chap. 9 (F.D. 11).
3
The crimes included misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice and
4

5 bribery. Those committing the crimes and receiving immunity under Senate Bill
6
SBX2-11 were LA County, LA County Supervisors, and LA Superior Court
7

8 judges, including Judge Yaffe.

9
Judge Yaffe ultimately admitted to taking payments from LA County under
10
questioning by Fine when Fine challenged his order in the Marina Strand case
11

12 and again when Judge Yaffe was a witness in the contempt proceeding over
13
which he also presided.
14

15 On these facts, the US Supreme Court precedents were clear. Judge Yaffe
16
could not be a judge in the contempt proceeding where he was “judging his own
17

18
actions”. The Court recited the general rule that “no man can be a judge in his

19 own case”, adding that “no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest
20
in the outcome.” In Re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136 (1955) cited in Caperton v.
21

22 A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., et al, 566 U.S. ___, (2009), decided 6/8/09, Slip
23
Opinion page 10. Judge Yaffe had an interest in the outcome of all cases in
24

25 which LA County was a party.

26
Judge Yaffe was bound to have recused himself at the outset of the Marina
27
Strand case due to the criminal payments (bribery) made to him from LA County.
28

-3-
 1
“A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding,
2 does not give the appearance of justice”. Offutt v. U.S., 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954).
3
This was cited in Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960), which reaffirmed
4

5 the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”.

6
LA County’s “significant and disproportionate influence” on Judge Yaffe
7

8 consisting of an annual payment of $46,363, which was 27% of his $178,800

9
state salary, “coupled with the temporal relationship” between the time of the
10
payments and the Marina Strand case, which was concurrent, “offer a possible
11

12 temptation to the average ... judge to ... lead him not to hold the balance nice,
13
clear and true”, which was forbidden by Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion page 16,
14

15 citing to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825 (1986), quoting Ward v.
16
Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60 (1972) in turn quoting Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S.
17

18
510, 532 (1927).

19 The not-for-publication, non-precedent Memorandum decision of Judges

20
Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw violated all of the above U.S. Supreme Court
21

22 precedents.
23
This violation of precedent indicated that something was terribly wrong and
24

25 not being disclosed by the judges for such a blatant violation of Supreme Court
26
precedents to occur, bringing into question the integrity of the panel members.
27

28

-4-
 1
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in a concurring
2 opinion in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) cited in
3
Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion page 19: “Courts in our system elaborate
4

5 principles of law in the course of resolving disputes. The power and the
6
prerogative of a court to perform this function rests, in the end, upon the respect
7

8 accorded to its judgments. The citizens’ respect for judges depends in turn upon
9
the issuing court’s absolute probity. Judicial integrity is, in consequence, a state
10
interest of the highest order.”
11

12 The integrity of Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw has been

13
compromised by their non-disclosure of significant conflicts of interest which
14

15 render them incapable of holding the balance “nice, clear and true.” The
16
conflicts of interest include the following:
17

18
Judge Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston, as stated in the January 4,

19 2010 Los Angeles Times article “Billboard Lawsuit Targets Free Speech”.1 Such
20
article further states that Ramona Ripston sits on an LA County / LA City
21

22 commission dealing with the homeless and is “head” of the ACLU of Southern
23
California (“ACLU-SC”).
24

25 In settlement of the case alleging below-standard conditions at LA County

26
jails, Rutherford (represented by ACLU-SC) v. Sheriff Block (now current Sheriff
27

28
1
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-freespeech4-2010jan04,0,4678395.story

-5-
 1
Leroy Baca) and the LA County Board of Supervisors, et al, USDC case no. 75-
2 CV-04111 (DDP), a jail monitoring program was designed in which the ACLU-
3
SC would monitor conditions.2 Although the latest ACLU annual report (2007-
4

5 20083) and tax return4 are silent as to the specifics of its sources of income, and
6
online budgets for LA County are silent as to specific budget items to pay for the
7

8 program (in similar fashion as to how the illegal payments to judges were kept
9
hidden for 21+ years), the County is certainly paying the ACLU for its activities
10
in this decades-long project. And Ramona Ripston, the Chief Executive Officer
11

12 of the ACLU-SC, is known to have donated to the election campaign of County

13
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas,5 a member of the entity which authorized the
14

15 continuing payments to judges.

16
The family and financial relation between Judge Reinhardt, Ramona
17

18
Ripston and LA County, who is an interested party in this case and who has

19 received retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for its criminal

20
payments to Judge Yaffe under Senate Bill SBX2-11, mandates the recusal of
21

22 Judge Reinhardt.
23

24

25
2
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/494.php
26
3
http://www.aclu-sc.org/documents/view/21
27
4
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/952/952673361/952673361_200803_990.pdf
28
5
http://efs.lacounty.gov/public_search_results.cfm?rept_type=ALLCon

-6-
 1
Judge Reinhardt also acts as Trustee for three entities whose identities are
2 redacted on his financial disclosure form,6 raising the question of why their
3
identities are disguised and whether Judge Reinhardt is conflicted in the present
4

5 case.
6
Judge Trott was a member of the LA County District Attorney’s office for
7

8 fifteen years, from 1966 to 1981, according to his judicial biography.7 He is

9
presently receiving an annual pension of $12,000 from LA County, as shown on
10
his financial disclosure form.8
11

12 His financial parity with LA County, who is an interested party and who
13
received retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for making criminal
14

15 payments to Judge Yaffe under SBX2-11, mandates the disqualification of Judge

16
Trott.
17

18
Judge Wardlaw is married to William M. (Bill) Wardlaw, according to the

19 same aforementioned January 4, 2010 interview cited in Footnote 1 hereto. Bill

20
Wardlaw is presently a partner in the investment bank firm Freeman, Spogli and
21

22 Co. He is also well known as a “political power broker” in Los Angeles. One of
23
his well-known endeavors was to attempt to convince LA County Supervisor Zev
24

25

26
6
http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Reinhardt_Stephen_R/2008.pdf
27
7
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2416
28
8
http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Trott_Stephen_S/2008.pdf

-7-
 1
Yaroslavsky to leave his position as a supervisor and run for mayor of Los
2 Angeles in 2004, according to the same aforementioned January 2005 interview.
3
LA County campaign contribution reports show that Bill Wardlaw and
4

5 members of the firm of Freeman, Spogli & Co. have contributed to the following
6
LA County Supervisors (and District Attorneys who protect the supervisors from
7

8 prosecution):
9

10 Donor Date Amount Recipient

11
Freeman 04/02/07 $1,000 Antonovich
12

13 Freeman 05/08/07 $1,000 Cooley (D.A.)

14
Wardlaw 09/16/07 $1,000 Cooley (D.A.)
15

16
Wardlaw 12/05/07 $500 Yaroslavsky

17
This close relationship between the Wardlaw family and LA County
18

19 Supervisor Yaroslavsky, who authorized criminal payments to Judge Yaffe and

20
who has received criminal immunity from SBX2-11, mandates the
21

22 disqualification of Judge Wardlaw.

23
Judge Wardlaw sits as director and board member for three entities whose
24

25
identities are redacted on her financial disclosure form. Her form does disclose,

26 however, her ownership of various bonds offered by LA County with an

27
unspecified investment value. Many of Judge Wardlaw’s 1,000+ stock and bond
28

-8-
 1
transactions are also redacted, making her disclosures far short of “full,” and
2 raising the question of whether the specifics of any disguised transaction is
3
relevant to the issues herein. Her form also makes the apparently false statement
4

5 that her husband receives no non-investment income whatsoever, yet he is a

6
partner at Freeman, Spogli.9
7

8 The foregoing mandates the disqualification of Judge Wardlaw.

9
The disqualifications of Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw also mandate
10
the voiding of their not-for-publication, non-precedent Memorandum decision as
11

12 they did not have the authority to render the decision.

13
The Supreme Court has consistently held that a void order is void at all
14

15 times, cannot be made valid by any judge, nor does it gain validity after the
16
passage of time. The order is void ab initio. Valley v. Northern Fire and Marine
17

18
Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920). No court has the lawful authority to validate a void

19 order. U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878).

20
Additionally, all orders made by Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw in
21

22 this case are void, including, but not limited to, the denial of the Petition for Writ
23
of Mandate, which related to a second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
24

25 alleging violations of 28 USC § 2243 by US District Court Judge John F. Walter

26
and Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle. They “judged their own actions” and
27

28
9
http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Wardlaw_Kim_M/2007.pdf

-9-
 1
denied the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Writ of Habeas Corpus also charged
2 Judge Yaffe and the LA County Sheriff with unlawfully holding Fine from the
3
outset and beyond the five-day limit of CCP § 1218. Judges Reinhardt, Trott and
4

5 Wardlaw violated Supreme Court precedent, Murchison, by denying the Petition

6
for Writ of Mandate.
7

8 Fine respectfully requests that 28 USC § 455(a) be followed, Judges

9
Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw be disqualified, the Memorandum decision be
10
voided, the Petition for Writ of Mandate be granted, and that a new panel or the
11

12 Court en banc grant the present writ.

13

14
Dated this _____ day of February, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
15

16
BY: _________________________
17 RICHARD I. FINE,
18
In Pro Per

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-10-
 PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho

Dominguez, CA 90220.
On February ___, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGES REINHARDT, TROTT AND
WARDLAW FOR NOT HAVING DISCLOSED VIOLATIONS OF 28 USC §
455(a) AND TO VOID THE MEMORANDUM OF DECISION on interested
parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a
sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed as
follows:

Aaron Mitchell Fontana Kevin M. McCormick

Paul B. Beach BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM
LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 39 N. California Street
100 West Broadway, Ste. 1200 P.O. Box 1178
Glendale, CA 91210-1219 Ventura, CA 93002

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United

States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and

correct.

Executed on this _____ day of February, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez,

California.
 1

2
____________________________________
FRED SOTTILE
3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-12-