RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per
Prisoner ID # 1824367
c/o Men\u2019s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
28 USC \u00a7 455(a) mandates disqualification of Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw. It states that any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in \u201cany proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.\u201d
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGES
REINHARDT, TROTT AND
WARDLAW FOR NOT HAVING
DISCLOSED VIOLATIONS OF 28
USC \u00a7 455(a), AND TO VOID THE
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
AND OTHER ORDERS
The \u201ctrial judge\u201d was Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe. His actions were that he took illegal payments from Los Angeles County, who was a party before him in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners
No. BS109420. He did not disclose the payments. He made an order that Appellant Richard I. Fine (\u201cFine\u201d) should pay LA County and its co-applicant for an Environmental Impact Report (\u201cEIR\u201d) attorney\u2019s fees and costs without notice to Fine, without Fine being present at the hearing, and in violation of the California Public Resources Code. Fine had previously left the case. Judge Yaffe then \u201cjudged his own actions\u201d by presiding over a contempt proceeding to enforce the order and its progeny.
12/23/08. This included the payments to Judge Yaffe. The county payments to judges, including the LA County payments to Judge Yaffe, were acknowledged to be criminal in Senate Bill SBX2-11, enacted February 20, 2009, effective May.21, 2009. Such Bill gave retroactive immunity from May 21st to any \u201cgovernmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity\u201d from \u201c[civil] liability or ... [criminal] prosecution or disciplinary action because of
The crimes included misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice and bribery. Those committing the crimes and receiving immunity under Senate Bill SBX2-11 were LA County, LA County Supervisors, and LA Superior Court judges, including Judge Yaffe.
Judge Yaffe ultimately admitted to taking payments from LA County under questioning by Fine when Fine challenged his order in the Marina Strand case and again when Judge Yaffe was a witness in the contempt proceeding over which he also presided.
On these facts, the US Supreme Court precedents were clear. Judge Yaffe could not be a judge in the contempt proceeding where he was \u201cjudging his own actions\u201d. The Court recited the general rule that \u201cno man can be a judge in his own case\u201d, adding that \u201cno man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.\u201dIn Re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136 (1955) cited in Caperton v.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?