Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 65 - Motion to Disqualify Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw

9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 65 - Motion to Disqualify Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 133|Likes:
Published by Honor in Justice
RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per Prisoner ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD I. FINE, Appellant and Petitioner, vs. SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al, Appellees and Respondents Case No. 09-56073 D.C. No. 2:09-CV-01914 JFW (CW) D.C. No. 2:09-CV-07943 JFW (CW) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGES REINHARDT, TROTT AND WARDLAW FOR NOT
RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per Prisoner ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD I. FINE, Appellant and Petitioner, vs. SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al, Appellees and Respondents Case No. 09-56073 D.C. No. 2:09-CV-01914 JFW (CW) D.C. No. 2:09-CV-07943 JFW (CW) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGES REINHARDT, TROTT AND WARDLAW FOR NOT

More info:

Published by: Honor in Justice on Feb 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/01/2013

pdf

text

original

123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per
Prisoner ID # 1824367
c/o Men\u2019s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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

In this appeal of the denial of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the
certified question was: \u201cwhether the trial judge should have recused himself.\u201d
-1-
RICHARD I. FINE,
Appellant and Petitioner,
vs.
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, et al,
Appellees and Respondents
Case No. 09-56073
D.C. No. 2:09-CV-01914 JFW (CW)
D.C. No. 2:09-CV-07943 JFW (CW)

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

28 U SC 455(a)
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

Association v. County of Los Angeles (the \u201cMarina Strand\u201d case), LASC Case

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.

The LA County payments to Los Angeles Superior Court judges were held
to violate Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution in the case of
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), review denied

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

-2-
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
benefits provided to a judge ... [that] were not authorized under law.\u201d {2009 Cal.
Legis. Serv. Sec. Sess. Chap. 9 (F.D. 11).

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.

A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., et al, 566 U.S. ___, (2009), decided 6/8/09, Slip
Opinion page 10. Judge Yaffe had an interest in the outcome of all cases in
which LA County was a party.
Judge Yaffe was bound to have recused himself at the outset of theM arina
Strand case due to the criminal payments (bribery) made to him from LA County.
-3-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->