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
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794

LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 159|Likes:
Published by Honor in Justice

More info:

Published by: Honor in Justice on May 01, 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

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per Prisoner ID # 1824367c/o Men’s Central Jail441 Bauchet
 
StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of February 8, 2010, Richard I. Fine(hereinafter referred to as “Fine”) demands an immediate “Farr Hearing” to beheard no later than March 31, 2010. The purpose of the hearing is to determine:
A.
If there was, as of March 4, 2009, or any time thereafter through the present, “no substantial likelihood that the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of 
-1-
MARINA STRAND COLONY IIHOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,Petitioner,vs.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al,Respondents.DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE;DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE NORTH,Real Parties In Interest.Case No. BS 109420DEMAND FOR AN IMMEDIATE“FARR HEARING” NO LATER THAN 3/31/10 PURSUANT TOCOURT’S 2/3/10 MINUTE ORDER DATE:TIME:COURTROOM: Dept. 86 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Contempt would serve its coercive purpose; and
B.
When the commitment became punitive in nature and subject to the5-day statutory limitation of CCP § 1218 (see
 In Re Farr,
36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584(1974), cited in
 In Re William T. Farr 
on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3
rd
605,611-612 (1976).As shown in Fine’s Demand of January 27, 2010, Fine contends that theincarceration should not have occurred. A true and correct copy of the Demandand Memorandum of Points and Authorities marked as Exhibit “A” is attached tothe Declaration of Richard I. Fine (the “Fine Declaration”) and incorporatedherein by this reference as if set forth in full.The February 3, 2010 Minute Order at pages 1 and 2 affirms: “Fine statedto the Court that he would not answer questions put to him at a Judgment Debtor Examination until he exhausts his right to petition for Habeas Corpus”. Thisconcession and admission by Judge Yaffe, who is also Fine’s direct adversary inthis case (as he appeared personally in the writ proceedings), shows that therewas “no substantial likelihood” on March 4, 2009, or any time thereafter, that theMarch 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt would serve its “coercive” purposes.The commitment became “punitive” on March 4, 2009 and should haveended 5 days later, on March 9, 2009. It has now been almost 13 months, and asshown in the Fine Declaration, Fine will still not be coerced into answering the
-2-
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
questions.The admission of Judge Yaffe, as set forth above in the Minute Order,dispels and invalidates any argument in the Minute Order at page 1, paragraph 3,that the incarceration is anything but punitive.Further, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed and served withthe Demand referred to the 3/4/09 sentencing transcript at page 8, line 8, to page9, line 14, and page 16, line 18, to page 25, line 3, which emphasized that Finewas not going to answer the questions. There is no way that Judge Yaffe couldconclude in the Minute Order that the Judgment and Order of Contempt wasanything but punitive, when both Judge Yaffe and the transcript agree that Finesaid he would not answer the questions while the appeals were proceeding.Judge Yaffe’s statement at paragraph 2 of page 1 of the Minute Order isalso very “off the wall”. The 1/27/10 Demand and Memorandum of Points andAuthorities refers to the same arguments to disqualify Judge Yaffe as have beenused throughout the case.Judge Yaffe’s denial of service is also very strange as the 2/10/10 letter from Fred Sottile shows that service was made in Judge Yaffe’s courtroom, witha copy for him and his “clerk” who verbally advised Mr. Sottile that “one copy isenough”.The Declaration of Richard I Fine, incorporated herein as if set forth in full,states all the reasons to grant the within demand.
-3-

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
mbgmbgmbg liked this
Betsy Combier liked this

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)//-->