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
Fine's Notice of Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - LASC - BS092794

Fine's Notice of Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - LASC - BS092794

Ratings: (0)|Views: 207|Likes:
Published by Honor in Justice

More info:

Published by: Honor in Justice on May 19, 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
(Former Counsel for Marina Strand
Colony II Homeowners Association)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF FARR HEARING
To all parties and attorneys of record:
Please take notice that a Farr Hearing to order the release of Richard I. Fine
from the Los Angeles County jail will occur on May 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM in
-1-
MARINA STRAND COLONY II
HOMEOWNERS 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 109420

NOTICE OF HEARING TO ORDER
RELEASE OF RICHARD I. FINE
FROM L.A. COUNTY JAIL IF THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NOT
EFFECTIVELY DONE SO AT ITS
MAY 20, 2010 CONFERENCE ON
CASE NO. 09-1250, RICHARD I.

FINE V. LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DATE: May 26, 2010
TIME: 9:30 AM
COURTROOM: Dept. 86
Trial Date: 12/22/2008
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Department 86 of the aforementioned courthouse located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court has not effectively ordered such release at its May 20, 2010 conference in the case of

Richard I. Fine v. Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, case no. 09-
1250.

Pursuant to a \u201cWaiver\u201d filed April 23, 2010 in the U.S. Supreme Court, all respondents, including the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe, in case no. 09- 1250, waived their right to file a response to the petition for Writ of Certiorari. By this \u201cWaiver\u201d, all respondents did not contest that:

(1)
Judge Yaffe should have recused himself in the instant case of
Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles;
(2) Judge Yaffe had \u201cjudged his own actions\u201d in the case and
(3)
Judge Yaffe was \u201cembroiled with Fine\u201d.

The Respondents, by waiving their rights to respond to the Petition for Certiorari, did not contest that Judge Yaffe\u2019s actions violated constitutional due process, and the U.S. Supreme Court precedent upholding such.

Judge Yaffe\u2019s own admissions that he received payments from LA County, a party to the case before him, further mandated his recusal and disqualification from the case from its outset under California law, irrespective of any constitutional due process violations. These admissions were made by Judge

-2-
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Yaffe in response to questioning by Richard I. Fine (hereinafter \u201cFine\u201d) on March 20, 2008 in open court and again when Judge Yaffe was a witness in the contempt proceeding on December 22, 2008 under questioning by Fine.

Judge Yaffe knew at all times that he could not take any payments from LA
County. Canon 4D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics states:
(1) A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that
(a)
may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge\u2019s
judicial position, or

(b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves.

The Advisory Note states that this Canon includes \u201cpersons likely to appear
either before the judge personally or before other judges on the judge\u2019s court.\u201d

Judge Yaffe\u2019s taking the payments from LA County mandated both his disqualification in the case and his disclosure of the payments on the record at the outset of the case.

CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) states in relevant part:
\u201cA judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the
following is true:

For any reason: \u2026. A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.\u201d

-3-

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
FredSottile liked this
mbgmbgmbg liked this
James Jones 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)//-->