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)
DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE; DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE NORTH,
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.
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
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:
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
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.
(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.
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.
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
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?