1

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4
(Former Counsel for Marina Strand
5 Colony II Homeowners Association)
6

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
9

10 MARINA STRAND COLONY II Case No. BS 109420

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
11
NOTICE OF HEARING TO ORDER
12 Petitioner, RELEASE OF RICHARD I. FINE
13 vs. FROM L.A. COUNTY JAIL IF THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NOT
14
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al, EFFECTIVELY DONE SO AT ITS
15 MAY 20, 2010 CONFERENCE ON
Respondents. CASE NO. 09-1250, RICHARD I.
16
FINE V. LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF
17 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
18 DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE; DATE: May 26, 2010
19
DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE TIME: 9:30 AM
NORTH, COURTROOM: Dept. 86
20

Real Parties In Interest. Trial Date: 12/22/2008

21
_______________________________
22

23

24
NOTICE OF FARR HEARING

25
To all parties and attorneys of record:
26

27 Please take notice that a Farr Hearing to order the release of Richard I. Fine
28
from the Los Angeles County jail will occur on May 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM in

-1-
 1
Department 86 of the aforementioned courthouse located at 111 North Hill Street,
2 Los Angeles, CA 90012, in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court has not
3
effectively ordered such release at its May 20, 2010 conference in the case of
4

5 Richard I. Fine v. Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, case no. 09-
6
1250.
7

8 Pursuant to a “Waiver” filed April 23, 2010 in the U.S. Supreme Court, all
9
respondents, including the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe, in case no. 09-
10
1250, waived their right to file a response to the petition for Writ of Certiorari.
11

12 By this “Waiver”, all respondents did not contest that:

13
(1) Judge Yaffe should have recused himself in the instant case of
14

15 Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles;

16
(2) Judge Yaffe had “judged his own actions” in the case and
17

18
(3) Judge Yaffe was “embroiled with Fine”.

19 The Respondents, by waiving their rights to respond to the Petition for

20
Certiorari, did not contest that Judge Yaffe’s actions violated constitutional due
21

22 process, and the U.S. Supreme Court precedent upholding such.

23
Judge Yaffe’s own admissions that he received payments from LA County,
24

25 a party to the case before him, further mandated his recusal and disqualification
26
from the case from its outset under California law, irrespective of any
27
constitutional due process violations. These admissions were made by Judge
28

-2-
 1
Yaffe in response to questioning by Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”) on
2 March 20, 2008 in open court and again when Judge Yaffe was a witness in the
3
contempt proceeding on December 22, 2008 under questioning by Fine.
4

5 Judge Yaffe knew at all times that he could not take any payments from LA
6
County. Canon 4D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics states:
7

8 (1) A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that
9 (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s
judicial position, or
10
(b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing
11
business relationships with lawyers or other persons
12 likely to appear before the court on which the judge
serves.
13
The Advisory Note states that this Canon includes “persons likely to appear
14

15 either before the judge personally or before other judges on the judge’s court.”
16
Judge Yaffe’s taking the payments from LA County mandated both his
17

18 disqualification in the case and his disclosure of the payments on the record at the
19
outset of the case.
20
CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) states in relevant part:
21

22 “A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the

23
following is true:
24
For any reason: …. A person aware of the facts might
reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be
25 impartial.”
26

27

28

-3-
 1
Canon 3E(1) and (2) mandates that Judge Yaffe disclose the LA County
2 payments on the record at the commencement of the case to disqualify himself at
3
the commencement of the case. Such Canon states as follows:
4

5 (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any procedure in which

6
disqualification is required by law.

7
(2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record,
information that is reasonably relevant to the question of
8 disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, even if
9 the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.
10 Judge Yaffe deliberately concealed the LA County payments from June 14,
11
2007, when the case was filed until March 20, 2008, when he admitted to such
12

13 under questioning by Fine. He does not deny that he should have been
14
disqualified and does not deny his violation of the law. He concealed and tried to
15

16
excuse his unlawful conduct by arguing in the Judgment and Order of Contempt

17 dated March 4, 2009 (at page 13, lines 13-23) that Fine should have disqualified
18
Judge Yaffe on June 14, 2007, when the case was filed, based upon the LA
19

20 County payments instead of waiting until March 2008 after Judge Yaffe admitted
21
to the payments. Judge Yaffe deliberately ignored the requirements of Canon
22

23
3E(1) and (2) that he was the one responsible to disclose the payments on the
24
record and disqualify himself as required by CCP § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii). Judge
25
Yaffe further deliberately ignored the requirement under Canon 4D(1) that he not
26

27 accept any payments from LA County, which also required the disclosure of the
28
violation of such Canon and his self-disqualification.

-4-
 1
At all times from June 14, 2007 onwards, Judge Yaffe was violating
2 California law by presiding over the case and not disqualifying himself.
3
LA County was an active partner with Judge Yaffe in these violations as it
4

5 knew that it had made the payments to Judge Yaffe. It also concealed the
6
payments and the violations.
7

8 Further, LA County, its County Counsel, and the LA Superior Court and its
9
judges, including Judge Yaffe, knew that the LA County payments to the LA
10
Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California
11

12 Constitution as far back as November 10, 1988, over 22 years ago.

13
A letter dated November 19, 1988 to Frank S. Zolin, County
14

15 Clerk/Executive Officer of the Superior Court, from Roger M. Whitby, Senior

16
Assistant LA County Counsel, approved by DeWitt W. Clinton, County Counsel,
17

18
acknowledged that the payments were “compensation,” that under Article VI,

19 Section 19, of the California Constitution, that the State Legislature “prescribes”
20
the compensation of the judges, that this duty is not delegable (see County of
21

22 Madera v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App. 3d 665 (1974), cited in the letter) and that
23
“compensation” includes benefits (see 59 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 496, 61 Ops. Cal.
24

25 Atty. Gen. 38,8 cited in the letter) at pages 1 and 2 and that the “Superior Court
26
judges are technically state constitutional officers…” at page 6.
27

28

-5-
 1
This position was upheld in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
2 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), review denied 12/23/08.
3
After the Sturgeon decision, the LA County payments were acknowledged
4

5 to be criminal in Senate Bill SBx2-11, enacted on February 20, 2009, effective

6
May 21, 2009, which stated in relevant part:
7

8 “Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be
9
subject to [criminal] prosecution action because of benefits provided
10 to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to
the effective date of this act on the ground that those benefits were not
11
authorized under law. 2009 Cal. Legis. Serv., 2d Ex. Sess., Chap 9
12 (SB11).”
13
Thus, at the time that Judge Yaffe made his statements on March 4, 2009,
14

15
he also knew that he not only should have disqualified himself on June 14, 2007,

16 but that the LA County payments were unconstitutional under Article VI, Section
17
19, from the outset, as shown in the November 10, 1988, letter and that the
18

19 payments were criminal.

20
The form of the criminal conduct was bribery. As shown in the Exhibit “6”
21

22 to Fine’s March 25, 2008 CCP objection to Judge Yaffe, in FY 2007-2008, no

23
LA Superior Court judge decided a case in favor of a party against LA County.
24
Further, in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v.
25

26 County of Los Angeles, both LA County and its attorneys, and Del Rey Shores
27
Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North and their attorneys,
28

-6-
 1
concealed the fact the Board of Supervisors’ May 15, 2007 vote approving the
2 Environmental Impact Report for the Del Rey Shores project was illegal.
3
The votes of Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe were illegal because they
4

5 violated the Political Reform Act by voting within twelve months of receiving
6
contributions greater than $500 from an interested party. (See Breakstone
7

8 Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4th 1205 (2000).)

9
The contributors who made such contributions were Jerry B. Epstein, the
10
Managing Partner of the Del Rey Shores entities, and David D. Levine, his “chief
11

12 of staff.” After the contributions were exposed by Fine, Judge Yaffe did not
13
invalidate the Environmental Impact Report, demonstrating conclusively that the
14

15 LA County payments to him were taken as a “bribe.”

16
Further proof of the bribe occurred when Judge Yaffe did not invalidate the
17

18
Environmental Impact Report after Fine showed that it did not show any positive

19 financial benefit to LA County, which it was required to show. R.J. Comer, one
20
of the attorneys for Del Rey Shores, when placed on the witness stand, could not
21

22 show any specific page and line number of the Environmental Impact Report
23
which showed a positive financial benefit to LA County.
24

25 At the same time, LA County was giving an unnecessary $11 million rent
26
credit to Del Rey Shores for “low and medium cost housing”, which they were
27
mandated to provide under the Mello-Roos Act.
28

-7-
 1
Judge Yaffe did not invalidate the Environmental Impact Report for that
2 clear violation, showing the effect of the LA County payments as a “bribe.”
3
Judge Yaffe’s refusal to disqualify himself, in violation of California law,
4

5 resulted in the void orders in the March 4, 2010 Judgment and Order of
6
Contempt. As Judge Yaffe did not have the jurisdiction to preside over the
7

8 Marina Strand case, he did not have the jurisdiction to make any orders in such
9
case, nor did he have jurisdiction to preside over the ancillary contempt
10
proceeding or make any orders in such proceeding. All such orders were void ab
11

12 initio and could not be validated by another court. (A void order is void ab initio.
13
Valley v. Northern Fire and Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920) – no court has
14

15 lawful authority to validate a void order; U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61

16
(1878) – all orders based on void orders are themselves void; Austin v. Smith, 312
17

18
F 2d 337, 343 (1962) – “if the underlying judgment is void, the judgment based

19 upon it is void”.)
20
Thus any order for Fine to pay attorney’s fees and sanctions (January 8,
21

22 2008) and any subsequent order to pay a specific amount (April 15, 2008), and
23
any attempts and orders to enforce such orders at judgment debtor proceedings,
24

25 and any attempts and orders to enforce the orders of the judgment debtor
26
proceeding at contempt proceedings, are and were void.
27

28

-8-
 1
Additionally, any Judgment and Order of Contempt for practicing law while
2 inactive or without a license is, and was, void as it was made as a result of a void
3
contempt proceeding which was the result of a void Order to Show Cause in the
4

5 Marina Strand case in which Judge Yaffe did not have jurisdiction to preside.
6
Further, Judge Yaffe knew that such Judgment and Order of Contempt was
7

8 false as he stated at page 9, lines 24-25, of the March 4, 2009 transcript: “I didn’t
9
think that there was a court order that you violated on this.”
10
As a matter of note, Fine had brought a federal civil rights suit, Richard I.
11

12 Fine v. State Bar of California; the Board of Governors of the State Bar of
13
California; Scott Drexel, Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California; and
14

15 the Supreme Court of California - as a necessary party only - for fraud upon the
16
Court, USDC case no. CV-10-0048, to invalidate the disbarment. As of the
17

18
present time, the State Bar defendants have defaulted and filed a late and

19 frivolous Motion to Dismiss. The Court has entered an Order to Show Cause
20
why the Motion to Dismiss should not be stricken and a default entered. The
21

22 California Supreme Court has defaulted and filed its own late and frivolous
23
Motion to Dismiss. Fine has filed a Request to Enter Default, Response to
24

25 Motion to Dismiss, and Motion to Strike the California Supreme Court’s Motion
26
to Dismiss.
27

28

-9-
 1
All of the above information demonstrates that Judge Yaffe’s March 4,
2 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt ordering Fine’s “coercive confinement”
3
in the LA County jail violated California law, in addition to any constitutional
4

5 violations of due process.

6
As such, the Order of “coercive confinement” would not, did not, and has
7

8 not served its “coercive purpose.” It was penal from the outset of March 4, 2009.
9
(See In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), cited in In Re William T. Farr
10
on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976).
11

12 Fine has been incarcerated for almost fifteen months. He has not been, and
13
cannot be, “coerced” to conform to void orders imposed by corrupt judges,
14

15 including Judge Yaffe, who had received criminal payments from LA County for
16
the last 23 years. Fine believes that the actions of the judges, by taking the illegal
17

18
payments and bribes and presiding over the cases in which the person/entity who

19 bribed them is a party, have not only destroyed our judicial system, but have also
20
destroyed a fundamental basis of our democracy: the right to a fair, impartial and
21

22 just judiciary in a country which is devoted to follow and obey the “Rule of
23
Law.”
24

25 The actions of the judges have removed that fundamental basis and the
26
country is left with the “rule of corruption”, enforced by “criminals in judicial
27

28

-10-
 1
robes” who have been given immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability
2 and disciplinary action.
3
This tyranny of corruption has not broken Fine, nor will it break the
4

5 citizenry. In 1776, the citizenry faced the same problem with a king who was
6
paying the judges and ensuring their tenure. The citizenry sent him a message,
7

8 the Declaration of Independence.

9
Judge Yaffe and all of the California judges and justices from the Superior
10
Courts, to the Court of Appeal, to the California Supreme Court, who received
11

12 immunity from criminal prosecution under Senate Bill SBx2-11, knew that the
13
March 4, 2009 Order of coercive confinement was void in that Judge Yaffe did
14

15 not have the jurisdiction to make the Order, and that said Order was not
16
“coercive” but “penal” from the outset in that it did not “coerce” Fine to submit
17

18
to a void and illegal Order.

19 Fine should not have been incarcerated on March 4, 2009 and must be freed
20
now.
21

22

23
Dated this 17th day of May, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

24

25 BY: _________________________
RICHARD I. FINE,
26
In Pro Per
27

28

-11-
 PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho

Dominguez, CA 90220. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party
to the above-entitled action.
On May 17, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as 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 on interested parties in this action by depositing a true
copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid,
in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

Kevin M. McCormick Elaine M. Lemke

Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham Principal Deputy County Counsel
39 N. California Street LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OFF.
P.O. Box 1178 500 West Temple Street
Ventura, CA 93002 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713

Joshua Lee Rosen R.J. Comer

Joshua L Rosen Law Offices Armbruster & Goldsmith, LLP
5905 Sherbourne Drive 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100
Los Angeles , CA 90056 Los Angeles, CA 90024

Rose M. Zoia
50 Old Courthouse Square, Ste.401
Santa Rosa, CA 95404

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed on this 17th day of May, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez,
California.
 1
____________________________________
FRED SOTTILE
2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-13-