Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword or section
Like this

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
USDC - Fine v State Bar IIa (1)

USDC - Fine v State Bar IIa (1)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,377|Likes:
Published by Leslie Dutton
Richard I Fine's filing against State Bar of California for "Fraud Upon the Court"
Richard I Fine's filing against State Bar of California for "Fraud Upon the Court"

More info:

Published by: Leslie Dutton on May 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





RICHARD I. FINEPrisoner ID # 1824367c/o Men’s Central Jail441 Bauchet
StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012
Summary of Action
Plaintiff RICHARD I. FINE seeks an order voiding and annulling theState Bar Hearing Department’s October 12, 2007 Order of Involuntary InactiveEnrollment, effective October 17, 2007, entered by State Bar Court JudgeRichard A. Honn, which was not affirmed in the denial of a Petition for Review by the California Supreme Court, and an order voiding and annulling the StateRICHARD I. FINE,Plaintiff,vs.STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THESTATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;SCOTT DREXEL, Chief TrialCounsel of the State Bar of California;and THE SUPREME COURT OFCALIFORNIA (only as a necessary party);Defendants.Case No.VERIFIED CIVIL RIGHTSCOMPLAINT TO VOID ANDANNUL CALIFORNIA SUPREMECOURT ORDER OFDISBARMENT, AND PRECEDINGSTATE BAR ORDER OFINVOLUNTARY INACTIVEENROLLMENT, FOR FRAUDUPON THE COURT42 U.S.C. § 1983DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Bar Review Department’s September 29, 2008 Recommendation of Disbarmenteffective November 29, 2008, which became an order of the California SupremeCourt effective March 25, 2009 after a Petition for Review and Rehearing wasdenied pursuant to B&P Code § 6084.2.
The reason for the complaint is that the Chief Trial Counsel of theState Bar and the attorneys in the office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the StateBar, along with other officers of the Court on the Board of Governors and in theState Bar, committed fraud upon the California Supreme Court in bringing and pursuing the Notice of Disciplinary Charges against Fine for “moral turpitude”,ordering the involuntary enrollment and recommending the disbarment.3.
At all times they knew that the charges were false, that the chargesviolated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that the charges did notconstitute “moral turpitude”, that the charges were being brought and prosecutedfor the personal benefit of members of the Board of Governors who were either representing parties adverse to Fine’s clients’ litigation or themselves wereadverse to Fine’s clients in litigation and that the charges were being brought incollusion with and aiding and abetting the judicial officers and judges of the LosAngeles Superior Court who were receiving criminal payments from Los AngelesCounty. LA County was a party before such judges and judicial officers. Finehad challenged the LA County payments as unconstitutional under both the U.S.
and California Constitutions in federal civil rights lawsuits, and had challengedthe judges presiding over cases where LA County was a party.
Jurisdiction, Venue and Standing
Jurisdiction exists under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the rights protected under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and for theextrinsic fraud of an officer of the Court upon the Court resulting in an adversestate court decision. (See
 Kougasian v. TSML, Inc
., 359 F.3d 1136 (9
Venue exists in the Central District, Western Division, in that Fineresides there, the defendants maintain offices there and all events occurred there.6.
Standing exists in that the State Bar has obtained an Order of Disbarment and a Judgment against Fine for costs as part of the disbarment, andseeks to enforce the disbarment through civil and criminal court action if Fineattempts to “practice law” or “hold himself out to practice law” in California, andhas contacted other states and judicial forums seeking to have them disbar Fine,including but not limited to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia.

You're Reading a Free Preview

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