RICHARD I. FINE
Prisoner ID # 1824367
c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
REQUEST FOR HEARING TO
DETERMINE WHETHER TO
IMMEDIATELY RELEASE FINE
CONFINEMENT” IN WHICH HE IS
BEING HELD IN VIOLATION OF
DUE PROCESS; MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
AND DECLARATION OF RICHARD
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Petitioner (hereinafter “Fine”) requests a hearing in Courtroom 640, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, to determine whether to immediately release Fine from “coercive confinement” in which he is being unlawfully held in violation of due process.
On March 4, 2009, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe held Fine guilty on two charges of contempt of court and ordered Fine into “coercive confinement” in the Los Angeles County Jail pursuant to C.C.P. § 1210(a) until Fine “provides all the information that he has been ordered to provide, or is hereafter ordered to provide by the Commissioner that is assigned by the presiding judge to preside over Department 1-A of the Central District of this court (Judgment and Order of Contempt, dated March 4, 2009, (Contempt Order), page 14, lines 4-6).
and Los Angeles County and its lawyers had committed “fraud upon the court” by not disclosing at the commencement of the Marina Strand case, or at any time until ten months after the commencement when the information was
elicited by Fine from Judge Yaffe during a March 20, 2010 hearing that Judge Yaffe was receiving payments of over $46,000 per year from Los Angeles County in addition to his state salary of $178,800.00 and state benefits. United States Supreme Court cases have long held that since “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire case, all orders of that court or any subsequent court are void, as none of the courts had subject matter jurisdiction. No court has the lawful authority to validate a void order.U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878). A void order is void at all times, cannot be made valid by any judge, nor does it gain validity by the passage of time. The void order is void ab initio.Valley v.
Judge Yaffe also violated the Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 4D(1), by taking the payments from Los Angeles County; violated Canon 3E(2) by not disclosing that he had taken the payments at the commencement of theMarina
disqualifying himself at the outset of the case for having taken the Los Angeles County payments; and violated CCP § 170.3(c)(4) for not transferring the file to the presiding judge for “reassignment” after he was disqualified under CCP § 170.3(c)(4) for not responding to the March 25, 2008 CCP § 170.3 Objection based upon his March 20, 2008 admission of taking payments from Los Angeles County.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?