Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Habeas Corpus I - Request for Hearing Re: Release - USDC - Fine v Sheriff - 09-cv-1914 - 6/9/2010

Habeas Corpus I - Request for Hearing Re: Release - USDC - Fine v Sheriff - 09-cv-1914 - 6/9/2010

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 31|Likes:
Published by Honor in Justice

More info:

Published by: Honor in Justice on Jun 10, 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

-1-
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RICHARD I. FINE
Prisoner ID # 1824367
c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
RICHARD I. FINE,
Petitioner,
vs.
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY,
Respondent.
Case No. CV-09-01914 JFW (CW)

REQUEST FOR HEARING TO
DETERMINE WHETHER TO
IMMEDIATELY RELEASE FINE
FROM “COERCIVE
CONFINEMENT” IN WHICH HE IS
BEING HELD IN VIOLATION OF
DUE PROCESS; MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
AND DECLARATION OF RICHARD
I. FINE

FRCP RULE 60 (b)(2), (3), (5) and (6)
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE: Courtroom 640
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
-2-
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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.

The reasons for the hearing are as follows:
1.

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).

2.
Such contempt order was void, as was every order and judgment
issued by Judge Yaffe in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners
Association v. County of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS 109420 (the “Marina
Strand” case) and its ancillary contempt proceeding against Fine. Judge Yaffe

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

-3-
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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.

Northern Fire & Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920).
3.

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

Strand case; violated Canon 3E(1) and CCP § 170.1(a)(b)(A)(iii) by not

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.

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)//-->