Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US Supreme Court Richard Fine Application for Immediate Release July 2010

US Supreme Court Richard Fine Application for Immediate Release July 2010

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26 |Likes:
Published by Leslie Dutton
Richard Fine alleges "Fraud Upon The Court" in his application for immediate release from jail. He claims Judge David P Yaffe failed to disclose to the court and parties in the case that he had received illegal payments from a party to the case.
Richard Fine alleges "Fraud Upon The Court" in his application for immediate release from jail. He claims Judge David P Yaffe failed to disclose to the court and parties in the case that he had received illegal payments from a party to the case.

More info:

Published by: Leslie Dutton on Jul 11, 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

07/11/2010

pdf

text

original

Case No. 09-1250
_____________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_____________________
RICHARD I. FINE,
Petitioner,
v.
LEROY D. BACA,
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent,
_____________________
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
_____________________
APPLICATION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FROM LOS ANGELES MEN’S CENTRAL JAIL
_____________________
Richard I. Fine
In Pro Per

Prisoner ID #18243
c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(310) 638-2825 (messages)

Email:RichardIFine@gmail.com
1
REASON FOR APPLICATION

This Application is directed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the Petition
for Rehearing is pending in this case and both the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, and the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, have refused to set hearings to set petitioner (“FINE”) free.

FINE is being held in “coercive confinement” in the Los Angeles County
Men’s Central Jail where he has been illegally incarcerated in solitary confinement
for 16 months since March 4, 2009.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe did not have jurisdiction to order FINE’s incarceration. Judge Yaffe, Los Angeles County and its attorneys committed “fraud upon the court” by not disclosing at the outset of the case of

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

LASC Case No. BS 109420 (“Marina Strand case”) that Judge Yaffe was receiving
payments from Los Angeles County in addition to his state compensation. Judge
Yaffe committed a further “fraud upon the court” by not disqualifying himself at
the outset of the Marina Strand case.

Judge Yaffe also violated Canon 4D(1) of the California Code of Judicial
Ethics by engaging in financial dealings with a person (Los Angeles County) likely
to appear before the court upon which he serves; Canon 3E(2) by not disclosing the
Los Angeles County payments; Canon 3E(1) and California Code of Civil

2
Procedure section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) by not disqualifying himself at the outset of
the Marina Strand case.

The “fraud upon the court” vitiated the entire Marina Strand case and voided
every order and judgment of Judge Yaffe and further voided subsequent courts’
orders as none of the courts had subject matter jurisdiction. No court has the
lawful authority to validate a void order. (See 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 order is void ab initio. (See

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

Due to the “fraud upon the court” there was no “purpose” for FINE’s
coercive confinement as the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt
issued by Judge Yaffe was void. FINE should never have been incarcerated or
“coercively confined.” Confinement beyond the time that bears a reasonable
relationship to the purpose for which the person is committed is a denial of due
process. (See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972); McNeil v. Director,

Tatuexent Institution, 407 U.S. 245 (1972)).

Under the California case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App. 3d 577, 584 (1974), a
commitment for coercive confinement becomes punitive when it ceases to serve its
coercive purpose. When it becomes punitive its duration is limited by the five-day
maximum sentence provided in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1218.

3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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