1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per Prisoner ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD I. FINE, Appellant and Petitioner, vs. SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al, Appellees and Respondents Case No. 09-56073 D.C. No. 2:09-CV-01914 JFW (CW) D.C. No. 2:09-CV-07943 JFW (CW) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGES REINHARDT, TROTT AND WARDLAW FOR NOT HAVING DISCLOSED VIOLATIONS OF 28 USC § 455(a), AND TO VOID THE MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND OTHER ORDERS 28 USC 455(a) 28 USC § 455(a) mandates disqualification of Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw. It states that any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” In this appeal of the denial of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the certified question was: “whether the trial judge should have recused himself.”

-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The “trial judge” was Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe. His actions were that he took illegal payments from Los Angeles County, who was a party before him in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles (the “Marina Strand” case), LASC Case No. BS109420. He did not disclose the payments. He made an order that Appellant Richard I. Fine (“Fine”) should pay LA County and its co-applicant for an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) attorney’s fees and costs without notice to Fine, without Fine being present at the hearing, and in violation of the California Public Resources Code. Fine had previously left the case. Judge Yaffe then “judged his own actions” by presiding over a contempt proceeding to enforce the order and its progeny. The LA County payments to Los Angeles Superior Court judges were held to violate Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), review denied 12/23/08. This included the payments to Judge Yaffe. The county payments to judges, including the LA County payments to Judge Yaffe, were acknowledged to be criminal in Senate Bill SBX2-11, enacted February 20, 2009, effective May.21, 2009. Such Bill gave retroactive immunity from May 21st to any

“governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity” from “[civil] liability or ... [criminal] prosecution or disciplinary action because of

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

benefits provided to a judge ... [that] were not authorized under law.” {2009 Cal. Legis. Serv. Sec. Sess. Chap. 9 (F.D. 11). The crimes included misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice and bribery. Those committing the crimes and receiving immunity under Senate Bill SBX2-11 were LA County, LA County Supervisors, and LA Superior Court judges, including Judge Yaffe. Judge Yaffe ultimately admitted to taking payments from LA County under questioning by Fine when Fine challenged his order in the Marina Strand case and again when Judge Yaffe was a witness in the contempt proceeding over which he also presided. On these facts, the US Supreme Court precedents were clear. Judge Yaffe could not be a judge in the contempt proceeding where he was “judging his own actions”. The Court recited the general rule that “no man can be a judge in his own case”, adding that “no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.” In Re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136 (1955) cited in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., et al, 566 U.S. ___, (2009), decided 6/8/09, Slip Opinion page 10. Judge Yaffe had an interest in the outcome of all cases in which LA County was a party. Judge Yaffe was bound to have recused himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case due to the criminal payments (bribery) made to him from LA County.

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

“A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice”. Offutt v. U.S., 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954). This was cited in Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960), which reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”. LA County’s “significant and disproportionate influence” on Judge Yaffe consisting of an annual payment of $46,363, which was 27% of his $178,800 state salary, “coupled with the temporal relationship” between the time of the payments and the Marina Strand case, which was concurrent, “offer a possible temptation to the average ... judge to ... lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true”, which was forbidden by Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion page 16, citing to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825 (1986), quoting Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60 (1972) in turn quoting Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927). The not-for-publication, non-precedent Memorandum decision of Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw violated all of the above U.S. Supreme Court precedents. This violation of precedent indicated that something was terribly wrong and not being disclosed by the judges for such a blatant violation of Supreme Court precedents to occur, bringing into question the integrity of the panel members.

-4-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in a concurring opinion in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) cited in Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion page 19: “Courts in our system elaborate principles of law in the course of resolving disputes. The power and the

prerogative of a court to perform this function rests, in the end, upon the respect accorded to its judgments. The citizens’ respect for judges depends in turn upon the issuing court’s absolute probity. Judicial integrity is, in consequence, a state interest of the highest order.” The integrity of Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw has been compromised by their non-disclosure of significant conflicts of interest which render them incapable of holding the balance “nice, clear and true.” conflicts of interest include the following: Judge Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston, as stated in the January 4, 2010 Los Angeles Times article “Billboard Lawsuit Targets Free Speech”.1 Such article further states that Ramona Ripston sits on an LA County / LA City commission dealing with the homeless and is “head” of the ACLU of Southern California (“ACLU-SC”). In settlement of the case alleging below-standard conditions at LA County jails, Rutherford (represented by ACLU-SC) v. Sheriff Block (now current Sheriff The

1

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-freespeech4-2010jan04,0,4678395.story

-5-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Leroy Baca) and the LA County Board of Supervisors, et al, USDC case no. 75CV-04111 (DDP), a jail monitoring program was designed in which the ACLUSC would monitor conditions.2 Although the latest ACLU annual report (200720083) and tax return4 are silent as to the specifics of its sources of income, and online budgets for LA County are silent as to specific budget items to pay for the program (in similar fashion as to how the illegal payments to judges were kept hidden for 21+ years), the County is certainly paying the ACLU for its activities in this decades-long project. And Ramona Ripston, the Chief Executive Officer of the ACLU-SC, is known to have donated to the election campaign of County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas,5 a member of the entity which authorized the continuing payments to judges. The family and financial relation between Judge Reinhardt, Ramona Ripston and LA County, who is an interested party in this case and who has received retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for its criminal payments to Judge Yaffe under Senate Bill SBX2-11, mandates the recusal of Judge Reinhardt.

2

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/494.php http://www.aclu-sc.org/documents/view/21 http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/952/952673361/952673361_200803_990.pdf http://efs.lacounty.gov/public_search_results.cfm?rept_type=ALLCon

3

4

5

-6-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Judge Reinhardt also acts as Trustee for three entities whose identities are redacted on his financial disclosure form,6 raising the question of why their identities are disguised and whether Judge Reinhardt is conflicted in the present case. Judge Trott was a member of the LA County District Attorney’s office for fifteen years, from 1966 to 1981, according to his judicial biography.7 He is presently receiving an annual pension of $12,000 from LA County, as shown on his financial disclosure form.8 His financial parity with LA County, who is an interested party and who received retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for making criminal payments to Judge Yaffe under SBX2-11, mandates the disqualification of Judge Trott. Judge Wardlaw is married to William M. (Bill) Wardlaw, according to the same aforementioned January 4, 2010 interview cited in Footnote 1 hereto. Bill Wardlaw is presently a partner in the investment bank firm Freeman, Spogli and Co. He is also well known as a “political power broker” in Los Angeles. One of his well-known endeavors was to attempt to convince LA County Supervisor Zev

6

http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Reinhardt_Stephen_R/2008.pdf http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2416 http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Trott_Stephen_S/2008.pdf

7

8

-7-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Yaroslavsky to leave his position as a supervisor and run for mayor of Los Angeles in 2004, according to the same aforementioned January 2005 interview. LA County campaign contribution reports show that Bill Wardlaw and members of the firm of Freeman, Spogli & Co. have contributed to the following LA County Supervisors (and District Attorneys who protect the supervisors from prosecution):

Donor Freeman Freeman Wardlaw Wardlaw

Date 04/02/07 05/08/07 09/16/07 12/05/07

Amount $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $500

Recipient Antonovich Cooley (D.A.) Cooley (D.A.) Yaroslavsky

This close relationship between the Wardlaw family and LA County Supervisor Yaroslavsky, who authorized criminal payments to Judge Yaffe and who has received criminal immunity from SBX2-11, mandates the

disqualification of Judge Wardlaw. Judge Wardlaw sits as director and board member for three entities whose identities are redacted on her financial disclosure form. Her form does disclose, however, her ownership of various bonds offered by LA County with an unspecified investment value. Many of Judge Wardlaw’s 1,000+ stock and bond

-8-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

transactions are also redacted, making her disclosures far short of “full,” and raising the question of whether the specifics of any disguised transaction is relevant to the issues herein. Her form also makes the apparently false statement that her husband receives no non-investment income whatsoever, yet he is a partner at Freeman, Spogli.9 The foregoing mandates the disqualification of Judge Wardlaw. The disqualifications of Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw also mandate the voiding of their not-for-publication, non-precedent Memorandum decision as they did not have the authority to render the decision. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a void order is void at all times, cannot be made valid by any judge, nor does it gain validity after the passage of time. The order is void ab initio. Valley v. Northern Fire and Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920). No court has the lawful authority to validate a void order. U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878). Additionally, all orders made by Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw in this case are void, including, but not limited to, the denial of the Petition for Writ of Mandate, which related to a second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging violations of 28 USC § 2243 by US District Court Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle. They “judged their own actions” and

9

http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Wardlaw_Kim_M/2007.pdf

-9-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

denied the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Writ of Habeas Corpus also charged Judge Yaffe and the LA County Sheriff with unlawfully holding Fine from the outset and beyond the five-day limit of CCP § 1218. Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw violated Supreme Court precedent, Murchison, by denying the Petition for Writ of Mandate. Fine respectfully requests that 28 USC § 455(a) be followed, Judges Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw be disqualified, the Memorandum decision be voided, the Petition for Writ of Mandate be granted, and that a new panel or the Court en banc grant the present writ. Dated this _____ day of February, 2010 Respectfully submitted, BY: _________________________ RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

-10-

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. On February ___, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGES REINHARDT, TROTT AND WARDLAW FOR NOT HAVING DISCLOSED VIOLATIONS OF 28 USC § 455(a) AND TO VOID THE MEMORANDUM OF DECISION 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:
Aaron Mitchell Fontana Paul B. Beach LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 100 West Broadway, Ste. 1200 Glendale, CA 91210-1219 Kevin M. McCormick BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM 39 N. California Street P.O. Box 1178 Ventura, CA 93002

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 _____ day of February, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez, California.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

____________________________________ FRED SOTTILE

-12-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful