Dr Z Dr Z Dr Z Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-03-22 Copy of Richard Fine’s Application Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) obtained from US
Supreme Court File

The copy was obtained from US Supreme Court file later than March 12, 2010. However, such copy
failed to show a note on the application of its denial on March 12, 2010 by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Digitally signed by
Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@ea
rthlink.net, c=US
Location: La Verne,
California
Date: 2010.04.21
13:54:59 -07'00'
0 9 1 1 ~ ; ; ' 7
Case No. 09-
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RICHARD I. FINE,
Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
to the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals
APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF
SENTENCE OF "COERCIVE CONFINEMENT"
Suprame Oourt, u.s.
FILeD
MAR - 12010
ClFFlcEOFTIiECLEF!K
RICHARD I. FINE
In Pro Per
Prisoner ID 1824367
c/o Men's Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(310) 638-2825 (messages)
Iv'
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Parties , , , " "'" , ". ,.", ,, ,.. , 1
Case History , , , " , ,.. _._ _. 1
Opinions Below .. , ,.. , , , , 4
Jurisdiction """ .. """,,,,,,,,,, , ,, ,,,,,,,,.,, 6
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions , " "" .. ,,,, 6
Case Status , " , , ,.. ", .. " """.,., 7
Application for stay "."".""." "."" , " "." 10
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.. Inc.,
566 U.S. _ (2009) , , , , Underlying
In Re Farr,
36 Cal.App.3
rd
577, 580 (1974) " ""." ,,, ,, , 10.13
In Re Murchison,
349 U.s. 133, 136 (1955) ." "" ,,,,, .. ,, .. ,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 6
In Re William T. Farro
64 Cal.App.3
rd
605,610 (1976) _ 10.13
In Re Richard Isaac Fine. Esq.,
Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-80130 """",,,,, ,, .. ,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,. 9
Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County,
USDC Case CV-09-1914, 9t
h
Cir. Case 09-56073
(the "underlying" case) "" ".".""""""""." ,,,.................... passim
Richard I. Fine v. State Bar of California,
US S.Ct. Case No. 08-1573 " .. ,,,,,,, ., 11
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
167 Cal.App.4
th
630 (2008) " .,.""." .. " ., 1.11
Other Authorities
Cqlifornia Senate Bill SBX2-11 " "" " 3, 11
Constitutional Provisions
California Constitution, Article VI. Sec. 19 " """ .. ,.. " 1, 10
U.S. Constitution - First Fifth. Sixth. & Fourteenth Amendments Underlying
u
- 1 -
PARTIES
Respondent parties to Instant case:
• Sheriff of Los Angeles Coun1y
• Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe
• Los Angeles County Superior Court
Defendants/Respondents/Material Witnesses to related coses:
• County of Los Angeles
• Del Rey Shores Joint Venture, and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North (by
developer Jerry B. Epstein, General Partner and Managing Trustee)
• Stote Bar of California
• Board of Governors, State Bar of California
• Scott Drexel, State Bar Chief Trial Counsel
• Supreme Court of California (only as a necessary porty)
• u.s. District Court Judge John F. Walter
• U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle
CASE HISTORY
In the late 1980s, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
concocted a scheme to pay state superior court judges bonus "judiciol
benefits" that are expressly forbidden by the state constitution' (which limits
them to accepting salaries and benefits pold by the state only). In exchange,
judges began ensuring that LA County won virtually all laWSUits filed against IF
when they were able to keep such cases from the hands of Juries. The Illegal
payments now total over $57.000 per year per judge (all of which can be
taken in cash\ Which payments are in addition to thEl judges' legal stote
1 http://www,judlclafwatch.org/sturgeon-v-county-Ios-angeles
2 http://counsel.lacounty.govlar,asp
) ~
~ 2-
salaries of $179,000 and benefits worth apx. $30,000 per year. These bottom-
rung judges now have higher salaries than any other judge in the nation, even
the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (who receives $218,000), not to
mention all the other lesser-ranking judges across the land ($157,000 per year
for Federal District Court Judges, etc.).
The fact that the Supervisors' salaries are set by charter to equal the
superior court judges' salaries
3
provides their motive for concocting the
payment scheme, In doing so, the Supervisors' have managed to entirely
circumvent the public's Involvement In setting their salaries,
When an attorney discovered the Illegal income was being received by
the judge in his clients' (homeowners) case against LA County,4 he sought to
disqualify said judge due to the impropriety of his receiving money from a
party to a case before him. The judge, however, refused to leave the case '"
and instead adjudged the attorney, Applicant Richard I. Fine, guilty of
contempt of court.
Fine's "contempt" was the culmination of a serlElS of events wherein
Judge David P. Yaffe, who faced criminal charges and repayment of the
illegal monies he'd received, made an attorney's fees Clward to Los Angeles
County and Its co-defendants (ultimately, developer Jerry B. Epstein) without
giving notice to Fine, resulting in the entry of an invalid order, In seeking to
collect Fine was ordered to answer questions concerning his assets at a
judgment debtor's examination. Rather than disobey his oath, Fine, to his
3 http://f1le,locounty,gov/loc/chorter.pdf 1('
4 Marina Strand Colonv II Homeowners Assoc, v. L.A. County et 01. LJ\SC case no, BSl 09420;
- 3 -
great and continuing detriment, dutifully refused to comply with the Invalid
order,
At the end of the contempt trial, wherein Judge Yoffe was a witness and
judge of the truthfulness of his own testimony, JUdge Yoffe joiled Fine, where
he's been held in solitary confinement for eleven months, from March 4, 2009,
Judge Yaffe then ordered the Sheriff to deprive Fine of ony means to
make an appeal, refusing to give him even paper and pEmcil,5 access to a law
library, access by the media,6 etc'?
Fine's Incarceration was statutorily limited to five days under CC,P, §
1218. Fine's multiple requests for release under these an<j other grounds have
been unopposed,'yet they have been steadfastly deniecJ or simply ignored by
the courts below,
Prior to the completion of the contempt trial and Fine's sentencing, the
guilty parties managed to sneak a bill through the stote legislature which
professed to grant retroactive Immunity. to ail involved for the crimes
committed.,. a conservatlvely-estimoted TEN MILLION FELONIES, as confirmed
by a renowned mathematics professor emeritus,S
However, this law, called California Senate Bill 5B)(2-11,
9
has heinously
been repeatedly and knowingly misinterpreted by the courts below in an
orchestrated effort to fool the public and protect the compromised jUdges,
5 http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/68.php
6 http://wvvw.prnewswire.com/news-releases/media-manipulatlon--Io-county-sheriff-boco-
faces-federol-lawsuit·83232077.html
7 http://sltes.google.com/slte/freerichordfine/Home/best-courts-money-could-buy
8 http://rlghttrumpsmight.blogspot.com/2009/12/oha.html f I
9 httpJ . 10
050/sbx2_11_biIU0090220_chaptered.pdf
- 4-
(Prior recipients of the illegal payments now populate the District Court in
California, the California Supreme Court and eVen your own Ninth Circuit,) This
behavior is not only Intolerable in light of the tenets of j-he canons of judicial
ethics and the promises of their sworn oaths, word of it has spread far and
wide of late as more and more mainstream media outlets
lO
report the
continuing developments, deeply tarnishing the i n h ~ g r i t y of California's
benches for years to come,
The underlying facts in all of the above cases iinvolved the criminal
payments from LA County to LA Superior Court judges and the resultant
actions by the LA Superior Court judges and LA County j-o protect themselves
at the expense of egregiously injuring Fine, who had exposed them while
attempting to protect his clients" interests. The County and its jUdges were
then protected by the District Court and Ninth Circuit Judges with their denials
of writs of habeas corpus,
OPINIONS BElOW
Applicant requests a stay from all summary orders (which were silent as
to any basis supporting such orders, and which were all unsigned and locking
any security authentication codes whatsoever. and some of which were
entered by clerks, not jUdges) entered in response to Fine's unopposed
motions to be released from incarceration pending the outcome of the
appeal process, and precluding Fine from filing a motion for reconsideration or
10 Various aspects of the story have been reported in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune.
Forbes, USA Today, Fox Business, The Street and others. Website visitors are spread across the
planet. (See http://righttrumpsmight,blogspot,com/2009/08lworld-is-watching,html)
n'
- 5 -
any further motions to be set free, Those orders, each of which are Included in
the Appendix, are:
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Fine v. Sheriff of L.A. County,
CasEl No. 09-CV-1914, Judge John F. Walter and Magistrate Judge Carla M.
Woehrle:
• Order Striking (Petitioner's Ex Parte Application for r , ~ e l e a s e pending Ninth
Circuit decision). doted July 9, 2009, by Magistrate Judge Woehrle,
USDC Dkt. # 46; Appendix Exhibit 8-9:
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Fine v. Sheriff of LA Countr:, Case No. 09-56073,
Circuit JUdges Schroeder, Kleinfeld, Tash/ma, N.R. Smith, Reinhardt, Trott and
Wardlaw: Appellate Commissioner Shaw; and Deputy Clerks Roo and
Colegrove:
• .. Order (denying unopposed motion for release), doted August 12, 2009,
by Circuit Judges Schroeder and Kleinfeld, 9
th
CiL Dkt. # 13; Appendix
Exhibit E·4:
• Order (denying reconsideration), doted August 26, 2009, by Circuit
Judges Schroeder and Kleinfeld, 9
m
CiL Okt. # 16; Appendix Exhibit E-6:
• Order (denying unopposed Emergency Motion for Immediate Release),
doted September 15, 2009, by Circuit Judges Tash/ma and N,R. Smith, 9
m
CiL Okt, # 21; Appendix Exhibit £-9,'
• Order (denying unopposed Motion for Release Based on Opening Brief),
dated September 23, 2009, by Deputy Clerk Sunil N, Roo, 9
th
CiL Dkt. #
23; Appendix Exhibit E-l1;
• Order (denying motions for reversal of District Court's denial of writ of
habeas corpus), dated October 14, 2009, by Appellate Commissioner
Shaw, 9
m
CiL Dkt. # 30; Appendix Exhibit E-13;
• Memorandum (affirming US District Court's denial of first Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus; opinion to be unpublished and not cited as
precedent), dated December 16, 2009, by Panel Ju,:Jges Reinhardt Trott
and Wardlaw, 9
m
.Cir. Dkt. # 59; Appendix Exhibit E- T5.
19
- 6 -
The Court is requested to note that Fine's Emen:Jency Petition to the
Ninth Circuit for Ponel Rehearing and Rehearing En Bane was filed on
December 21, 2009 (Appendix Exhibit E-/ 0). No ruling has issued with respect
thereto. Fine has also filed a Demand for Immediate Release with judge Yaffe
(Appendix A-3), which also remains unanswered.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction lies with the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.c. §§ 2254 (habeas
corpus) due to relief having been denied by both the District Court and the
Ninth Circuit in response to Applicant's Rule 23 motions. Caples of the Ninth
Circuit's Memorandum of Opinion, and Applicant's two Rule 23 emergency
motions for release and related motion for reconsideration submitted to the
District Court are Included in the, Appendix, together with the Court's orders
denying the some. A stay was not granted by the state court.
Relief is necessary and should be granted due to the fact that Superior
Court Judge David P. Yaffe "judged his own actions" in violation of In Re
Murchison, 349 US 133,136 (1955).
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
California Pubic Resources Code
Senate Bill SBX2-11
California Constitution, Article VI, Section 19
11
U.S. Constitution - First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
11 http://law.onecle.comjcaliforniajconstltutionjindex.html
rl
- 7 -
CASE STATUS
Unanswered complaints awaiting action/response:
Action Authority Status
Request for Humane LA County Sheriff, via Request for dental
Medical Treatment internal Inmate examination submitted
complaint system. In mid-January
following dental plate
br'8akage resulting in
greatly-reduced ability
to chew food. First and
second requests
denied, third request is
pending.
Request for Humane LA County Sheriff, via On Jan. 28, 201 0, Fine
Medical Treatment internal inmate wos x-rayed ond found
complaint system. to hOVEl an abscessed
tooth. He was returned
to his cell Without
treotment. Fine has
requested on antibiotic
to treat the infection;
he was given
mouthwash.
Request for Humane LA County Sheriff, via F i n l ~ contracted MRSA
Medical Treatment internal inmate (stoph Infection), for
complaint system. Which he was treated
with a topical ointment.
He also regularly
experiences, but has
received no treatment
for, swelling of the legs,
lower back pain,
elevated cholesterol.
Demand for Immediate LA Superior Court Filed Jan. 27, 2010;
Release Judge David P. Voffe awoiting response.
Appendix Exhibit A-3.
1-0
- 8 -
Demand for Immediate LA County Sheriff, via Submitted Jan, 6, 2010
Release internal inmate on grounds that
complaint system, incarceration was
illegal from the outset.
and incarceration
beyond 5-day
moxlmum was illegal
(CCP § 1218).
Fine v. Stote Bar. Civil US District Court Calif; Filed Jan. 5, 201 0 after
Rights Complaint to Judge John F. Walter similar complaint was
Void and Annul and Magistrate Judge rejected unread by the
California Supreme Carla M. Woehrle CA Supreme Court.
Court Order of Service of Summons
Disbarment. and and Complaint set for
Preceding State Bar first week of February,
Order of Involuntary Appendix Exhibit D·2.
Inactive Enrollment. for
Fraud Upon the Court
Fine v, Sheriff. Petition 9
th
Circuit Court of Filed Dec, 21. 2009;
for Rehearing En Bane Appeals (decision awaiting response.
re denial of habeas panel was Reinhardt Appendix Exhibit E- 76.
corpus petition Trott and Wardlaw)
Fine v, Sheriff. Petition 9th Circuit Court of Filed Dec, 21. 2009;
for Rehearing En Bane Appeals (decision awaiting response.
re denial of mandamus panel was Reinhardt Appendix Exhibit £-76
petition re USDC Trott and Wardlaw)
Judges Walter and
Woehrle's dismissal of
case against them.
"Closed" cases:
Fine v, U,S, District U,S. District Court- A new habeas corpus
Court. et al. (Habeas II) Calif, case charging Judge
judge Walter. Mag. Wolter and Magistrate
Judge Woehrle, USDC Judge Woehrle with
case no. 09-CV-07943 violating 28 U.S.c, §
I
2243, Walter and
Woehrle refused to
disqualify themselves.
They "judqed their own
~ d
- 9 -
actions" in the
underlying case, in
violation of the
Supreme Court
precedent and denied
the writ. Appendix
Exhibits C-2 and C-3.
Fine v. State Bar (I) U.S. District Court - Contrived rUlings to
Calif. exonerate State Bar,
Judge Wolter, Mag, Wolter and Woehrle
Judge Woehrle, USDC de,nied Fine's
case no. 08-CV-02906 unopposed motion to
set aside a Judgment to
abstain from hearing a
case where, due to
. nearly ten-month
de,lay In deciding a
motion to dismiss, a
stote court proceeding
wos over and
abstention wos moot.
In Re Fine . U.S. District Court- USDC disbarment
Calif., Judge Christina action. Judge
Snyder, Case No. 09- purposefully
misinterpreted
precedent in ordering
disbarment.
Stayed actions:
In Re Fine 9th CiL disbarment Stoyed pending
action; case no. 09- outcome of appeal.
80130, Appellate
Commissioner Shaw
In Re Fine D,C. CiL disbarment Stayed pending
action; case no, 08- outcome of appeal.
8522

- 10-
APPLICATION FOR STAY
U.S, Supreme Court precedent exists for a stay of execution of sentence
in cases of "coercive incarceration" Issued by a California superior court in a
contempt proceeding for the refusal to answer questions while the writ of
habeas corpus proceeds through the federal court system. In the writ of habeas
corpus case of William T. Farr v. SUDerior Court Justice William O. Douglas stayed
the execution of sentence imposed by the Los Angeles Superior Court for
contempt for refusing to answer questions after Farr had been in coercive
incarceration for 45 days pending the disposition of his review in the Ninth Circuit
without his having answered the questions. (See In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3rd 577,
580 (1974) and In Re William T. Farr on habeas corpus, 64 Cal.App,3d 605, 610
(1976).)
In the instant habeas corpus case, Fine was held in contempt of court and
ordered into "coercive incarceration " on March 4, 2009 until he answered
questions. Fine flied a petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 20, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court after having filed writs of habeas corpuc; in the California Court
of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. Fine challenged the Los Angeles
Superior Court trial Judge's jurisdiction to try the underlying case and to try the
contempt proceeding.
The trial judge, David P. Yaffe, had received ille(;;lal payments from Los
Angeles County, a party before him in the underlying case. The payments were
held to violate Article VI. Section 19, of the California Constitution In the case of
;'1
1 ~ )
- II -
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles. 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), review denied
12/23/2008,
Judge Yaffe received retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil
liability and disciplinary action for such Illegal payments pursuant to Senate Bill
SBX2-11, enacted February 20,2009, effective May 21,2009.
During the proceedings In the underlying case, and after Fine left as
counseP2 opposing Los Angeles County, on January 8, 2008, JUdge Yaffe
ordered Fine to pay attorney's fees and costs to Los Angeles County and its co-
applicant for an Environmental Impact Report without giving notice to Fine of
the January 8, 2008 hearing, without Fine present at the hearing, and In violation
of the California Public Resources Code.
In a hearing on March 20, 2008, Judge Yaffe admi"lted, for the first time in
the case, to receiving the payments from Los Angeles County. On March 25,
12 Fine's reason for leaving the underlying case was that the California State Bar ordered him
Inactive from bringing Federal civil rights lawsuits challenging the Los Angeles County payments
to Los Angeles Superior Court judges, Fine was subsequently disbarred for "moral turpitude" on
March 23, 2009 for having brought such lawsuits and challenging Los ,A,ngeles Superior Court
judges for having received such payments,
The U,S, Supreme Court denied Fine's petition for writ of certiorari challenging such disbarment
on First Amendment grounds and due process grounds, (See Case OB-1573,) The petition was
not opposed, (The Court may wish to reconsider Its action sua sponte,) Five of the six California
Supreme Court Justices who denied Fine's petition for review in the case had
previously received illegal county payments while they were superior court judges. They
received retroactive immunity for such conduct under Senate Bill SBX2-11, The sixth Justice was
a member of the Judicial Council of California which drafted Senote 13ill SBX2-11. These justices
are Chief Justice George and Justices Chen, Corrigan, Kennard, Momno and Baxter,
respectively,
On September 2, 2009, the Ninth Circuit stayed its own disbarment action against Fine pending
the outcome of the habeas appeal, noting that the iwo issues "overIClp", (Ninth Cir, Case No.
09-80130,)
,
..4
- 12 -
2008, Fine flied a CCP § 170.3 objection to J U d g , ~ Yaffe requesting his
recusaL Judge Yaffe did not respond, and was j-hus automatically disqualified
under CCP § 170.3(c)(4). Judge Yaffe refused to leave the case. On April 15,
2008, he signed an order for attorney's fees pursuant to the January 8. 2008
order. Fine was subsequently ordered to answer questions about his assets in a
judicial proceeding to enforce the January 8 and April 15, 2008 orders. Fine
refused, claming the orders were void as judge Yaffe should have recused
himself due to the Los Angeles County payments and due to his subsequent
disqualification,
On November 3, 2008, JUdge Yaffe issued an Order to Show Cause
COSC") re contempt against Fine, Fine moved to dismiss the OSC The motion
was denied. Judge Yaffe presided at the contempt triol over Fine's objection,
and gave testimony therein. Judge Yaffe judged his own actions.
Judge Yaffe was the first witness at the contempt trial. He testified that he
received payments from Los Angeles County, did not report them on his Form
700 mandatory disclosure statement did not have any employment agreement
with Los Angeles County or any arrangement to provide services for Los Angeles
County, did not place the payments In his campaign fund, and could not
remember any case In the last three years that he decided against Los Angeles
County.
JUdge Yaffe was a state-elected judge. The Los Angeles County
payments were $46,366 per year, or 27% of his annual stat,COl salary of $178,800.
1--(
- 13 -
The certified question before the Ninth Circuit is "whether the trial judge
[Judge Yaffe) should have recused himself." The panel Issued a Memorandum
on December 16, 2009 affirming the District Court's decision to deny Fine's
petition for writ of habeas corpus, Fine has been in "comc/ve incarceration" for
eleven months, since March 4, 2009, The Ninth Circuit clenied two unopposed
motions to set Fine free pending resolution of the appeoL and one motion for
reconsideration, which was also unopposed,
A Demand for Fine's Immediate Release was flied against Judge Yaffe
on January 27, 2010 (Appendix Exhibit A-3); It remains unanswered as of this
writing, os does Fine's Emergency Petition for Rehearing En Bane filed with the
Ninth Circuit on December 21. 2009 (Appendix Exhibit E-16). and his Motion to
Disqualify (Panel) Judges Reinhardt Trott and Wardlaw, filed February 3, 201 0
(Appendix Exhibit E-17) regarding their relationships With Los Angeles County.
Based upon the precedent of Justice Douglas' adion In the Forr case,
Fine respectfully requests that the Court grant a stay of execution of sentence.
Dated this 8th day of February, 2010 Respectfully sul:::>mitted,
RICHARD I. FINE,
In Pro Per
BY: - - - ; : ; : ; - ; : : : : : 7 ~ : : : - ; - - - - = - : - - - - - -
Richard I. Fine
Inmate No. 1824367
c/o Men's Centrai Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(310) 638--2825 (messages)
: ~ ~
Case: 09-56073 02/10/2010 Page: 1 of 1 ID: 722662b DktEntry: 66
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEB 102010
MOLLY C DWYER. CLERK
u.s. COuR.T OF APPEALS
RICHARD I. HNE,
Petitioner ~ Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;
et aI.,
Respondents c Appellees.
No. 09-56073
D.C. No. 2:09-ev-01914-JFW-CW
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ORDER
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel has voted to deny Appellant's petition for panel rehearing. Judge
Reinhardt and Judge Wardlaw have voted to deny Appellant's petitions for
rehearing en bane, and Judge Trott so recommends. The full court has been
advised of the suggestions for rehearing en bane and no active judge has requested
a vote on whether to rehear the matter en bane. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions
for rehearing en bane are denied. No further motions shall be entertained in this
appeal.
IT IS so ORDERED.
ilq
ii"'""" ·f
"
Case No, 09-
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RICHARD I. FINE,
Petitioner,
v,
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Certificate of Compliance and Proof of Service re
PETITION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF
SENTENCE OF "COERCIVE CONFINEMENT"
RICHARD I, FINE
In Pro Per
Prisoner ID 1824367
c/o Men's Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(310) 6313-2825 (messages)
' L ~
-2-
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNN OF LOS ANGELES
I am Fred Sottile, My address Is 2601 E, Victoria Street # 108, Rancho
Dominguez, CA 90220.
On February 8th, 201 0, I seNed the documents described as APPLICATION
FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE OF "COERCIVE CONFINEMENT" and
tArYJrtJ>K
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE on lnterested parties in this Clction 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.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE OF
"COERCIVE CONFINEMENT" is proportionately spaced, has a type face of 12
points, and contains 3,012 words according to the word processing system on
which It was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1 - 13,
\6+'::
Executed on this,-8th day of February, 201 0, at Rancho Dominguez.
California.
FRfi-D SDTTlL.£-
FREDSOl1lLE
-2-
~ 1

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful