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 A.

27 28

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per Prisoner ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT MARINA STRAND COLONY II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al, Respondents. DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE; DATE: DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE TIME: NORTH, COURTROOM: Dept. 86 Real Parties In Interest. _______________________________ Trial Date: 12/22/2008 Case No. BS 109420 DEMAND FOR AN IMMEDIATE “FARR HEARING” NO LATER THAN 3/31/10 PURSUANT TO COURT’S 2/3/10 MINUTE ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of February 8, 2010, Richard I. Fine (hereinafter referred to as “Fine”) demands an immediate “Farr Hearing” to be heard no later than March 31, 2010. The purpose of the hearing is to determine: If there was, as of March 4, 2009, or any time thereafter through the present, “no substantial likelihood that the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of

-1-

1 B. 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

Contempt would serve its coercive purpose; and When the commitment became punitive in nature and subject to the 5-day statutory limitation of CCP § 1218 (see In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3rd 605, 611-612 (1976). As shown in Fine’s Demand of January 27, 2010, Fine contends that the incarceration should not have occurred. A true and correct copy of the Demand and Memorandum of Points and Authorities marked as Exhibit “A” is attached to the Declaration of Richard I. Fine (the “Fine Declaration”) and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The February 3, 2010 Minute Order at pages 1 and 2 affirms: “Fine stated to the Court that he would not answer questions put to him at a Judgment Debtor Examination until he exhausts his right to petition for Habeas Corpus”. This

concession and admission by Judge Yaffe, who is also Fine’s direct adversary in this case (as he appeared personally in the writ proceedings), shows that there was “no substantial likelihood” on March 4, 2009, or any time thereafter, that the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt would serve its “coercive” purposes. The commitment became “punitive” on March 4, 2009 and should have ended 5 days later, on March 9, 2009. It has now been almost 13 months, and as shown in the Fine Declaration, Fine will still not be coerced into answering the
-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

questions. The admission of Judge Yaffe, as set forth above in the Minute Order, dispels and invalidates any argument in the Minute Order at page 1, paragraph 3, that the incarceration is anything but punitive. Further, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed and served with the Demand referred to the 3/4/09 sentencing transcript at page 8, line 8, to page 9, line 14, and page 16, line 18, to page 25, line 3, which emphasized that Fine was not going to answer the questions. There is no way that Judge Yaffe could conclude in the Minute Order that the Judgment and Order of Contempt was anything but punitive, when both Judge Yaffe and the transcript agree that Fine said he would not answer the questions while the appeals were proceeding. Judge Yaffe’s statement at paragraph 2 of page 1 of the Minute Order is also very “off the wall”. The 1/27/10 Demand and Memorandum of Points and Authorities refers to the same arguments to disqualify Judge Yaffe as have been used throughout the case. Judge Yaffe’s denial of service is also very strange as the 2/10/10 letter from Fred Sottile shows that service was made in Judge Yaffe’s courtroom, with a copy for him and his “clerk” who verbally advised Mr. Sottile that “one copy is enough”. The Declaration of Richard I Fine, incorporated herein as if set forth in full, states all the reasons to grant the within demand.
-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

Dated: March 24, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

BY: _________________________ RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per Former Counsel for Marina Strand Colony II HOA

-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

DECLARATION OF RICHARD I. FINE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I, RICHARD I. FINE, declare: The following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if called to testify, I could and would competently testify as follows: 1. I have been incarcerated in the Los Angeles County Jail in “coercive

confinement” under a Judgment and Order of Contempt entered by Judge Yaffe in this case since March 4, 2009 when I was taken from Judge Yaffe’s courtroom directly to the Los Angeles County Jail. The “Remand Order” from Judge Yaffe to the Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, remanding me to his custody, does not show any “bail amount” or any “appearance date”, which is mandatory as shown on the Remand Order. 2. The “Remand Order” lists, under the heading “Charges”: “CCP §

1219(a).” CCP §1219(a) by its terms allows a judge to order a person to be confined in a county jail indefinitely to “coerce” such person to divulge information which the judge has ordered such person to divulge. Such “coercive confinement” may last for a lifetime, unless it is established that is there is no substantial likelihood that this Contempt Order would serve its coercive purpose. When the Contempt Order is no longer able to fulfill its purpose of coercion, it

-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

becomes “penal” in nature and the confinement is “punishment”. The term of incarceration for “penal” confinement is five days in the county jail under CCP § 1218. See In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 573, 584 (1974), cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976). In the worst case, the confinement should have ended on 3/9/09, over a year ago. 3. The Contempt Order had two operative “orders”:
A. “Fine

is sentenced to confinement in the County Jail until he

provides all the information he has been ordered to provide or is hereafter ordered to provide, by the Commissioner...”. Fine

may end his confinement by filing a declaration under penalty of perjury “stating that he is willing to answer the all questions...”; and
B.

“Fine is sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00 or to spend five days in the county jail for advertising or holding himself out as practicing or as entitled to practice law, and for practicing law in this court without being an active member of the State Bar” (Contempt Order, page 14, paragraphs 4, 5 and 7).

4.

The Order of Confinement to “coerce” me to answer questions did

not provide for any release from confinement as set forth in the cases of In Re Farr, supra and In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, supra. This clear omission shows a deliberate refusal to provide a mechanism to be relieved from
-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

life imprisonment other than answering questions and giving all information sought. It further states that any and all forms of civil and political rights were summarily removed from me.
5.

Such deliberate removal of my civil and political rights as part of the

coercion constitutes “torture” and is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the United States in 1992. Under Article VI Clause 2, “treaties made under the authority of the United States must be followed by state court judges along with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. laws.” A formal complaint setting forth the violations of the International

Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, as has occurred in this case, has been filed with the United Nations. Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the United States is submitting to the review of the United Nations Council on Human Rights. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, marked collectively as Exhibit “B”, are true and correct copies of the March 10, 2010 article from the Sacramento Bee referring to me as a “political prisoner”, and a formal complaint to the United Nations (without attachments).
6.

The formal complaint to the United Nations and the documents

attached thereto shows that “torture” as defined in the Geneva Convention on War Crimes and the Covenant violations have occurred in my case and that neither the California judiciary nor the Federal judiciary took any action to stop
-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

the abuses.

The complaint and attached documents also show the

misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice and bribery between the Los Angeles County Supervisors and Los Angeles County on the one hand, and the state judges sitting in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles on the other hand. The complaint and the attached documents

demonstrate that, due to the same schemes existing in 55 of 58 of California’s counties, and due to the State Senate Bill SBx2-11 (giving retroactive immunity to judges, governmental entities, employees, and state officials from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action regarding county payments to judges) that “the entire California judicial system cannot function.” It is

estimated by Daniel Gottlieb, a retired professor emeritus of mathematics at Purdue University, that over the last 20 years, the judges and the county supervisors in the 55 counties have committed approximately Ten Million Felonies through county payments to the judges. It is estimated that over 90% of the justices on the California Court of Appeal have received the illegal payments and retroactive immunity. Five of the seven California Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Ronald M. George, were formerly Superior Court judges in counties where the illegal payments were made during a time when they were made. A sixth California Supreme Court Justice, Baxter, was on the Judicial Council of California, which drafted Senate Bill SBx2-11 and gave it to Senate President-elect Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg for introduction.
-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

7.

The formal United Nations complaint and attached documents show

that, in the Federal writ of habeas corpus case challenging Judge Yaffe’s actions, Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, violated 28 USC § 2243 by not following the time limitations, nor granting the writ when Sheriff Baca did not oppose it. The U.S. District Court did not address the crucial issue of Judge Yaffe judging his own actions by presiding over the contempt proceedings even though it was raised in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the U.S. District Court does not cite to any precedent in denying Judge Yaffe’s recusal for taking bribes and illegal payments from L.A. County. These acts by the District Court demonstrated the complicity of the U.S. District Court in the bribery and corruption scheme and its abject refusal to enforce the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws or treaties authorized by the United States. 8. The formal United Nations complaint and attached documents show two

that the Ninth Circuit denied four (4) unopposed motions, including:

motions to set me free, one motion for reconsideration, and one motion to grant the writ based upon my opening brief. Also shown is the bias of the Ninth Circuit panel due to their financial and other relationships with the L.A. County and its Supervisors who received retroactive immunity under Senate Bill SBx211. The Ninth Circuit panel, comprised of Circuit Judges Stephen R. Reinhardt, Stephen S. Trott and Kim M. Wardlaw, denied the writ while a 28 U.S.C. §
-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

455(a) motion to disqualify each of the panel members was pending. The panel members then “judged their own actions”, and denied the motion to disqualify themselves. 9. In a “not-for-publication”, “not precedent” “Memorandum” (despite

the right to cite the opinion as precedent under FRAP Rule 32.1 (which prohibits a court from restricting the citation of the opinion)), the Ninth Circuit panel falsely stated that the District Court had decided the issue of a “judge deciding his own actions”, used the wrong criterion to determine bias, and did not address the fact that the retroactive immunity of Senate Bill SBx2-11 did not extend to judges presiding over cases where a county had given the judge a bribe or illegal payment, nor did the legislature’s continuation of county payments to state judges from county funds commencing May 21, 2009 without immunity, have any relevance to Judge Yaffe’s actions or affect whether state judges who are receiving payments from counties who are appearing before themselves, as the misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice and bribery still exists. The state legislature does not have the power to order a county taxpayer to pay a state employee a second time. Proposition 13. 10. No judge in the Ninth Circuit voted for an en banc hearing. The This is a tax and would require a vote under

documents attached to the United Nations complaint show that the Ninth Circuit was complicit in the state bribery and corruption scheme.
-10-

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

11.

Both the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court refused to

follow clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In the recent case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2009), the Supreme Court reviewed the principals relating to recusals: At Slip Opinion page 10, it cited to In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), which stated 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 Caperton, supra, the Supreme Court stated that the test for bias was objective. It showed that the common law principal of a direct pecuniary interest was not the only test, but that the Court, after Tumey v. Ohio, 273, U.S. 510 (1927), “was also concerned with a more general concept of interests that tempt adjudicators to disregard neutrality”. (Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion page 8.) This manifested a test of any procedure or action which “offer a possible temptation to the average … judge to ... lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true” between the parties is a denial of due process. Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion page 16, citing to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 57, 60 (1972), in turn quoting Tumey, supra, 273 U.S. at 532. In Caperton, supra, the actions were A.T. Massey’s chairman and principal officer’s “significant disproportionate influence – coupled with the temporal relationship ... [with] the pending case”. (Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion at page 16.) He had contributed $3 Million Dollars to Justice Benjamin’s campaign committee during the election
-11-

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

for the high court in West Virginia, while at the same time A.T. Massey had a case which was to appear in such court. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Justice Benjamin was required to recuse himself under the due process clause. As stated above, the Ninth Circuit did not use the test used by the Supreme Court in Caperton, supra, which is the current test and has been such since 1927. Had they used such, the writ would have been granted. Judge Yaffe received $46,466.00 per year in illegal payments (bribes) from L.A. County. That is 27% of his state salary of $178,800.00 per year. He presided over L.A. County cases and decided them in favor of L.A. County. In this case, he did not grant the writ on the grounds that the L.A. Board of Supervisors’ vote was illegal, even though such was brought to his attention during the contempt trial. Instead, he proceeded to incarcerate me. 12. The complaint to the United Nations and attached documents show

that an application was made to Justice Kennedy for a Stay of Execution of Sentence. The Application was denied on March 12, 2010. 13. The complaint to the United Nations and attached documents show

that the federal judiciary is complicit with the bribery and corruption scheme and will remove fundamental constitutional rights to maintain and preserve the bribery and corruption scheme, and does not provide the safeguards or protections mandated in the Covenant. 14. At the same time, other branches of the California and federal
-12-

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

governments have not responded to pleas for help. I and others have sent formal complaints to both U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his predecessor seeking prosecution under federal law for the bribery and corruption scheme. No help was forthcoming. A formal complaint was filed with California Attorney General Jerry Brown seeking prosecution. No help was forthcoming. 15. The California Legislature has the power to impeach and convict all

of the state judges who have taken the county bribes and illegal payments and who have presided over cases where the county who made the illegal payment or paid the bribe to the judge was a party to the case. However, since the State Legislature passed Senate Bill SBx2-11, it is doubtful that the members would engage in the impeachment process. The same may be said for the Governor who signed Senate Bill SBx2-11. In summary, the federal executive branch, the State Legislature and the State Governor are all complicit with the bribery and corruption scheme. The State Legislature and the Governor are, however, more than complicit as they are active participants through the enactment of Senate Bill SBx2-11. 16. This leaves the U.S. Congress. The Congress does not allow judges to take bribes from parties or lawyers appearing before them. On March 11, 2010, the House of Representatives voted to impeach New Orleans U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Porteous. He received money from lawyers who appeared before him when he was a state judge and failed to reveal this activity during his
-13-

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

nomination proceedings in the Senate. Under Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, “the judges of both the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior..”. Unfortunately, Article III, Section 1, only relates to federal judges. The U.S. Congress cannot impeach state court judges. If it could, Judge Yaffe would be impeached. He has admitted to having received payments from the L.A. County. L.A. County appears as a party in cases before him, as well as in this case, through the “in-house” L.A. County Counsel. The L.A. County Counsel is not an independent lawyer, but an employee of L.A. County. The illegal payment (bribe) that Judge Yaffe received from L.A. County came from the L.A. County Counsel as they are “one and the same”. Neither Judge Yaffe nor L.A. County nor the L.A. County Counsel disclosed the illegal payments (bribes). 17. The U.S. Congress can only pass legislation which may require The House of

recusals of state court Judges as a function of due process.

Representatives’ Judiciary Committee has a sub-committee studying the recusal issue. However, no oversight is in place and the Congress cannot do anything to enforce the Covenant beyond passing legislation which the executive and judicial branches may ignore, as they have done in this case. 18. The only remaining domestic governmental organization which could

act is the Commission on Judicial Performance, which is established under the California Constitution. It has the power to discipline and remove a judge.
-14-

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

However, Senate Bill SBx2-11 gave the judges retroactive immunity from disciplinary action for receiving the illegal payments or bribes as of its effective date, which was May 21, 2009. The immunity did not extend to any payment (bribe) a Judge received from a county after May 21, 2009, even if such payment was authorized by the State Legislature. The “retroactive immunity” by the terms of Senate Bill SBx2-11 was limited to “benefits provided to a judge under the official action of the governmental entity on the ground that those benefits were not authorized by law” (2009 Cal. Legis. Serv., 2d Ex. 5655. Chap. 9 (S.B.11)). 19. The Commission on Judicial Performance could prosecute and

remove Judge Yaffe and other judges who received the illegal payments for violations of the Canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics and refusing to recuse themselves under CCP § 170.1(a)(3)(A)(iii) in any case where a county who made an illegal payment (bribe) to the judges was or is a party before him. CCP § 170.1(a)(3)(A)(iii) states in relevant part: “A judge shall be disqualified if one or more of the following is true: ‘A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the Judge would be impartial.’” Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 2 states: “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.” Canon 2B(1) states in relevant part: “A judge shall not allow other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a
-15-

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 convey any individual is in a special position to influence the judge”. Canon 3E(1) and (2) state: (1) “A judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law; (2) “In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.” Canon 4D(1) states in relevant part: (1) “A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position, or (b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves.” The advisory note specifically refers to persons likely to appear before the judge personally or other judges on the judge’s court. 20. Even with the retroactive immunity, the Commission on Judicial

Performance could have rendered Judge Yaffe and every judge who received an illegal county payment and presided over a case where the county was a party under Canons 2, 2B(1), 3E(1) and (2) and CCP § 170.1(a)(3)(A)(6)(A)(iii). If the judge just received the illegal county payment and received retroactive immunity, but did not preside over a case where the county was a party, the Commission on Judicial Performance could remove the Judges under the same Canons and statute, but omitting Canon 3E(2). For any judge who is receiving county
-16-

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

payments after May 21, 2009, Canon 4D(1) would also apply. The case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied Dec..23, 2008 held that the L.A. County payments to the state judges in the L.A. Superior Court violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution. Such Article states that only the State Legislature can “prescribe” the compensation of the judges. The case reaffirmed the principal that the duty of the Legislature could not be delegated. 21. One part of Senate Bill SBx2-11 states that, as of May 21, 2009, the

counties shall pay the judges the “benefits” on the same terms as such were paid on July 1, 2008. Under Sturgeon, supra, the Legislature is not “prescribing” compensation. Each county had previously voluntarily determined its illegal payment to the judges. There was no prescribing. The Legislature was

“reacting”. In L.A. County, the July 1, 2008 payment structure expired on June.30, 2009, by its own terms. The payments were implemented as one-year budget appropriations. In the best case, if the payments were constitutional, that could only be so for 39 days. After June 20, 2009, if L.A. County decided to continue the payments, such payments violated Article VI, Section 14, of the California Constitution under Sturgeon, supra. Since the State Legislature cannot delegate its duty to “prescribe” the compensation of the judges, it cannot pass a law allowing the counties to set the level of compensation. Under Canon 4D(1), none of the judges can accept the county compensation, and, if they did, the
-17-

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

Commission on Judicial Performance should remove them. 22. Despite its obligations, the Commission on Judicial Performance has

done nothing. However, even if it had removed all of the judges who received and are receiving the illegal county payments (bribes), this still would not cure the problem. The Commission on Judicial Performance does not have the power to change or reverse judicial decisions, or to order my release. 23. The history of illegal payments in California, and particularly in LA

County, is long and deeply rooted. It encompasses the Superior Court judges of 55 of the 58 California counties. The bribery scheme has been going on for

more than 20 years since its inception in the late 1980’s. From the outset, both L.A. County Supervisors and the L.A. Superior Court judges knew that the payments were illegal, to wit: In a November 10, 1988 opinion letter from L.A. Senior Asst. Court Counsel Roger Whitby (approved by L.A. County Counsel DeWitt Clinton) to Frank S. Zolin, County Clerk/Executive Officer, Superior Court, the L.A. County Counsel admitted at Page 2 that the Attorney General had issued two opinions stating that the word “compensation” in Article VI, Section 19, encompassed the county employee benefits which L.A. County was providing the state judges. He gave the citations of the opinions and the citation to the case of County of Madera v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.3d 668 (1974), which held that the Legislature could not delegate a duty to “prescribe” something such as the compensation of judges of courts of record. He also did not find any statute
-18-

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

that specifically authorizes the counties to provide any benefits to the judges and admitted that “superior court judges are technically state constitutional officers..”. The rationale for the payments to the judges stated at Page 6 in relevant part as follows: “The Board of Supervisors has evidently found that in order to attract and retain qualified Judges to serve in this [L.A.] County, it is necessary and appropriate to provide them with benefits such as a flexible benefit plan contribution and the 401(k) match…”.

The letter was part of documents procured by L. A. County during the appeal of the Sturgeon case. 24. The letter showed that the Supervisors’ claimed reason to pay the

judges benefits and retirement in addition to the benefits and retirement that the judges were receiving from the state as state employees was a sham. It was also a sham to pay the “benefits”, which the letter stated could be taken in “cash”, to “attract” judges who were already in an elected office, or “retain” a judge who could only keep his job by winning the next election. The “benefit” payments were either a bribe or an illegal campaign contribution inasmuch as the judge could not be “attracted” to a job he already had, and could not be “retained” in a job where he had to first win an election. 25. The bribery scheme was shown to be true upon the analysis of the

L.A. County Counsel Annual Litigation Cost Management Reports (which

-19-

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

commenced in 2005) for fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, which were attached to the March 25, 2008 CCP § 170.3 Objection to Judge Yaffe as Exhibit “6” and showed that no person won a case against the L.A. County when a Superior Court judge made the decision and not a jury, with hundreds of cases being dismissed before trial each year. 26. L.A. County’s Bribery and Corruption Scheme is estimated to have

paid the judges approximately $300 Million in illegal payments in the last 23+ years. For just fiscal year 1999-2000 to fiscal year 2005-2006, Judicial Watch informed the California Court of Appeal in the Sturgeon case (in a letter dated February 22, 2008) that the payments to the judges from L.A. County during such time period was $127,250,409.00, based upon documents produced in discovery. This represents 7 of the 23 years of payments, with the highest payments in fiscal years 2006-2010. (The annual payments are now reportedly $57,017.00 per judge and commissioner, of which there are now approximately 571. The

salaries of County Supervisors and others are also set by County Charter to equal the judges’ salaries.) 27. When the effect of the payments is felt over 55 of California’s 58

counties over a 20+-year time period, one may begin to appreciate the total devastation that has occurred to California’s judicial system and begin to understand how it has spread to other parts of California’s government and into the Federal judiciary. Effectively, a generation of judges, county supervisors and
-20-

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

government employees at all levels have grown up and only worked under a scheme of bribery and corruption. It has become so common that bribery and corruption are considered the “norm”, while the people’s right to enjoy honest judiciary and government to serve them and uphold the Constitution is no longer available as an option.

28.

It was in this environment that the present lawsuit was filed in June,

2007. Prior thereto, I had challenged the L.A. County payments to state judges when it became known that the judge in that case was receiving payments. Without specific knowledge, however, one could not make a CCP § 170.3 objection. The only way to get the knowledge was either by the judge admitting to the payment in open court or obtaining payment records from L.A. County. No judge, including Judge Yaffe, was disclosing the payments on their mandatory Form 700 Financial Interest Statements, despite the obligation to do so. 29. I filed the Petition for Writ of Mandate on behalf of the Marina

Strand Colony II Homeowners Association. The Petition was filed against L.A. County as Respondent. It also named Del Rey Shores, which later was amended to better identify that Respondent as Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, the co-applicant with the L.A. County for an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to redevelop the Del Rey Shores
-21-

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

apartment complex in Marina del Rey, California, as the Real Party in Interest. 30. The case was assigned to Judge Yaffe. Judge Yaffe did not disclose

on record the payments he was receiving from L.A. County at any time while I was the attorney for Marina Strand. Additionally, L.A. County had not

completed its website showing campaign contributions to members of the Board of Supervisors. 31. By not disclosing the L.A. Country payments to him and not

immediately recusing himself, Judge Yaffe violated Canons 2, 2B(1), 3E(1) and (2) and 4D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, and CCP § 170.1 (a)(3)(A)(6)(A) (iii). At the same time, L.A. County and its counsel committed fraud by not disclosing the payments to Judge Yaffe. Further, L.A. County and its counsel committed fraud along with Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North and their counsel by not disclosing the contributions of Jerry B. Epstein and David O. Levine to the campaigns of Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe, who subsequently within six weeks made illegal votes approving the Del Rey Shore project. 32. Jerry B. Epstein is a Trustee of the Epstein Family Trust. The

Epstein Family Trust is the managing partner of Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North (collectively “Del Rey Shores”). David O. Levine is the “Chief of Staff” for Jerry B. Epstein. The campaign

contributions were made in April 2007 and were greater than $500.00 to each
-22-

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

Supervisor. This made each Supervisor ineligible to vote on the Environmental Impact Report on May 15, 2007 under the California Fair Political Practices Act and the case of BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal. App.4th 1205 (2000). The vote in favor of the EIR was 4-0, including the votes of Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe. Without the two illegal votes, the vote would have been 2-0 and the EIR would have failed to lawfully pass. 33. The L.A. County Counsel never discussed the illegal votes, nor did

Del Rey Shores’ counsel, R.J. Comer and Joshua L. Rosen, even though they all had knowledge of such. During the contempt trial, I presented documents

showing the contributions and the illegal vote. Judge Yaffe refused to enter the writ and stop the EIR even though he knew that the L.A. Board of Supervisors’ May 15, 2007 vote in favor of the EIR was illegal. 34. follows: L.A. County pays bribes to Judge Yaffe, who does not recuse himself from the case nor reveal the bribes; Del Rey Shores, through Epstein and Levine, make campaign contributions to Antonovich and Knabe in April 2007; Antonovich and Knabe illegally vote for EIR whose coapplicants are L.A. County and Del Rey Shores; L.A. County Counsel and Del Rey Shores’ lawyers do not
-23-

In the present case, the scheme of corruption and bribery was as

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

disclose that the EIR vote is illegal; In October 2007, I left the case; On January 8, 2008, Judge Yaffe orders me to pay attorney’s fees to L.A. County and Del Rey Shores in violation of the Public Resources Code and in violation of due process as the Order was given without notice to me and without me being present at the hearing; On March 20, 2008, Judge Yaffe admits for the first time, under my questioning, to receiving payments from L.A. County; On March 25, 2008, I served Judge Yaffe with a CCP § 170.3 Objection and filed such based upon the L.A. County payments. On April 10, 2008, Judge Yaffe fails to respond to the CCP § 170.3 Objection and is automatically disqualified as of April 7, 2008 under CCP § 170.3(c)(4); Judge Yaffe takes my Motion to Dismiss the January 8, 2008 Order off calendar. On November 3, 2008, Judge Yaffe signs Order to Show Cause Re Contempt against me on 16 counts for trial before Judge Yaffe. After denying Motions to Dismiss, Judge Yaffe begins contempt trial. He is first witness and testifies to his actions of receiving money from L.A. County, not disclosing it on his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, not having any employment or service contracts with L.A. County, not putting the money in his re-election campaign account, and that he could not
-24-

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

remember any case in the past three years that he decided against L.A. County other than the re-noticing of a minuscule part of the EIR relating to the “moving of dirt” issue in this case. During the trial, I show that the L.A. County Board of Supervisors’ vote on this EIR was illegal and that the Del Rey Shores project did not provide any positive financial benefit to L.A. County in the EIR. Despite proof of the illegality of the vote on the EIR and the failure of the EIR to show a positive financial benefit to L.A. County, Judge Yaffe refused to strike the EIR on these grounds. 35. In the contempt trial, Judge Yaffe “judged his own actions”. He

found me “not guilty” on 14 counts and “guilty” on 2 counts. The first “guilty” count was “Failure to Answer Questions Before the Commissioner”. The second “guilty” count was “Practicing Law While Not an Active Member of the Bar”. 36. Even Judge Yaffe did not believe my guilt on the second count. At

page 9, line 18, to Page 10, line 3, of the March 4, 2009 Reporter’s Transcript of the sentencing hearing (hereinafter referred to as "RT"), Judge Yaffe admitted that he did not find any court order that ordered me “inactive” or removed my license to practice law. It should be noted that the California Supreme Court ordered me “inactive” despite the October 12, 2007 report of the State Bar Court Hearing Judge. Also, at the time of the contempt proceeding, the California Supreme Court had not entered an order for my disbarment based upon the
-25-

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

recommendation of the State Bar Review Department.

Additionally, the

“practicing while not an active member of the State Bar” was inconsistent with Judge Yaffe’s “not guilty” judgment on the charge of “lying about the status with State Bar in pleadings filed in the Court and oral arguments made before this Court” in which I had always represented and argued that the California Supreme Court had not ordered me inactive and shown the disposition of my Petition for Review of the October 12, 2007 State Bar Hearing Department Decision, which disposition did not order me inactive. 37. For the information of the Court, I have filed a Request to Enter

Default in the case of Fine v. State Bar of California, et al, USDC Case No. CV10-0048 JFW (CW). The case seeks to void and annul my disbarment by

showing the State Bar’s fraud upon the Court. At all times, the State Bar knew that its Notice of Disciplinary Charges was a sham, without merit, in violation of the First Amendment and brought in concert with the L.A. Superior Court judges in retaliation for my exposing and “prosecuting” them for taking illegal payments from L.A. County. As an example, the State Bar held me guilty of “moral turpitude” for bringing a case in the U.S. District Court that challenged the L.A. County payments to state judges in L.A. County as a violation of Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Under this theory, the lawyers of Judicial Watch who won the Sturgeon case, the Court of Appeal justices who decided the
-26-

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

case, and the California Supreme Court justices who denied review would all be guilty of “moral turpitude” if brought before the State Bar for filing any document in a court reflecting their opinion on the case. 38. In his February 3, 2010 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe violated the law

by not having a hearing but stating “When Fine notifies the court by declaration under penalty of perjury that he has exhausted or abandoned his quest for a writ of habeas corpus, this court will immediately set a hearing to determine whether Fine will answer the questions put to him and if not, why not.” 39. Under Farr, supra, coercive incarceration ended when the contempt

did not fulfill its purpose. That was on March 4, 2009. The ensuing year has not changed my mind. If anything, I am more firmly convinced of my position. I have seen the complicity, duplicity and incompetence of the Federal judiciary. I firmly believe in the U.S. Supreme Court procedures set forth herein as well as Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), wherein the Court stated “a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice”, and Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960), in which the Court cited Offutt, supra, and ruled and reaffirmed the principal that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”. 40. At the present time, a petition for writ of habeas corpus has been

before the California Supreme Court since March 4, 2010 with respect to Judge Yaffe’s February 3, 2010 Minute Order. An Application for Stay of Execution of
-27-

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

Sentence is before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A true and correct copy of the letter to her marked as Exhibit “C” is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is presently at the printer and will be delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court by March.26, 2010. A complaint has also been filed with the United Nations. 41. is over. For the perspective of Judge Yaffe and the Superior Court, this case The Supreme Court precedents are clear, as are the international The California precedents are clear. The

obligations of the United States.

Canons of Judicial Ethics are clear. They all mandate that Judge Yaffe should have recused himself from the contempt proceeding. 42. Judge Yaffe, the California judiciary, the U.S. District Court, the

Ninth Circuit Court and even the U.S. Supreme Court, by denying the Petition for Certiorari in the disbarment case and Justice Kennedy’s denial of the Application for Stay of Execution of Sentence, have all “lost”. 43. This case has not been hidden or buried; it has been and is being Details concerning the bribery, corruption and “coercive

avidly followed.

confinement” issues have been extensively distributed via PR Newswire out of Washington, D.C., by news network FullDisclosure.net in Los Angeles, by the Los Angeles Times, Fox Business News, USA Today, Reuters News Services, the Los Angeles Daily News, and the Sacramento Bee, amongst others. (See attached Exhibit “D” consisting of the latest PR Newswire press release and
-28-

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

related release report concerning the issue of my being held as a political prisoner, just one example of the many stories in the news of late.) The oncerespected American judicial system has now been shown to be no better than those countries that the United States so avidly criticizes. It is difficult to

criticize a foreign country for bribery and corruption when the United States has the example of California, $300 Million Dollars and Ten Million Felonies in its own backyard. It is difficult to criticize a foreign country for allowing criminals to roam free while California gives retroactive immunity to almost its entire judiciary (over 2,000 judges and commissioners) and past and present supervisors of 55 of its 58 counties. 44. In the end, some good will come from this. The voters will hopefully

vote out every judge who took a bribe or illegal payment and every County Supervisor who authorized such. In six years, California will have a new

Superior Court and within twelve years, a new Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. At the federal level, literally no California Superior Court judge will now be able to receive a federal appointment unless they disclose the illegal payment. And if they disclose such, their nomination will be withdrawn. 45. At the international level, the U.S. will now be more closely

scrutinized. This will only encourage more “integrity“ in the judiciary and other branches of government. 46. Based upon all of the statements in this Declaration and my firm
-29-

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

belief in the righteousness of the principals of the U.S. Constitution, the Covenant and the moral, ethical, and legal correctness of my position, I will not answer the questions and cannot be coerced into answering the questions. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24th Day of March, 2010 at Los Angeles, California. BY: _________________________ RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

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

-30-

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

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am _________________. My address is _________________________. On March ___, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as DEMAND FOR AN IMMEDIATE “FARR HEARING” NO LATER THAN 3/31/10 PURSUANT TO COURT’S 2/3/10 MINUTE ORDER 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:
Kevin M. McCormick Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham 39 N. California Street P.O. Box 1178 Ventura, CA 93002 Joshua Lee Rosen Joshua L Rosen Law Offices 5905 Sherbourne Drive Los Angeles , CA 90056 Rose M. Zoia 50 Old Courthouse Square, Ste.401 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Elaine M. Lemke Principal Deputy County Counsel LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OFF. 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713 R.J. Comer Armbruster & Goldsmith, LLP 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024

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 March, 2010, at ____________, California.

__________________________ SIGNATURE

____________________________ PRINTED NAME

-31-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful