1

RICHARD I. FINE
Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
7

8
RICHARD I. FINE, Case No. CV-10-0048 JFW (CW)
9
Plaintiff,
10 REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF
11 vs. DEFAULT AGAINST SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA
12

13
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
14 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;
15 SCOTT DREXEL, Chief Trial Counsel
of the State Bar of California; and THE Date: June 1, 2010
16
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Time: 10:00 AM
17 (only as a necessary party); Place: Courtroom 640
18
Defendants. 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA
90012
19

20

21

22
I. Prefatory Statement

23 A. The California Supreme Court.

24
The California Supreme Court was named as a “necessary party” only.
25

26 (See Verified Complaint, paragraph 16, and cover page.) No substantive or

27
charging allegations are made against the California Supreme Court.
28

-1-
 1
It is a necessary party because it was the party defrauded by the actions of
2 the State Bar of California, the Board of Governors of the Sate Bar of California,
3
and Scott Drexel, Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California.
4

5 As shown herein, the State Bar of California, including its State Bar Court,
6
does not have the authority to discipline attorneys. The State Bar can only
7

8 “recommend discipline” to the California Supreme Court. The California

9
Supreme Court will then order the “recommended” discipline pursuant to the
10
California Rules of Court if no petition for review is filed. If a petition for
11

12 review is filed, the Court will determine if it falls within the criteria set forth in
13
the Rules of Court to warrant a hearing. If not, the petition is summarily denied
14

15 without reasons given or opportunity for oral argument. A State Bar proceeding
16
is not a “cause” under Article VI, Section 14 of the California Constitution,
17

18
therefore the attorney subject to discipline does not have a right to a written

19 opinion with reasons stated and oral argument. If the petition is denied, the
20
Supreme Court is required to enter an order of the “recommended” discipline
21

22 under the California Rules of Court.

23
The result is that a lawyer may be disbarred without his case ever being
24

25 heard by a court of record and a “real judge.” This is what happened to Plaintiff.
26
No one knows if the California Supreme Court even read Plaintiff’s Petition for
27
Review.
28

-2-
 1
B. The California Supreme Court has defaulted, violated Court
Rules, and filed a late motion without court order.
2

3
The California Supreme Court defaulted and did not file a timely response.

4 It then filed a late Motion to Dismiss without having obtained a court order to do
5
such, after having violated the Court’s Rules and General Order by attempting to
6

7 set its Motion in the wrong court.

8

9 C. The California Supreme Court’s Motion to Dismiss is frivolous,

without merit, filed to harass Plaintiff, and deliberately misleads
10
the Court.
11
Despite its knowledge and admission that the California Supreme Court is
12

13 only a “necessary party” and not an “actionable defendant,” the California

14
Supreme Court filed an extensive Motion to Dismiss.
15

16 Such Motion not only made false statements to the effect that the
17
California Supreme Court was an “actionable defendant” without any proof, it
18
also made false and misleading statements about the cases it cited, the
19

20 allegations in the Verified Complaint and exhorted the Court to declare Plaintiff
21
a vexatious litigant as to litigation regarding judicial benefits. (See
22

23 Memorandum page 16, lines 22-25, and page 7, footnote 8).

24
The California Supreme Court does not disclose to the Court that the issue
25

26
of Los Angeles County’s unconstitutional and criminal payments to the Los

27 Angeles Superior Court judges and whether such judges should recuse
28
themselves from LA County cases and recuse themselves from “judging their

-3-
 1
own actions” is presently before the U.S. Supreme Court (case no. 09-1250).
2 The conference on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is set for May 20, 2010.
3
The Respondents have waived their right to file a response to the Petition. (See
4

5 Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit “1”, filed simultaneously herewith.)

6
Kevin M. McCormick, who was the attorney for the LA Superior Court
7

8 and Judge David P. Yaffe in the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of
9
Appeals, has been replaced by Paul Beach (the attorney for LA County Sheriff
10
Leroy D. Baca) in the U.S. Supreme Court case.
11

12 As the Court is aware, Kevin McCormick is the attorney for the California
13
Supreme Court in this case. He is arguing the same points in this case; i.e., that
14

15 the LA County payments are lawful, which arguments have now been
16
abandoned by the waiver filed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
17

18
D. The parallel fraudulent natures of the Motion to Strike and the
19 State Bar Recommendation are shown by each of them either
20
ignoring or misrepresenting the Sturgeon case.

21 Count 18 of the State Bar Recommendation recommends Plaintiff be

22
disbarred for filing the case of Silva v. Chalfant, et al. Such case alleged that
23

24
the LA County payments to LA Superior Court judges violated Article VI,

25 Section 19, of the California Constitution and the First and Fourteenth
26
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The State Bar found the case “frivolous.”
27

28

-4-
 1
The Sturgeon case held that the LA County payments to the LA Superior
2 Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution.
3
(See Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), review
4

5 denied 12/23/08.) The State Bar ignored the Sturgeon case.

6
The Sturgeon case was decided before the State Bar “Recommendation”
7

8 became final.
9
As shown herein, the California Supreme Court Memorandum makes false
10
statements about the holding of the Sturgeon case.
11

12 These parallel actions demonstrate the depths to which the State Bar and
13
Kevin McCormick will sink to protect the criminal and unconstitutional LA
14

15 County payments to the LA Superior Court judges.

16
With these actions in mind, the Court should enter the default and strike
17

18
the Motion to Dismiss.

19

20
II. Request for entry of default against Supreme Court of California.

21 The late filing was deliberate and was done without court order.
22
The Proof of Service filed in this case shows that the Supreme Court of
23

24
California was personally served on April 13, 2010. Its response was due on

25 May 3, 2010. PACER shows that documents were filed on May 3rd and
26
stricken by Judge Walter for failure to comply with the General Order of the
27

28 Court and failure to properly set the Motion to Dismiss before the Magistrate

-5-
 1
Judge to whom the case had been assigned. No other documents were filed by
2 the California Supreme Court on May 3rd. The California Supreme Court
3
documents were filed electronically, as shown by PACER, and the Order
4

5 striking the documents was also served electronically.

6
As of May 3, 2010, after it was electronically served with Judge Walter’s
7

8 Order striking its documents, the California Supreme Court knew that it was in
9
default.
10
It did not seek an agreement from Plaintiff to file a late response, nor did it
11

12 file any motion to be relieved of its default.

13
Instead, it elected to further violate the rules of the Court by unilaterally
14

15 filing a second “late” Motion to Dismiss on May 5, 2010, without the permission
16
of the Court. This Motion was filed under the name of the State Bar of
17

18
California, and not the Supreme Court of California. The State Bar of California

19 had previously been ordered to show cause why its own Motion to Dismiss,
20
which was unilaterally filed without a court order, should be stricken and a
21

22 default entered.
23
Later on May 5, 2010, the California Supreme Court electronically filed an
24

25 “Errata” and filed a new Motion with the correct name of the party filing the
26
motion.
27
III. Conclusion
28

-6-
 1
Given the blatant disregard of this Court’s rules by the California Supreme
2 Court, and in fairness to the Plaintiff, the default should be entered.
3

5
Dated this ___ day of May, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
6

7
BY: ____________________________
8 RICHARD I. FINE,
9 In Pro Per
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-7-
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4

5
I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho
6 Dominguez, CA 90220. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party
7
to the above-entitled action.
8

9 On May ___, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as

10
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST SUPREME COURT
11

12 OF CALIFORNIA on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy

13
thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in
14
the United States Mail, addressed as follows:
15

16 Lawrence C. Yee Michael Van Loewenfeldt

Mark Torres-Gil KERR & WAGSTAFF, LLP
17
Tracey L. McCormick 100 Spear Street, 18th Floor
18 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA San Francisco, CA 94105-1528
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
19 180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639
20

21 I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
22 States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
23 correct.
24 Executed on this _____ day of May, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez,
25 California.
26

27
____________________________________
28 FRED SOTTILE

-8-