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 (Former Counsel for Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association) 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. Case No. BS 109420 NOTICE OF HEARING TO ORDER RELEASE OF RICHARD I. FINE FROM L.A. COUNTY JAIL IF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY DONE SO AT ITS MAY 20, 2010 CONFERENCE ON CASE NO. 09-1250, RICHARD I. FINE V. LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE; DATE: May 26, 2010 DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE TIME: 9:30 AM NORTH, COURTROOM: Dept. 86 Real Parties In Interest. _______________________________ Trial Date: 12/22/2008

NOTICE OF FARR HEARING To all parties and attorneys of record: Please take notice that a Farr Hearing to order the release of Richard I. Fine from the Los Angeles County jail will occur on May 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM in

-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Department 86 of the aforementioned courthouse located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court has not effectively ordered such release at its May 20, 2010 conference in the case of Richard I. Fine v. Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, case no. 091250. Pursuant to a “Waiver” filed April 23, 2010 in the U.S. Supreme Court, all respondents, including the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe, in case no. 091250, waived their right to file a response to the petition for Writ of Certiorari. By this “Waiver”, all respondents did not contest that:
(1)

Judge Yaffe should have recused himself in the instant case of

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (3)

Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles; (2) Judge Yaffe had “judged his own actions” in the case and Judge Yaffe was “embroiled with Fine”.

The Respondents, by waiving their rights to respond to the Petition for Certiorari, did not contest that Judge Yaffe’s actions violated constitutional due process, and the U.S. Supreme Court precedent upholding such. Judge Yaffe’s own admissions that he received payments from LA County, a party to the case before him, further mandated his recusal and disqualification from the case from its outset under California law, irrespective of any constitutional due process violations. These admissions were made by Judge

-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

Yaffe in response to questioning by Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”) on March 20, 2008 in open court and again when Judge Yaffe was a witness in the contempt proceeding on December 22, 2008 under questioning by Fine. Judge Yaffe knew at all times that he could not take any payments from LA County. Canon 4D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics states: (1) A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that (a) (b) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position, or 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 states that this Canon includes “persons likely to appear either before the judge personally or before other judges on the judge’s court.” Judge Yaffe’s taking the payments from LA County mandated both his disqualification in the case and his disclosure of the payments on the record at the outset of the case. CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) states in relevant part: “A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: For any reason: …. A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.”

-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

Canon 3E(1) and (2) mandates that Judge Yaffe disclose the LA County payments on the record at the commencement of the case to disqualify himself at the commencement of the case. Such Canon states as follows: (1)
(2)

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any procedure in which disqualification is required by law. 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 actual basis for disqualification.

Judge Yaffe deliberately concealed the LA County payments from June 14, 2007, when the case was filed until March 20, 2008, when he admitted to such under questioning by Fine. He does not deny that he should have been

disqualified and does not deny his violation of the law. He concealed and tried to excuse his unlawful conduct by arguing in the Judgment and Order of Contempt dated March 4, 2009 (at page 13, lines 13-23) that Fine should have disqualified Judge Yaffe on June 14, 2007, when the case was filed, based upon the LA County payments instead of waiting until March 2008 after Judge Yaffe admitted to the payments. Judge Yaffe deliberately ignored the requirements of Canon 3E(1) and (2) that he was the one responsible to disclose the payments on the record and disqualify himself as required by CCP § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii). Judge Yaffe further deliberately ignored the requirement under Canon 4D(1) that he not accept any payments from LA County, which also required the disclosure of the violation of such Canon and his self-disqualification.

-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

At all times from June 14, 2007 onwards, Judge Yaffe was violating California law by presiding over the case and not disqualifying himself. LA County was an active partner with Judge Yaffe in these violations as it knew that it had made the payments to Judge Yaffe. It also concealed the payments and the violations. Further, LA County, its County Counsel, and the LA Superior Court and its judges, including Judge Yaffe, knew that the LA County payments to the LA Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution as far back as November 10, 1988, over 22 years ago. A letter dated November 19, 1988 to Frank S. Zolin, County Clerk/Executive Officer of the Superior Court, from Roger M. Whitby, Senior Assistant LA County Counsel, approved by DeWitt W. Clinton, County Counsel, acknowledged that the payments were “compensation,” that under Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, that the State Legislature “prescribes” the compensation of the judges, that this duty is not delegable (see County of Madera v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App. 3d 665 (1974), cited in the letter) and that “compensation” includes benefits (see 59 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 496, 61 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 38,8 cited in the letter) at pages 1 and 2 and that the “Superior Court judges are technically state constitutional officers…” at page 6.

-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

This position was upheld in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), review denied 12/23/08. After the Sturgeon decision, the LA County payments were acknowledged to be criminal in Senate Bill SBx2-11, enacted on February 20, 2009, effective May 21, 2009, which stated in relevant part: “Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to [criminal] prosecution action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of this act on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law. 2009 Cal. Legis. Serv., 2d Ex. Sess., Chap 9 (SB11).” Thus, at the time that Judge Yaffe made his statements on March 4, 2009, he also knew that he not only should have disqualified himself on June 14, 2007, but that the LA County payments were unconstitutional under Article VI, Section 19, from the outset, as shown in the November 10, 1988, letter and that the payments were criminal. The form of the criminal conduct was bribery. As shown in the Exhibit “6” to Fine’s March 25, 2008 CCP objection to Judge Yaffe, in FY 2007-2008, no LA Superior Court judge decided a case in favor of a party against LA County. Further, in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles, both LA County and its attorneys, and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North and their attorneys,

-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

concealed the fact the Board of Supervisors’ May 15, 2007 vote approving the Environmental Impact Report for the Del Rey Shores project was illegal. The votes of Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe were illegal because they violated the Political Reform Act by voting within twelve months of receiving contributions greater than $500 from an interested party. (See Breakstone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4th 1205 (2000).) The contributors who made such contributions were Jerry B. Epstein, the Managing Partner of the Del Rey Shores entities, and David D. Levine, his “chief of staff.” After the contributions were exposed by Fine, Judge Yaffe did not invalidate the Environmental Impact Report, demonstrating conclusively that the LA County payments to him were taken as a “bribe.” Further proof of the bribe occurred when Judge Yaffe did not invalidate the Environmental Impact Report after Fine showed that it did not show any positive financial benefit to LA County, which it was required to show. R.J. Comer, one of the attorneys for Del Rey Shores, when placed on the witness stand, could not show any specific page and line number of the Environmental Impact Report which showed a positive financial benefit to LA County. At the same time, LA County was giving an unnecessary $11 million rent credit to Del Rey Shores for “low and medium cost housing”, which they were mandated to provide under the Mello-Roos Act.

-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

Judge Yaffe did not invalidate the Environmental Impact Report for that clear violation, showing the effect of the LA County payments as a “bribe.” Judge Yaffe’s refusal to disqualify himself, in violation of California law, resulted in the void orders in the March 4, 2010 Judgment and Order of Contempt. As Judge Yaffe did not have the jurisdiction to preside over the Marina Strand case, he did not have the jurisdiction to make any orders in such case, nor did he have jurisdiction to preside over the ancillary contempt proceeding or make any orders in such proceeding. All such orders were void ab initio and could not be validated by another court. (A void order is void ab initio. Valley v. Northern Fire and Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920) – no court has lawful authority to validate a void order; U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878) – all orders based on void orders are themselves void; Austin v. Smith, 312 F 2d 337, 343 (1962) – “if the underlying judgment is void, the judgment based upon it is void”.) Thus any order for Fine to pay attorney’s fees and sanctions (January 8, 2008) and any subsequent order to pay a specific amount (April 15, 2008), and any attempts and orders to enforce such orders at judgment debtor proceedings, and any attempts and orders to enforce the orders of the judgment debtor proceeding at contempt proceedings, are and were void.

-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

Additionally, any Judgment and Order of Contempt for practicing law while inactive or without a license is, and was, void as it was made as a result of a void contempt proceeding which was the result of a void Order to Show Cause in the Marina Strand case in which Judge Yaffe did not have jurisdiction to preside. Further, Judge Yaffe knew that such Judgment and Order of Contempt was false as he stated at page 9, lines 24-25, of the March 4, 2009 transcript: “I didn’t think that there was a court order that you violated on this.” As a matter of note, Fine had brought a federal civil rights suit, Richard I. Fine v. State Bar of California; the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; Scott Drexel, Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California; and the Supreme Court of California - as a necessary party only - for fraud upon the Court, USDC case no. CV-10-0048, to invalidate the disbarment. As of the present time, the State Bar defendants have defaulted and filed a late and frivolous Motion to Dismiss. The Court has entered an Order to Show Cause

why the Motion to Dismiss should not be stricken and a default entered. The California Supreme Court has defaulted and filed its own late and frivolous Motion to Dismiss. Fine has filed a Request to Enter Default, Response to Motion to Dismiss, and Motion to Strike the California Supreme Court’s Motion to Dismiss.

-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

All of the above information demonstrates that Judge Yaffe’s March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt ordering Fine’s “coercive confinement” in the LA County jail violated California law, in addition to any constitutional violations of due process. As such, the Order of “coercive confinement” would not, did not, and has not served its “coercive purpose.” It was penal from the outset of March 4, 2009. (See In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976). Fine has been incarcerated for almost fifteen months. He has not been, and cannot be, “coerced” to conform to void orders imposed by corrupt judges, including Judge Yaffe, who had received criminal payments from LA County for the last 23 years. Fine believes that the actions of the judges, by taking the illegal payments and bribes and presiding over the cases in which the person/entity who bribed them is a party, have not only destroyed our judicial system, but have also destroyed a fundamental basis of our democracy: the right to a fair, impartial and just judiciary in a country which is devoted to follow and obey the “Rule of Law.” The actions of the judges have removed that fundamental basis and the country is left with the “rule of corruption”, enforced by “criminals in judicial

-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

robes” who have been given immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action. This tyranny of corruption has not broken Fine, nor will it break the citizenry. In 1776, the citizenry faced the same problem with a king who was paying the judges and ensuring their tenure. The citizenry sent him a message, the Declaration of Independence. Judge Yaffe and all of the California judges and justices from the Superior Courts, to the Court of Appeal, to the California Supreme Court, who received immunity from criminal prosecution under Senate Bill SBx2-11, knew that the March 4, 2009 Order of coercive confinement was void in that Judge Yaffe did not have the jurisdiction to make the Order, and that said Order was not “coercive” but “penal” from the outset in that it did not “coerce” Fine to submit to a void and illegal Order. Fine should not have been incarcerated on March 4, 2009 and must be freed now. Dated this 17th day of May, 2010 Respectfully submitted, BY: _________________________ RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

-11-

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. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above-entitled action. On May 17, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF HEARING TO ORDER RELEASE OF RICHARD I. FINE FROM L.A. COUNTY JAIL IF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY DONE SO AT ITS MAY 20, 2010 CONFERENCE ON CASE NO. 09-1250, RICHARD I. FINE V. LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 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 17th day of May, 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

-13-