ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 RichardIFine@gmail.

com

RICHARD I. FINE

August 24, 2010 Presiding Judge McCoy Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon Supervising Judge Berle SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 111 North Hill Street, Dept. I Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: Dear Judges: On August 20, 2010, I received the August 12, 2010 response of Frederick R. Bennett to my August 9, 2010 letter hand delivered to you on August 10, 2010. Mr. Bennett’s letter does not show copies to you, thus I am responding to you directly to avoid any confusion as Mr. Bennett’s letter contains misstatements regarding the facts and Judge Yaffe’s actions in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS 109420 (hereinafter the “Marina Strand” case). At the outset, Mr. Bennett recommends that I file a motion to void and annul the orders and judgments of Judge Yaffe in the Marina Strand case. He states at page 1, paragraph 2: “Judge Yaffe is available to consider such a motion.” Mr. Bennett has obviously not studied the conduct of Judge Yaffe. In January 2010, I made a demand to be released based upon the case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974). Judge Yaffe refused to set a hearing. In March 2010, a second demand was made with a Declaration. Judge Yaffe refused to set a hearing. On May 21, 2010, a motion was filed and the fees were paid, setting the hearing. Judge Yaffe refused to hold the hearing and never placed the motion on the Court’s calendar. To this day, a Farr hearing has never occurred. Further, even if a hearing were set, the Sheriff has refused to transfer me to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. On June 14, 2010, a hearing was set in the Marina Strand case in Department 1A. I called Department 1A to arrange for transportation. The clerk refused to accept my prepaid call. Jeanette Isaacs, one of the volunteers who helps me, called the clerk. She was transferred to the Deputy Sheriff in the courtroom, who informed her that transportation would not be provided. She then called Commander Lopez on Sheriff Baca’s staff, who confirmed that transportation would not be provided. Response to August 12, 2010 Letter of Frederick R. Bennett

Presiding Judge McCoy Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon Supervising Judge Berle SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY August 24, 2010 Page 2

Although, on the surface, Mr. Bennett may have thought he solved the problem, history has shown that Judge Yaffe will not hear any motion and, even if a hearing were set, the Sheriff would not transport me. An alternative solution is for Judge Yaffe to immediately void and annul all of his orders and judgments in the Marina Strand case without a hearing or a motion, if you insist that Judge Yaffe be the person to void and annul his orders and judgments. Due to the fraud upon the Court of Los Angeles County and its counsel in not disclosing the illegal payments to Judge Yaffe, and the fraud upon the Court of LA County and its counsel, Real Parties in Interest Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, their managing partner – the Epstein Family Trust and its Trustees, Jerry B. Epstein and Pat Epstein, and their counsel, R. J. Comer of Armbruster & Goldsmith, LP, and Joshua L. Rosen of the Law Offices of Joshua L. Rosen, in not disclosing that the LA County Board of Supervisors’ vote approving the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the redevelopment of the Del Rey Shores apartment complex in Marina del Rey, California, was illegal, as a violation of the Political Reform Act and the case of BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4th 1205 (2000), the Marina Strand case was vitiated and all orders and judgments of Judge Yaffe were void and regarded as nullities. In U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64 (1878), the Court stated in relevant part: There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. The Court continued at page 66: Fraud vitiates everything, and a judgment equally with a contract . . . . (citing Wells, Res Adjudicata, Section 499). In Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353-354 (1920), the U.S. Supreme Court stated: Courts are constituted by authority, and they cannot [act] beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal. Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 328, 340; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236.

Presiding Judge McCoy Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon Supervising Judge Berle SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY August 24, 2010 Page 3

The LA Superior Court is bound by these U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Judge Yaffe, or any judge who receives the Marina Strand case, is bound to void and annul all orders and judgments in the case based upon fraud upon the court. Mr. Bennett misconstrued my August 9, 2010 letter. I did not request that you “administratively void or annul” Judge Yaffe’s orders and judgments. I requested that you perform your duties under Cannon 3C(3) of the Code of Judicial Ethics. This would require you to take the file of the Marina Strand case from Judge Yaffe as his clerk did not transmit such to you on April 11, 2008 after Judge Yaffe did not respond to the 3/25/08 CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification. The file would then be assigned to a new judge, who would void and annul Judge Yaffe’s orders and judgments. This should have occurred in April 2008. Mr. Bennett was incorrect when he stated that Judge Yaffe “struck” the CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification. Only one CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification was filed. This occurred on 3/25/08 after Judge Yaffe admitted on 3/20/08 in response to my questions at a hearing that he was receiving payments from LA County. This was the first time that any evidence was given that Judge Yaffe, himself, was receiving the LA County payments. This information has been concealed by LA County and Judge Yaffe from the start of the case on 6/14/07 until 3/20/08. Judge Yaffe did not respond to the 3/25/08 CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification and was disqualified under CCP Section 170.3(c)(4) after 10 days. Previously, on 2/19/08, I filed a Motion to Disqualify all LA Superior Court judges who were receiving money from LA County. This Motion was based upon the transfer of the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC351286, out of LA County, as shown in paragraph 13 of my Declaration in Support of the Motion. My Declaration specifically stated at paragraph 12: In the instant case Los Angeles County is a party. The Court [Judge Yaffe] has not disclosed if it is presently receiving money from L.A. County. Judge Yaffe claimed to have “struck” this Motion in his false 3/18/08 Order. At the 3/20/08 hearing, he “struck” the Motion, falsely claiming it was a CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification, which as shown above it was not. If it were, he would had to have “stricken” the Motion within 10 days of 2/19/08, which he did not do. Thus, any purported “striking” was a nullity.

Presiding Judge McCoy Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon Supervising Judge Berle SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY August 24, 2010 Page 4

Finally, Mr. Bennett falsely stated that because I knew that LA County was making payments to LA Superior Court judges, the specific LA County payments to Judge Yaffe were not concealed from me. His support for this statement was the citation to cases in which I showed specific LA County payments to specific judges by either attaching LA County payment records of the payments to the specific judges or in which the judge admitted to having received the LA County payments. In the Marina Strand case, neither LA County nor Judge Yaffe disclosed the LA County payments to Judge Yaffe from 6/14/07 when the case was filed, until 3/20/08, when I elicited the payment information from Judge Yaffe at the first court hearing which I attended in the case. As stated above, on 3/25/08, I filed and served a CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification against Judge Yaffe. He did not respond to such. He was disqualified under CCP Section 170.3(c)(4). He was handed a copy of the Notice of Disqualification at the 4/10/08 hearing. The clerk filed the Notice of Disqualification on 4/11/08. As stated above, and shown in the record, Judge Yaffe never “struck” the 3/25/08 CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification. The cases cited by Mr. Bennett show that as early as 2002, I showed that the LA County payments to LA Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution. This position was upheld in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied 12/23/08, brought in April 2006 by Judicial Watch. As stated above, the Sturgeon case was transferred out of the LA Superior Court’s jurisdiction because LA County was a party in the case; it had made payments to State LA Superior Court judges. The Sturgeon case showed that the payments began in the late 1980s. A November 10, 1988 letter from Roger W. Whitby, Senior Assistant, LA County Counsel, approved by DeWitt W. Clinton, to Frank S. Zolin, County Clerk/Executive Officer, Superior Court, showed that: (1) only the State Legislative could “prescribe” judicial compensation under Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution; (2) “compensation” included fringe benefits as set forth in two California Attorney General opinions; (3) the State Legislature’s duty to “prescribe” the compensation of the judges was not delegable as set forth in California case law; (4) Superior Court judges are State Constitutional Officers; and (5) “The Board of Supervisors has evidently found that in order to attract and retain qualified judges to serve in this [LA] County it is necessary and appropriate to provide them with benefits such as the flexible benefit plan contribution and the 401(k) match . . . .” This letter was part of the documents provided by LA County in the Sturgeon appeal.

Presiding Judge McCoy Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon Supervising Judge Berle SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY August 24, 2010 Page 5

The November 10, 1988 letter showed that at all times both LA County and the LA Superior Court judges who accepted the payments knew that the LA County’s practices were illegal. They further knew that the payments could not “attract” a judge who was already in office and could not “retain” a judge who could only remain in office by winning an election. The payments’ sole purpose was to influence the Judges and “buy the Court.” Mr. Bennett was a LA County Counsel in 1988. In an analogous situation, in which the Chief Executive of A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., contributed $3 million to the campaign committee of a Mr. Benjamin who was seeking a judgeship on the West Virginia High Court, before whom Massey Coal had a $50 million case which would be pending, the U.S. Supreme Court held the contribution to deny due process and required Benjamin recuse himself from the case. In Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., the Court stated at 556 U.S. ___ (2009), Slip Opinion page 16, in relevant part: Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when—without the consent of the other parties—a man chooses the judge in his own cause. From the late 1980s through the present, LA County has paid over $300 million to LA Superior Court judges without the consent of the other parties to the cases. Judge Yaffe has been a LA Superior Court judge since 1987. It is estimated that LA County has paid him approximately $500,000.00 without the consent of the other parties to the cases. In his 12/22/08 testimony in the contempt proceedings, Judge Yaffe testified that he could not remember any case in the last three years that he decided against LA County. The annual LA County Counsel Litigation Cost Management Reports for the fiscal years 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 show only three cases decided against LA County when a LA Superior Court judge made the decision.

Presiding Judge McCoy Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon Supervising Judge Berle SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY August 24, 2010 Page 6

From these facts, one may conclude that the LA County payments to LA Superior Court judges were “bribes.” This conclusion was made in Senate Bill SBx2-11, which gave “governmental entities, officers and employees of governmental entities,” which included judges, retroactive immunity effective 5/21/09 from criminal prosecution for “judicial benefits” paid to them by counties. The immunity did not extend to county payments after 5/21/09, nor did it extend to the obstruction of justice caused by a judge presiding over a case in which the county who paid him was a party. Further, the immunity was limited to California laws. The judges are still subject to Federal prosecution, including “bribery” under the intangible right to honest services, 18 U.S.C. Section 1346, recently held to encompass bribery and kickbacks in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. ____, Slip Opinion pages 48-49 (decided 6/24/2010). From the outset in the late 1980s, the LA Superior Court judges who received LA County payments and presided over LA County cases violated due process and were biased. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,” Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 616, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). Therefore, a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) mandated such judge’s disqualification. Such Section states: A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: [] A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. Such judges violated the Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 4D(1), which prohibits the judges from entering into financial 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 . . . persons likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves. Canon 3E(2) requires judges to: 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.

Presiding Judge McCoy Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon Supervising Judge Berle SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY August 24, 2010 Page 7

Canon 3E(1) requires a judge to “disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.” Judge Yaffe has not disputed that he has violated the U.S. Supreme Court precedents, the CCP, and the Code of Judicial Ethics. Nor has he disputed that LA County, Del Rey Shores, and he have committed fraud upon the Court, obstruction of justice, and denial of due process. To the contrary, Judge Yaffe has admitted to fraud upon the Court, obstruction of justice, and denial of due process by admitting in his 7/13/10 Minute Order that the 3/18/08 Order was a “draft order that was not filed” and that “ the Court did not intend to make any finding as to whether Mr. Fine had standing to file a Verified Statement of Disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.3.” Pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent of Throckmorton, supra, and Vallely, supra, the Marina Strand case is vitiated, all orders and judgments are regarded as nullities and are void. The Superior Court is bound to immediately enter an order voiding and annulling all orders and judgments in the Marina Strand case and the contempt proceeding, forthwith. Please perform your duty under the Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3C(3) and ensure that this Order is immediately entered in the Marina Strand case and contempt proceedings. Sincerely,

RICHARD I. FINE RIF/sa/mlm

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. action. On August 24, 2010, I served the foregoing Letter to Judges McCoy, Edmon and Berle 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 Frederick Bennett LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR CT 111 North Hill Street, Room 546 Los Angeles, CA 90012 I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above-entitled

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 24th day of August, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez, California. ____________________________________ FRED SOTTILE