Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
23
24
NOTICE OF FARR HEARING
25
To all parties and attorneys of record:
26
27 Please take notice that a Farr Hearing to order the release of Richard I. Fine
28
from the Los Angeles County jail will occur on May 25, 2010, at 9:00 AM in
-1-
1
Department 86 of the aforementioned courthouse located at 111 North Hill Street,
2 Los Angeles, CA 90012, in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court has not
3
effectively ordered such release at its May 20, 2010 conference in the case of
4
5 Richard I. Fine v. Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, case no. 09-
6
1250.
7
8 Pursuant to a “Waiver” filed April 23, 2010 in the U.S. Supreme Court, all
9
respondents, including the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe, in case no. 09-
10
1250, waived their right to file a response to the petition for Writ of Certiorari.
11
18
(3) Judge Yaffe was “embroiled with Fine”.
25 a party to the case before him, further mandated his recusal and disqualification
26
from the case from its outset under California law, irrespective of any
27
constitutional due process violations. These admissions were made by Judge
28
-2-
1
Yaffe in response to questioning by Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”) on
2 March 20, 2008 in open court and again when Judge Yaffe was a witness in the
3
contempt proceeding on December 22, 2008 under questioning by Fine.
4
5 Judge Yaffe knew at all times that he could not take any payments from LA
6
County. Canon 4D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics states:
7
8 (1) A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that
9 (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s
judicial position, or
10
(b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing
11
business relationships with lawyers or other persons
12 likely to appear before the court on which the judge
serves.
13
The Advisory Note states that this Canon includes “persons likely to appear
14
15 either before the judge personally or before other judges on the judge’s court.”
16
Judge Yaffe’s taking the payments from LA County mandated both his
17
18 disqualification in the case and his disclosure of the payments on the record at the
19
outset of the case.
20
CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) states in relevant part:
21
27
28
-3-
1
Canon 3E(1) and (2) mandates that Judge Yaffe disclose the LA County
2 payments on the record at the commencement of the case to disqualify himself at
3
the commencement of the case. Such Canon states as follows:
4
7
(2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record,
information that is reasonably relevant to the question of
8 disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, even if
9 the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.
10 Judge Yaffe deliberately concealed the LA County payments from June 14,
11
2007, when the case was filed until March 20, 2008, when he admitted to such
12
13 under questioning by Fine. He does not deny that he should have been
14
disqualified and does not deny his violation of the law. He concealed and tried to
15
16
excuse his unlawful conduct by arguing in the Judgment and Order of Contempt
17 dated March 4, 2009 (at page 13, lines 13-23) that Fine should have disqualified
18
Judge Yaffe on June 14, 2007, when the case was filed, based upon the LA
19
20 County payments instead of waiting until March 2008 after Judge Yaffe admitted
21
to the payments. Judge Yaffe deliberately ignored the requirements of Canon
22
23
3E(1) and (2) that he was the one responsible to disclose the payments on the
24
record and disqualify himself as required by CCP § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii). Judge
25
Yaffe further deliberately ignored the requirement under Canon 4D(1) that he not
26
27 accept any payments from LA County, which also required the disclosure of the
28
violation of such Canon and his self-disqualification.
-4-
1
At all times from June 14, 2007 onwards, Judge Yaffe was violating
2 California law by presiding over the case and not disqualifying himself.
3
LA County was an active partner with Judge Yaffe in these violations as it
4
5 knew that it had made the payments to Judge Yaffe. It also concealed the
6
payments and the violations.
7
8 Further, LA County, its County Counsel, and the LA Superior Court and its
9
judges, including Judge Yaffe, knew that the LA County payments to the LA
10
Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California
11
18
acknowledged that the payments were “compensation,” that under Article VI,
19 Section 19, of the California Constitution, that the State Legislature “prescribes”
20
the compensation of the judges, that this duty is not delegable (see County of
21
22 Madera v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App. 3d 665 (1974), cited in the letter) and that
23
“compensation” includes benefits (see 59 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 496, 61 Ops. Cal.
24
25 Atty. Gen. 38,8 cited in the letter) at pages 1 and 2 and that the “Superior Court
26
judges are technically state constitutional officers…” at page 6.
27
28
-5-
1
This position was upheld in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
2 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), review denied 12/23/08.
3
After the Sturgeon decision, the LA County payments were acknowledged
4
15
he also knew that he not only should have disqualified himself on June 14, 2007,
16 but that the LA County payments were unconstitutional under Article VI, Section
17
19, from the outset, as shown in the November 10, 1988, letter and that the
18
26 County of Los Angeles, both LA County and its attorneys, and Del Rey Shores
27
Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North and their attorneys,
28
-6-
1
concealed the fact the Board of Supervisors’ May 15, 2007 vote approving the
2 Environmental Impact Report for the Del Rey Shores project was illegal.
3
The votes of Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe were illegal because they
4
5 violated the Political Reform Act by voting within twelve months of receiving
6
contributions greater than $500 from an interested party. (See Breakstone
7
12 of staff.” After the contributions were exposed by Fine, Judge Yaffe did not
13
invalidate the Environmental Impact Report, demonstrating conclusively that the
14
18
Environmental Impact Report after Fine showed that it did not show any positive
19 financial benefit to LA County, which it was required to show. R.J. Comer, one
20
of the attorneys for Del Rey Shores, when placed on the witness stand, could not
21
22 show any specific page and line number of the Environmental Impact Report
23
which showed a positive financial benefit to LA County.
24
25 At the same time, LA County was giving an unnecessary $11 million rent
26
credit to Del Rey Shores for “low and medium cost housing”, which they were
27
mandated to provide under the Mello-Roos Act.
28
-7-
1
Judge Yaffe did not invalidate the Environmental Impact Report for that
2 clear violation, showing the effect of the LA County payments as a “bribe.”
3
Judge Yaffe’s refusal to disqualify himself, in violation of California law,
4
5 resulted in the void orders in the March 4, 2010 Judgment and Order of
6
Contempt. As Judge Yaffe did not have the jurisdiction to preside over the
7
8 Marina Strand case, he did not have the jurisdiction to make any orders in such
9
case, nor did he have jurisdiction to preside over the ancillary contempt
10
proceeding or make any orders in such proceeding. All such orders were void ab
11
12 initio and could not be validated by another court. (A void order is void ab initio.
13
Valley v. Northern Fire and Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920) – no court has
14
18
F 2d 337, 343 (1962) – “if the underlying judgment is void, the judgment based
19 upon it is void”.)
20
Thus any order for Fine to pay attorney’s fees and sanctions (January 8,
21
22 2008) and any subsequent order to pay a specific amount (April 15, 2008), and
23
any attempts and orders to enforce such orders at judgment debtor proceedings,
24
25 and any attempts and orders to enforce the orders of the judgment debtor
26
proceeding at contempt proceedings, are and were void.
27
28
-8-
1
Additionally, any Judgment and Order of Contempt for practicing law while
2 inactive or without a license is, and was, void as it was made as a result of a void
3
contempt proceeding which was the result of a void Order to Show Cause in the
4
5 Marina Strand case in which Judge Yaffe did not have jurisdiction to preside.
6
Further, Judge Yaffe knew that such Judgment and Order of Contempt was
7
8 false as he stated at page 9, lines 24-25, of the March 4, 2009 transcript: “I didn’t
9
think that there was a court order that you violated on this.”
10
As a matter of note, Fine had brought a federal civil rights suit, Richard I.
11
12 Fine v. State Bar of California; the Board of Governors of the State Bar of
13
California; Scott Drexel, Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California; and
14
15 the Supreme Court of California - as a necessary party only - for fraud upon the
16
Court, USDC case no. CV-10-0048, to invalidate the disbarment. As of the
17
18
present time, the State Bar defendants have defaulted and filed a late and
19 frivolous Motion to Dismiss. The Court has entered an Order to Show Cause
20
why the Motion to Dismiss should not be stricken and a default entered. The
21
22 California Supreme Court has defaulted and filed its own late and frivolous
23
Motion to Dismiss. Fine has filed a Request to Enter Default, Response to
24
25 Motion to Dismiss, and Motion to Strike the California Supreme Court’s Motion
26
to Dismiss.
27
28
-9-
1
All of the above information demonstrates that Judge Yaffe’s March 4,
2 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt ordering Fine’s “coercive confinement”
3
in the LA County jail violated California law, in addition to any constitutional
4
8 not served its “coercive purpose.” It was penal from the outset of March 4, 2009.
9
(See In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), cited in In Re William T. Farr
10
on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976).
11
12 Fine has been incarcerated for almost fifteen months. He has not been, and
13
cannot be, “coerced” to conform to void orders imposed by corrupt judges,
14
15 including Judge Yaffe, who had received criminal payments from LA County for
16
the last 23 years. Fine believes that the actions of the judges, by taking the illegal
17
18
payments and bribes and presiding over the cases in which the person/entity who
19 bribed them is a party, have not only destroyed our judicial system, but have also
20
destroyed a fundamental basis of our democracy: the right to a fair, impartial and
21
22 just judiciary in a country which is devoted to follow and obey the “Rule of
23
Law.”
24
25 The actions of the judges have removed that fundamental basis and the
26
country is left with the “rule of corruption”, enforced by “criminals in judicial
27
28
-10-
1
robes” who have been given immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability
2 and disciplinary action.
3
This tyranny of corruption has not broken Fine, nor will it break the
4
5 citizenry. In 1776, the citizenry faced the same problem with a king who was
6
paying the judges and ensuring their tenure. The citizenry sent him a message,
7
12 immunity from criminal prosecution under Senate Bill SBx2-11, knew that the
13
March 4, 2009 Order of coercive confinement was void in that Judge Yaffe did
14
15 not have the jurisdiction to make the Order, and that said Order was not
16
“coercive” but “penal” from the outset in that it did not “coerce” Fine to submit
17
18
to a void and illegal Order.
19 Fine should not have been incarcerated on March 4, 2009 and must be freed
20
now.
21
22
23
Dated this 17th day of May, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
24
25 BY: _________________________
RICHARD I. FINE,
26
In Pro Per
27
28
-11-
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Rose M. Zoia
50 Old Courthouse Square, Ste.401
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
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
____________________________________
FRED SOTTILE
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-13-