la superior court - demand for farr hearing - marina strand v del rey shores - bs092794

8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794

1/31

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 PerPrisoner ID # 1824367c/o Mens Central Jail441 BauchetStreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

Pursuant to the Courts 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:

A. 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-

MARINA STRAND COLONY IIHOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Petitioner,vs.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al,

Respondents.

DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE;

DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURENORTH,

Real Parties In Interest.

Case No. BS 109420

DEMAND FOR AN IMMEDIATE

FARR HEARING NO LATERTHAN 3/31/10 PURSUANT TOCOURTS 2/3/10 MINUTE ORDER

DATE:TIME:COURTROOM: Dept. 86


2/31

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

Contempt would serve its coercive purpose; and

B. When the commitment became punitive in nature and subject to the

5-day statutory limitation of CCP 1218 (seeIn Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584

(1974), cited in In Re William T. Farron Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3rd 605,

611-612 (1976).

As shown in Fines 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 Fines 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-


3/31

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 invalidatesany 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 Yaffes 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 Yaffes denial of service is also very strange as the 2/10/10 letter

from Fred Sottile shows that service was made in Judge Yaffes 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-


4/31


5/31

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 Yaffes 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 thatthis Contempt Order would serve its coercive purpose.

When the Contempt Order is no longer able to fulfill its purpose of coercion, it

-5-


6/31

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. SeeIn Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 573, 584 (1974), cited in In Re William T.

Farron 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 ofIn Re

Farr, supra and In Re William T. Farron Habeas Corpus, supra. This clear

omission shows a deliberate refusal to provide a mechanism to be relieved from

-6-


7/31

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-


8/31

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 Californias

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-


9/31

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 Yaffes actions,

Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter of the U.S.

District Court, Central District of California, violated 28 USC 2243by 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 citeto any precedent in denying Judge Yaffes 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

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

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 SBx2-

11. 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-


10/31

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 disqualifyeach 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 legislatures continuation of county payments to state judges

from county funds commencing May 21, 2009 without immunity, have any

relevance to Judge Yaffes 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. This is a tax and would require a vote under

Proposition 13.

10. No judge in the Ninth Circuit voted for an en banc hearing. The

documents attached to the United Nations complaint show that the Ninth Circuit

was complicit in the state bribery and corruption scheme.

-10-


11/31

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, afterTumey 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. Masseys chairman and principal officers 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 Benjamins campaign committee during the election

-11-


12/31

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-


13/31

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-


14/31

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

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

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-


15/31

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 acounty 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 judges activities.

Canon 2B(1) states in relevant part: A judge shall not allow other

relationships to influence the judges judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a

-15-


16/31

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 judges 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

judges 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-


17/31

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 underSturgeon, 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-


18/31

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 1980s. 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

ofCounty 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-


19/31

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 attractand retain qualified Judges to serve in this [L.A.] County, it isnecessary and appropriate to provide them with benefits such as aflexible 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-


20/31

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 170.3Objection 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. Countys 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 Californias 58

counties over a 20+-year time period, one may begin to appreciate the total

devastation that has occurred to Californias judicial system and begin to

understand how it has spread to other parts of Californias government and into

the Federal judiciary. Effectively, a generation of judges, county supervisors and

-20-


21/31

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 ofbribery and corruption. It has become so common that bribery and

corruption are considered the norm, while the peoples 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-


22/31

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-


23/31

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

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

follows:

1) L.A. County pays bribes to Judge Yaffe, who does not recuse

himself from the case nor reveal the bribes;

2) Del Rey Shores, through Epstein and Levine, make campaign

contributions to Antonovich and Knabe in April 2007;

3) Antonovich and Knabe illegally vote for EIR whose co-

applicants are L.A. County and Del Rey Shores;

4) L.A. County Counsel and Del Rey Shores lawyers do not

-23-


24/31

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

disclose that the EIR vote is illegal;

5) In October 2007, I left the case;

6) On January 8, 2008, Judge Yaffe orders me to pay attorneys 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;

7) On March 20, 2008, Judge Yaffe admits for the first time, under

my questioning, to receiving payments from L.A. County;

8) On March 25, 2008, I served Judge Yaffe with a CCP 170.3

Objection and filed such based upon the L.A. County payments.

9) 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.

10) On November 3, 2008, Judge Yaffe signs Order to Show Cause

Re Contempt against me on 16 counts for trial before Judge Yaffe.

a. 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-


25/31

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

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 dirtissue in this case.

11) 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.

12) 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 Reporters 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-


26/31

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 Yaffes 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 ofFine v. State Bar of California, et al, USDC Case No. CV-

10-0048 JFW (CW). The case seeks to void and annul my disbarment by

showing the State Bars 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-


27/31

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. UnderFarr, 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, andLevine 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

Yaffes February 3, 2010 Minute Order. An Application for Stay of Execution of

-27-


28/31

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 ofCertiorari 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. For the perspective of Judge Yaffe and the Superior Court, this case

is over. The Supreme Court precedents are clear, as are the international

obligations of the United States. The California precedents are clear. The

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 Kennedys 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

avidly followed. Details concerning the bribery, corruption and coercive

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-


29/31

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 once-

respected 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-


30/31

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 #1824367c/o Mens Central Jail441 Bauchet StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

-30-


31/31

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 asDEMAND FOR AN IMMEDIATE FARR HEARING NO LATER THAN

3/31/10 PURSUANT TO COURTS 2/3/10 MINUTE ORDER on interestedparties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in asealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed

as follows:Kevin M. McCormick Elaine M. LemkeBenton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham Principal Deputy County Counsel39 N. California Street LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OFF.P.O. Box 1178 500 West Temple StreetVentura, CA 93002 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713

Joshua Lee Rosen R.J. ComerJoshua L Rosen Law Offices Armbruster & Goldsmith, LLP5905 Sherbourne Drive 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100Los Angeles , CA 90056 Los Angeles, CA 90024

Rose M. Zoia50 Old Courthouse Square, Ste.401Santa Rosa, CA 95404

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the UnitedStates of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true andcorrect.

Executed on this _____ day of March, 2010, at ____________, California.

__________________________ ____________________________SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME

la superior court - demand for farr hearing - marina strand v del rey shores - bs092794

Documents