Date post: | 30-May-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | honor-in-justice |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 31
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
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
4/31
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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-
8/9/2019 LA Superior Court - Demand for Farr Hearing - Marina Strand v Del Rey Shores - BS092794
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