Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

1

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per


Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4

5 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


6
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
7

8
In Re: Case No. 09-80130

9 RICHARD ISAAC FINE, Esq. RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW


10 Admitted to the Bar of the CAUSE
Ninth Circuit: March 20, 1975
11
REQUEST FOR HEARING AND
12 Respondent. ORAL ARGUMENT
13

14

15

16

17 Respondent Richard I. Fine did not receive notice of the Order to Show
18 Cause until August 17, 2009. Respondent is presently incarcerated in the Los
19 Angeles Men’s County Jail without bail in a contempt proceeding until he either
20 discloses his assets or prevails in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
21 Fine has been incarcerated since March 4, 2009. The case is Fine v.
22 Sheriff of Los Angeles County and is presently before the Ninth Circuit, case no.
23 09-56073.
24 The issue before the Ninth Circuit is “whether the trial judge should have
25 recused himself.” The trial judge in the contempt proceeding, David P. Yaffe,
26 received payments from LA County, a party in the underlying case of Marina
27 Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles, LASC case
28 no. BS 109420.

-1-
1 These payments are $46,300.00 per year in addition to his State salary of
2 $178,800.00 per year, or approximately 28% of his State salary. These payments
3 are made to all LA County Superior Court judges.
4 The relevance of this information is that Fine was disbarred for filing
5 Federal civil rights suits challenging those payments as unconstitutional under
6 Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution and the First and
7 Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
8 However, prior to March 13, 2009, the California Court of Appeals
9 decided the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630
10 (2008) rev. denied 12/23/08, which held that the LA County payments to the LA
11 Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California
12 Constitution.
13 The Sturgeon case vindicated Fine’s position as to the lawsuits. However,
14 the State Bar Review Department refused to consider a motion for
15 reconsideration.
16 On February 20, 2009, Senate Bill “SBX 2 11” was enacted in response to
17 Sturgeon. Such bill was drafted by the Judicial Council of California as shown
18 in the history of Senate Bill “SBX 2 11”. Chief Justice George and Supreme
19 Court Justice Baxter are the Chairman of the Judicial Council and the Chairman
20 of the Legislative Committee, respectively.
21 Senate Bill “SBX 2 11” gave retroactive immunity to governmental
22 entities, officers and employees of governmental entities from liability
23 [criminal], prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a
24 judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date
25 of the act on the ground that these payments were not authorized under law.
26 Senate Bill “SBX 2 11” recognized the county payments as criminal. Senate Bill
27 “SBX 2 11” became effective May 21, 2009.
28

-2-
1 Four justices of the California Supreme Court received immunity under
2 Senate Bill “SBX 2 11” for county payments they received while Superior Court
3 Judges. These are Chin, Corrigan, Kennard and Moreno. Chief Justice George
4 may also receive immunity depending upon when the benefits started.
5 Fine filed a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court and a
6 Motion to Recuse the justices who received the immunity and the justices who
7 wrote Senate Bill “SBX 2 11” granting the immunity. Both were denied.
8 A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was timely filed in the U.S. Supreme
9 Court, Fine v. State Bar of California case no. 08-1573. The State Bar waived
10 its response. Amongst the issues are the recusal of the California Supreme
11 Court, whether Fine’s actions were protected by the First Amendment as the
12 entire State Bar action relied on pleadings before courts (Fine was disbarred for
13 “moral turpitude” for filing pleadings), whether Fine was denied due process by
14 the actions of the chief trial counsel and whether the statutory system of the
15 State Bar Act denies due process as the judges are paid from the assessments
16 made against the losing attorneys.
17 The Supreme Court conference is set for September 29, 2009.
18 As of the present time, the disbarment opinion of the Review Department
19 holds Fine guilty of “moral turpitude” for filing pleadings.
20 California is the only state which has a civil moral turpitude statute. New
21 York has a criminal moral turpitude statute. No other state, or the U.S. system,
22 imposes discipline for “moral turpitude.”
23 The counts against Fine are:
24 1 filing 11 CCP § 170.3 challenge deemed frivolous by the State Bar
25 court, not a court of record
26 4 misrepresentation that Mitchell had misappropriated funds
27 5 filed a frivolous appeal
28 6 filed a CCP § 170.3 challenge

-3-
1 8-9 consolidated – filed a Writ
2 14 filing § 170.3 challenges that seemed frivolous by State Bar not a
3 court of record.
4 16 filing a motion for leave to amend
5 17 making a false statement
6 18 filing a frivolous complaint
7 20 filing a frivolous complaint
8 21-22 filing a frivolous complaint
9

10
Counts 4 and 17 were dismissed by the Hearing Department and not

11
appealed by the State Bar. The Review Department reversed without notice or

12
hearing. This violated due process and State Bar Rule of Procedure 305.

13
Counts 16-22 are encompassed by the Sturgeon decision and Senate Bill

14
“SBX 2 11”.

15
Counts 1, 6 and 14 are encompassed by the First Amendment as truthful

16
pleadings and the right to criticize judges. Further, there was not any valid

17
denial as the responses were “strike or in the alternative answer” which is not a

18
proper response. See PBA, LLC v. KPOD, Ltd., 112 Cal.App.4th 965 (2003).

19
Count 5 - The appeal was not frivolous as the issue involved whether a

20
class counsel existed for the settlement class. There was not any attorney

21
appointed as a class counsel for a settlement class and thus an attorney could not

22
be removed. A previous appeal on the issue has been dismissed for lack of

23
standing and the issue was never addressed. Also, the court could not change the

24
final judgment.

25
Count 8-9 - the court had made a substantive decision which could not be

26
changed under CCP § 473d. The opposing party moved to have it changed as a

27
typographical error. Before the motion was decided, the Writ was filed

28

-4-
1 reflecting the court’s decision. Once the Writ was filed, the court also lost
2 jurisdiction to change anything.
3 Finally, Fine was denied due process inasmuch as the Hearing Department
4 judge was on the Board of Governors of the Special Olympics of Southern
5 California, which received $30,000 from LA County while he was deciding
6 Fine’s case.
7 From the above, the Court may determine that none of the actions
8 constitute “moral turpitude.” This is particularly true since counts 4 and 17 were
9 dismissed by the Hearing Department and the Review Department violated due
10 process and Rule 305 in reversing such without notice or hearing.
11 Counts 16-22 are all eliminated due to Sturgeon, supra. The decision in
12 counts 8-9 violates the substantive law in CCP § 473d and the CCP Code that a
13 trial court loses jurisdiction after an appeal or Writ is filed. Count 5 violated
14 substantive law as set out above, including the CCP § 473d limitation that a
15 court can not change the substance of a judgment, which judgment did not have
16 a class counsel. Counts 1, 6 and 14 are protected by the right to criticize a judge,
17 the fact that they were truthful, not disputed and no court had called them
18 frivolous. Fine v. Superior Court (97 Cal.App.4th 657 (2002)) was a void
19 decision as the underlying contempt order was voided and annulled and the
20 subsequent 2003 contempt proceeding became void when Judge Czuleger was
21 disqualified for not answering a CCP § 170.3 challenge.
22 All of the pleadings are protected by the First Amendment.
23 In summary, this was a sham proceeding initiated by judges who engaged
24 in the illegal acts of taking money from LA County and were retaliating against
25 the lawyer who exposed them.
26 But for the immunity given them by Senate Bill “SBX 2 11”, they would
27 no longer be judges and should have been criminally prosecuted. The Ninth
28 Circuit should not allow this sham disbarment to stand.

-5-
1
Dated this ____ day of August, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
2

3 BY: ____________________________
RICHARD I. FINE,
4
In Pro Per
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am ___________. My mailing address is _________________________.

On August ____, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - REQUEST FOR HEARING

AND ORAL ARGUMENT on interested parties in this action by depositing a true

copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid,

in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

None:

No other parties identified within Order to Show Cause.

No other parties identified in court docket on PACER.

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Executed on this ____ day of August, 2009, in the city of _____________,


California.
____________________________________
Signature

____________________________________
Print Name