Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
RICHARD I. FINE,
Petitioner,
v.
______________________________
______________________________
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Parties……………………………………………………………….. 1
II. Jurisdiction………………………………………………………….. 2
III. Purpose of Petition and Factual Background……………………….. 2
Prayer …………………………………………………………………… 23
Conclusion ……..……………………………………………………….. 38
Certification of Word Count ………………………………………………….. 42
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986)………………………………31
Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (1962)…………………………………….7, 25
BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4th 1205 (2000)…………..15
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. ___ (2009)……………...passim
Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 328……………………………….6, 25
Farr, In Re, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 589 (1974)…...…………………………………..8
William T. Farr, In Re, on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605 (1976)……….8, 34
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)………………………………9, 10, 35, 41
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960)………………...27, 30
McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245 (1972)…………..10, 35, 41
Murchison, In re, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)……..…..……………………………passim
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 75 S.Ct. 11 (1954)……………………...27, 30
Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 ……………..6, 25
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC 351286 …………...passim
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)………………………………….…..26, 31, 40
U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878)………………………………….6, 25, 39
Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920)……...…6, 25, 39
Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972)……..……………………….31
Statutes
California Code of Criminal Procedure § 1219(a)………………………………..18
California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1………………………………….passim
California Code of Civil Procedure § 1218……………………………………….19
California Code of Civil Procedure § 6127……………………………………….18
California Senate Bill SBx2-11 …………………………………………12, 13, 14
Rules
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(5)……………………………………7
Constitutional Provisions
Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution………………………...11, 13
Treatises
Wells, Res Adjudicata, Section 499…………………………………………….6, 25
Canons
Code of Judicial Ethics, Canons 2, 3B, 3E and 4D(1)……………………….passim
iii
Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
I. Parties
“Fine”), has been incarcerated in the Los Angeles County Jail since March 4, 2009
2009 by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe (hereinafter referred to
Association v. County of Los Angeles, et al, LASC case no. BS109420 (sometimes
the Marina Strand case until October 17, 2007, when the State Bar ordered him
inactive. The California Supreme Court did not affirm the order and did not order
Fine inactive. Subsequently, the State Bar recommended Fine’s disbarment and
Fine filed a Federal civil rights lawsuit against the State Bar, the State Bar
Board of Governors and the State Bar Chief Trial Counsel based upon their
violations of his constitutional rights and fraud upon the court. The case (US DC
case no. 10-CV-0048) is presently pending in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California.
1
Fine’s incarceration was a direct result of his challenging Judge Yaffe’s
presiding over a case in which LA County was a party before him while he was
Respondent Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (hereinafter the
custody of Fine.
Real Parties in Interest are the parties in the Marina Strand case.
II. Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction under both the California Constitution and the
This Petition seeks an immediate writ of habeas corpus releasing Fine from
the “coercive confinement” in the LA County Jail, where he has been held for over
Fine had filed all of his writs through the U.S. Supreme Court, and had filed
his Petition for Rehearing in the U.S. Supreme Court when Judge Yaffe issued a
July 13, 2010 Minute Order admitting to “fraud upon the court” and obstruction of
justice in both the Marina Strand case and the Federal court proceedings.
2
The July 13, 2010 Minute Order stated that a March 18, 2008 Order was
nonexistent, and that Judge Yaffe never intended to decide whether Fine had
standing to disqualify him, Judge Yaffe, in the Marina Strand case. These
statements showed Judge Yaffe’s fraud upon the court and obstruction of justice,
as did his reliance upon the nonexistent March 18, 2008 Order in his March 27,
2008 Order Striking Notice of Disqualification, and as basis for not removing
himself from the Marina Strand case after he was automatically disqualified by not
having responded to Fine’s March 25, 2008 CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement
of Disqualification.
“It has been brought to the Court’s attention that its Order Striking
Notice of Disqualification dated and filed March 27, 2008, refers to an
earlier March 18, 2008 draft order that was not filed . . . .”
“The Court did not intend to make any finding as to whether Mr. Fine
had standing to file a Verified Statement of Disqualification pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.3.”
A true and correct copy of the July 13, 2007 Minute Order marked as Exhibit “1”
Judge Yaffe had relied upon the March 18, 2008 Order to Strike Fine’s
February 19, 2008 Motion to Disqualify all LA Superior Court judges who had
3
The Declaration of Richard I. Fine in Support of the Motion to Disqualify
12. In the instant case Los Angeles County is a party. The Court
[Judge Yaffe] has not disclosed if it is presently receiving money from
LA County.
13. In the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Case No.
BC 351286, in which plaintiff brought suit to enjoin LA County from
making payments to LA Superior Court judges, the case was
transferred out of the jurisdiction of the LA Court.
The July 13, 2010 Minute Order showed that Judge Yaffe knew at all times
that he could not strike the February 19, 2008 Motion as a CCP Section 170.3
LA County payments to him, nor had LA County disclosed such. He also knew
that precedent existed to disqualify all LA Superior Court judges who were
In the July 13, 2010 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe stated that he struck the
February 19, 2008 Motion in a March 20, 2008 Minute Order. However, such
Minute Order was never served on anyone. The Notice of Ruling of the March 20,
2008 hearing, served by Joshua L. Rosen, counsel for Del Rey Shores Joint
Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, Real Parties in Interest in the
Marina Strand case (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Del Rey Shores”) did
not refer to a March 20, 2008 Minute Order, nor was such attached. It stated that
4
Judge Yaffe struck the February 19, 2008 Motion as a CCP Section 170.3 Verified
Statement of Disqualification.
This Notice stated that such striking was illegal as it would have had to have been
done within ten (10) days of February 19, 2008 if Judge Yaffe considered the
February.19, 2008 Motion to be personal to him. But Judge Yaffe’s only response
was the March 27, 2008 Order, which referred to the nonexistent March 18, 2008
Order. And the March 27, 2008 Order was never served on any person and did not
At the March 20, 2008 hearing, which was the first hearing in the Marina
Strand case that Fine attended, Judge Yaffe, for the first time, admitted to
As stated above, Fine then filed a CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of
Disqualification, to which Judge Yaffe did not respond. His failure to respond
resulted in his automatic disqualification ten (10) days later under CCP Section
170.3(c)(4). Judge Yaffe was given a copy of the Notice of Disqualification at the
April 10, 2008 hearing. The Notice of Disqualification was filed by the Clerk on
The new July 13, 2010 Minute Order, when viewed in context within the
series of events from the start of the Marina Strand case on June 14, 2007, and the
5
failure of LA County and Judge Yaffe to disclose the LA County payments at the
outset of the case, through the concealment of the payments and the false April 18,
2008 Order, its concealment until July 13, 2010, and the circumstances under
which it was written (over two years after the fact, and then only when compelled
Federal case (USDC case no. 09-CV-01914), showed fraud upon the court and
(1878):
The U.S. Supreme Court further stated in Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine
“Courts are constituted by authority, and they cannot [act] beyond the
power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and
certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are
regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this
even prior to reversal. Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.)
328, 340; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct.
236.
6
Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (1962), looking at F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)
(5), holds:
violation of due process. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in the case of Caperton
v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. ___ (2009), at Slip Opinion page 7, citing
The LA County payments to Judge Yaffe, the concealment thereof, the false
March 18, 2008 Order, the concealment thereof, and the actions of Judge Yaffe
consisting of fraud upon the court and obstruction of justice as finally admitted in
the July 13, 2010 Minute Order showed the Caperton statement to be true.
The “coercive confinement” was ordered by Judge Yaffe to occur while Fine
was in the process of seeking writs of habeas corpus to overturn Judge Yaffe’s
7
whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself from the underlying Marina
Strand case, for having accepted payments from LA County, a party to the case.
Neither LA County nor he had disclosed such. Judge Yaffe subsequently made
orders in favor of LA County and Del Rey Shores, the County’s co-applicant for an
The writs also included the issue of whether Judge Yaffe should have
recused himself from the ancillary contempt proceeding in which “he judged his
own actions.”
questions about his assets. It was established from the outset that “there was no
substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive purpose
[and] the commitment would become punitive in nature and subject to the statutory
O. Douglas had issued a stay of execution of sentence while the writ of habeas
On June 18, 2010, Judge Yaffe issued a Minute Order in which he admitted
that Fine had informed him that Fine was not going to answer any questions. Such
Minute Order was not served until July 13, 2010. A true and correct copy of such
8
Minute Order, marked as Exhibit “2”, is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
In such June 18, 2010 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe admitted that Fine had
filed a May 17, 2010 Motion for a “Farr Hearing,” which Judge Yaffe refused to
hold. The Motion was actually filed on May 21, 2010. A true and correct copy of
the Motion, marked as Exhibit “3”, is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if
In the June 18, 2010 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe requested other parties in
the case to provide information about Fine’s assets and serve Fine by personal
service or by fax. This did not occur. Del Rey Shores was the only party who
responded. It did not serve Fine by personal service nor by fax. Fine filed a
Declaration Showing No Service, and further informed Judge Yaffe that Fine
would not be answering any questions due to Judge Yaffe’s admission of fraud
upon the court and obstruction of justice. A true and correct copy of Fine’s
Declaration, filed August 20, 2010, is attached hereto marked as Exhibit “4” and
On August 23, 2010, Judge Yaffe filed a Minute Order in which he refused
to set Fine free. He did not give any legal reason for such decision. A true and
correct copy of such Minute Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “5” and
9
Such decision violated the U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Jackson v.
Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) and McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407
U.S. 245 (1972). These decisions hold that confinement beyond the time that bears
confinement for contempt of court is five (5) days under CCP Section 1218.
At all times, Judge Yaffe knew that the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order
imprisonment and a penal imprisonment, as shown in the Demand to Free Fine and
other relief filed January 27, 2010. Judge Yaffe’s sole excuse for not recusing
himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case was “Mr. Fine knew that all judges
of this court received compensation from the County of Los Angeles on June 14,
2007, when he filed the underlying case BS190420 on behalf of the petitioner
10
The judgment ignored: (1) the fact that LA County, its attorneys and Judge
Yaffe concealed the payments until March.20, 2008, when Judge Yaffe admitted to
them under questioning by Fine in court; and (2) that Judge Yaffe should have
disqualified … for any reason a person aware of the facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to remain impartial”; and (3) that
under the Code of Judicial Ethics, Canons 2, 3B, 3E and 4D(1), Judge Yaffe was
judge’s activities” (Canon 2), to “dispose of matters fairly and in accordance with
the law” (Canon 3B(7) and (8)), “to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1, even if the judge believes that there is no actual
basis for disqualification” (Canon 3E(2)), and “to not engage in financial and
business dealings that (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s
business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to appear before the
On March 4, 2009, Judge Yaffe knew that he had violated CCP Section
170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) and Code of Judicial Ethics Canons 2, 3B, 3E, and 4D(1) and
11
should have recused himself in the underlying Marina Strand case from the outset,
and from the ancillary contempt proceedings, based upon his taking payments from
Judge Yaffe also knew that the LA County payments were held to violate
Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v.
County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied 12/23/08. Judge
Yaffe further knew that such payments were criminal in that Senate Bill SBx2-11,
enacted February 20, 2009 in response to the Sturgeon decision, gave retroactive
immunity effective May.21, 2009 from criminal prosecution, civil liability and
12
obligate the state or the Judicial Council to pay for the benefits
previously provided by the County, City and County, or the Court.”
notify the Administrative Office of the Courts and the impacted judges if the
benefits were terminated during their “current term while the judge continued to
serve as a judge in that court or, at the election of the county when that judge
leaves office.”
the judge’s payments as part of the annual budget process. Thus the “terms and
conditions as were in effect on that date [July 1, 2008]” would have expired by
July 1, 2009. The payments were voluntary by LA County and Senate Bill SBx2-
11, by its language, did not, and could not, create a compulsory obligation upon
and a bribe. Even the voluntary payment consists of such criminal acts. That is
the reason for the retroactive immunity linked to the effective date of Senate Bill
SBx2-11 (5/21/09) linked to payments existing on July 1, 2008, which was the last
annual budget for counties prior to the Sturgeon decision. The “continuation” of
the payments by Senate Bill SBx2-11 violates Article VI, Section 19, of the
13
county payment scheme until the end of the current county fiscal term. By its
terms, Senate Bill SBx2-11 prohibits the state from making the payments.
The Sturgeon decision held, in the last four paragraphs, that the 1997
Lockyer-Insenberg Trial Court Funding Act did not “prescribe” county payments
to the judges as the county payments were voluntary and the counties could pay
benefits to some people and not others. Senate Bill SBx2-11, by linking the
“continued” payments to the old July 1, 2008 payments, suffers the same
deficiency. The County is not required to make the payments if it was not required
The LA County budget for FY 2009-2010 shows that the payments are
The issue of the continued payments is presently being litigated in the Court
of Appeal in Sturgeon.
authorize the payments by the counties for work already performed. Thus, even if
the judges were county employees, or contractors, Senate Bill SBx2-11 would be
The Reporter’s Transcript of the March 4, 2009 hearing shows that Judge
Yaffe was aware of the Sturgeon case and Senate Bill SBx2-11, and knew of both
14
the unconstitutionality and criminality of the LA County payments to him. (See
Reporter’s Transcript, March 4, 2009, page 7, line 10, to page 8, line 4, and page
2008 that: (1) he received the LA County payments; (2) he did not disclose such on
his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests; (3) he did not have an employment
contract or arrangement for providing services to LA County; (4) he did not put the
LA County payments into his campaign fund; and (5) could not remember any case
that he decided against LA County in the last three years. Judge Yaffe also acted
as the judge in the contempt proceeding, “judging his own actions.” (See In Re
Cost Management Reports for the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 showed
that no one won a case against LA County when the case was decided by a LA
Superior Court judge. The fiscal year 2008-2009 Annual Report shows one case
It was also shown during the contempt proceeding that the LA County Board
of Supervisors’ March 15, 2007 vote approving the EIR by a 4-0 vote was illegal
because people related to the Epstein Family Trust (who were the local managing
15
Antonovich and Knabe within twelve months of the vote. This action made their
votes illegal under The Political Reform Act and the case of BreakZone Billiards v.
County, its attorneys, Del Rey Shores and its attorneys at the outset of the Marina
Further, it was shown during the contempt proceeding that the Del Rey
Shores development project did not confer a financial benefit to LA County, which
was a requirement under the EIR. Given this knowledge, Judge Yaffe still did not
grant the writ and strike the EIR. The failure to do such further showed that the
bribes.
imprisonment” and was only being made to coerce Fine to drop his petitions for
writs of habeas corpus, which Fine was not going to abandon. Fine told Judge
Yaffe that he would answer the questions if he lost all the petitions and appeals.
Thus, there was no reason for the “coercive confinement” during the writ process
other than to coerce Fine to abandon the writs. Fine stated, at Reporter’s
16
exhausted and I lose, then I would answer the questions. Until such
time that those rights are not exhausted, I am not answering questions.
So we’re in an interim procedure here, Your Honor, and if you want
to try to throw me in jail during the interim procedure, you may be
doing another illegal act. You know, that is your position. You’ve
already done illegal acts. If you want to continue down that road, that
is a position that obviously you have taken before and may wish to
continue taking, but higher courts may come down on you.”
“… [W]e are now dealing with the law of the State of California,
which said that the acts that you have done are illegal. They gave you
immunity for it. You cannot be prosecuted criminally in the State of
California for your acts. You … cannot be held civilly liable in the
State of California for your acts. You cannot be punished by the
Commission on Judicial Performance in the State of California for
your acts.”
“On the other hand, in the Federal system it’s another story. There,
under 18 United States Code Section 1346, you can be held liable for
the violations of the implied or intangible right to honest services.
You are still subject to Federal criminal prosecution and are still
subject to Federal liability.”
…
17
Knowing that Fine would not answer questions about his assets until the full
writ procedure was finished, Judge Yaffe still incarcerated Fine in the LA County
Subsequent thereto, during the writ procedure, the LA Superior Court and
Judge Yaffe did not oppose Fine’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S.
District Court, did not oppose two Motions to set Fine free and a Motion for
Reconsideration, a Motion to Grant the Writ Based Upon the Opening Brief and a
Writ of Mandate to Order a Writ of Habeas Corpus to Set Fine Free in the Ninth
Circuit.
The LA Superior Court and Judge David P. Yaffe’s Answering Brief, filed
in the Ninth Circuit in the habeas corpus action, stated at page 3, line 15, to page 4,
Criminal Procedure, Section 1219(a) was imposed.” At Footnote 4, the brief stated
that the basis of the finding of civil contempt was “Fine’s failure to answer
March.4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt did not have any criminal charge
in it. It did contain CCP § 6127, which is civil, to which Judge Yaffe stated at
Reporter’s Transcript, March 4, 2009, page 9, lines 20-26, that no court order was
violated on the charge of practicing law without a license. A criminal charge under
18
CCP § 6126 was in the Order to Show Cause re Contempt, but such charge was not
in the Judgment.
The result is that the “criminal contempt” could only relate to the
Court and Judge Yaffe. Their Answering Brief stated at page 15, lines 16-18:
On January 27, 2010, Fine filed a Demand for Release. The Clerk in
Department 86, Judge Yaffe’s courtroom at the LA Superior Court, gave the
personal/courtesy copy for Judge Yaffe back to Fine’s filing assistant, Fred Sottile,
stating that she only needed one document and refused to keep a copy for Judge
Yaffe after it had been given to her for him. (See Declaration of John Fred Sottile,
attached hereto, marked as Exhibit “6” and incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.)
Demand and Response, attached hereto, collectively marked as Exhibit “7” and
19
In essence, the Response struck that part of the Demand referring to Fine’s
Declaration as repetitive, arguing that Judge Yaffe had not been served and that no
proof existed that the “coercive confinement” of nearly twelve months was penal
from the outset, was not working, that there was no substantive likelihood that the
contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, and that the commitment had not
All of these latter arguments were based upon the premise that the writ
proceedings were still proceeding. No explanation was given to link this premise
The Response did not address the fact that Judge Yaffe was deciding his
own actions in violation of due process as set forth in In Re Murchison, 349 U.S.
133, 136 (1955), cited in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc., et al., 556 U.S.
On March 24, 2010, Fine filed a Declaration to be Set Free. A true and
correct copy, marked as Exhibit “8”, is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
As shown above, this was followed by the May 21, 2010 Motion for a Farr
Hearing, the June 18, 2010 Minute Order (served on July 13, 2010), the July 13,
2010 Minute Order, the August 20, 2010 Declaration, and the August 23, 2010
Minute Order.
20
In summary, LA County and its attorneys and Judge Yaffe committed fraud
upon the court at the outset of the Marina Strand case on June 14, 2007 by not
Marina Strand case on June 14, 2007 by not disqualifying himself. He also
violated Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 4D(1) – by taking money from LA County;
Canon 3E(2) – by not disclosing such on the record; and Canon 3E(1) – by not
disqualifying himself.
LA County, its attorneys, Del Rey Shores and its attorneys committed fraud
upon the court at the outset of the Marina Strand case on June 14, 2007 by not
disclosing that the LA Supervisors’ vote on the EIR was illegal and that the EIR
Judge Yaffe violated due process by presiding over a case in which he had
received illegal payments/bribes from a party appearing before him without the
consent of the other parties and by judging his own actions, amongst other things.
Judge Yaffe violated due process by incarcerating Fine while knowing that
the incarceration did not have any reasonable relationship to the purpose for which
Fine was committed from the outset on March 4, 2009, while the writ process was
proceeding, and further after July 13, 2010 when Judge Yaffe admitted to fraud
21
upon the court and obstruction of justice. At all times, Judge Yaffe knew the
Fine filed a Complaint against Judge Yaffe with the Commission on Judicial
Performance. Subsequent thereto, Judge Yaffe issued the July 13, 2010 Minute
Order in which he admitted to having committed fraud upon the court and
obstruction of justice.
November 2, 2010, with his last day on the bench to be October 2, 2010.
Fine filed a “Notice That All Orders and Judgments in the Marina Strand
Case are Void Based Upon Judge Yaffe’s Admission of “Fraud Upon the Court”
and Obstruction of Justice in the July 13, 2010 Minute Order of the Court,” on
August 4, 2010.
General, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, the California
Attorney General and the District Attorney for LA County seeking a grand jury
investigation and indictments of Judge Yaffe and others for obstruction of justice,
violations of the intangible right to honest services – 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 – and
other federal and state crimes related to the payment of money from counties,
particularly LA County, to state and federal judges presiding over cases in which
they are a party or in which they have an interest, amongst other violations.
22
Prayer
1. The Court grant habeas corpus relief forthwith or, in the alternative, order
Respondents to show cause why habeas corpus relief should not be granted;
3. For such other relief as the Court deems fair and just.
By: __________________
Richard I. Fine,
In Pro Per
Verification
aforementioned Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and know the contents
information and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
_____________________________
Richard I. Fine
23
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
I. Requested Relief
Petitioner (hereinafter “Fine”) requests that this Court issue a writ of habeas
corpus freeing him from the LA County Jail, where he is being incarcerated under
Contempt (the “Judgment”) since March 4, 2009, including an order voiding and
annulling all orders and judgments in the case of Marina Strand Colony II
A. Fraud Upon the Court From the Outset of the Marina Strand
Case
As shown in the Verified Petition, from the outset of the Marina Strand case
in June 14, 2007: (1) LA County, its attorneys and Judge Yaffe committed fraud
upon the court by not disclosing the LA County payments to Judge Yaffe; (2)
himself; (b) Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 4D(1) – by taking money from LA
County; (c) Canon 3E(2) by not disclosing such on the record; (d) Canon 3E(1) by
not disqualifying himself; and (e) LA County, its attorneys, real parties in interest –
Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Ventures North (“Del Rey
Shores”) and its attorneys committed fraud upon the court by not disclosing that
24
the LA County Board of Supervisors’ vote approving the co-application of LA
County and Del Rey Shores for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was illegal
Fraud upon the court vitiates the entire Marina Strand case. All orders and
judgments of Judge Yaffe are regarded as nullities and are void. (See U.S. v.
Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64, 66 (1878); Vallely v. Northern Fire and Marine Ins.
Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353-354 (1920); Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (1962) – “if
The U.S. Supreme Court further stated in Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine
“Courts are constituted by authority, and they cannot [act] beyond the
power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and
certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are
regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this
even prior to reversal. Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.)
328, 340; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct.
236.”
25
This concealment also denied due process to Fine. The U.S. Supreme Court
stated in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. ___ (2009), Slip
Opinion page 7, citing to Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927):
relevant part:
LA County, its attorneys and Judge Yaffe committed “fraud upon the court”
Yaffe from the outset of the Marina Strand case until March 20, 2008 when Judge
Yaffe admitted to such under questioning by Fine at the March 20, 2008 hearing.
$500,00.00 from 1987, when Judge Yaffe became a LA Superior Court judge,
through the present. On December 22, 2008, Judge Yaffe testified in the contempt
proceeding that he could not remember a case in the last three years that he decided
against LA County. This indicated that the LA County payments were bribes.
26
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that
“justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,” Levine v. United States, 362 U.S.
610, 616, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75
S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). Therefore, a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party
On July 13, 2010, three years and one month after the June 14, 2007 filing of
“It has been brought to the Court’s attention that its Order striking
Notice of Disqualification dated and filed March 27, 2008, refers to an
earlier March 18, 2008 draft order that was not filed . . . .”
“The Court did not intend to make any finding as to whether Mr. Fine
had standing to file a Verified Statement of Disqualification pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.3.”
On June 14, 2010, Judge Yaffe, LA County, its attorneys, Del Rey Shores
and its attorneys committed fraud upon the court by not disclosing the LA County
payments to Judge Yaffe and the illegality of the LA Supervisors’ vote for the EIR
and the illegal LA County EIR certification, at the outset of the Marina Strand case
Nine months later, on March 18, 2008, Judge Yaffe purportedly “strikes”
Fine’s February 19, 2008 Motion to Disqualify all LA Superior Court judges
receiving money from LA County on the grounds that Fine did not have standing
27
to file a Verified Statement of Disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Two and one quarter years later, Judge Yaffe admits on July 13, 2010 that
the March 18, 2010 Order did not exist. It was a “draft order that was not filed.”
From March 18, 2008 to July 13, 2010, Judge Yaffe: (1) refused to leave the
Marina Strand case after he was disqualified when he did not respond to Fine’s
March 25, 2008 CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification; (2)
entered an illegal judgment on April 15, 2008 ordering Fine to pay attorney’s fees
to Del Rey Shores; (3) entered an illegal Order to Show Cause Re Contempt
proceeding against Fine which commenced on December 22, 2008; (5) entered an
illegal Judgment and Order of Contempt against Fine on March 4, 2009 ordering
answered questions about his assets; (6) refused to provide Fine a “Farr Hearing”
to release Fine from jail; and (7) committed fraud and obstruction of justice upon
the LA Superior Court, the U.S. District Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S.
Supreme Court by concealing and refusing to disclose the fact the March 18, 2008
Order did not exist, and that he and LA County and its attorneys had concealed the
28
C. Due Process Was Violated by Judge Yaffe “Judging His Own
Actions” and Receiving LA County Payments When It Was a
Party Before Him
As shown in the Verified Petition, the underlying issue in the case was
whether the criminal payments from LA County to the LA Superior Court judges
mandated the recusal of the judge under due process when LA County was a party
An element of the issue was whether a judge who had taken such payments
U.S. Supreme Court cases have held that the answers to both questions were
In In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), cited in Caperton, supra, Slip
Opinion page 10, the Court recited 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
Under Murchison, supra, it was a denial of due process for Judge Yaffe to
preside over the contempt proceedings in the Marina Strand case. In the contempt
proceeding, Judge Yaffe was deciding his own actions of taking payments from
LA County, not recusing himself and making orders in favor of LA County and its
29
In the underlying Marina Strand case, it was a violation of due process for
Judge Yaffe to preside over the case because the LA County payments were
illegal, criminal and, particularly, “bribes.” The LA County payments were held to
v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) rev. denied (12/23/08).
Subsequently, Senate Bill SBx2-11, enacted February 20, 2009, effective May 21,
governmental entity on the grounds that those benefits were not authorized by
bribery. The retroactive immunity did not extend to the obstruction of justice of
presiding over a case in which a County had made a payment to the judge. It was
Again, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that
“justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,” Levine v. United States, 362 U.S.
610, 616, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75
S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). Therefore, a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party
30
The amount of payment to Judge Yaffe, which was $46,366.00 per year,
which was approximately 27% of Judge Yaffe’s $178,800.00 annual state salary
influence” “coupled with the temporal relationship” between the time of the
payments and the Marina Strand case, which was concurrent, to “offer a possible
temptation to the average … judge to … lead him not to hold the balance nice,
clear and true.” Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion page 16, citing to Aetna Life Ins.
Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825 (1986), quoting Ward v. Village of Monroeville,
409 U.S. 57, 60 (1972), in turn quoting Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927).
This occurred in the Marina Strand case and all other cases where LA
In the Marina Strand case and the contempt proceeding, Judge Yaffe
rejected all of the Supreme Court precedents which mandated his recusal. Judge
Yaffe argued that Fine should have disqualified him at the outset of the Marina
Strand case, instead of nine months later. He avoided to state that he and LA
County and its attorneys had concealed the fact that Judge Yaffe was receiving
payments from LA County before the case began and during those nine months.
31
Additionally, Fine left as counsel after four months while Judge Yaffe still
concealed the payments. However, even after Fine disqualified him on March 25,
2008, Judge Yaffe still refused to leave the case and judged his own actions in the
After violating due process in the contempt proceeding, Judge Yaffe ordered
Fine to be incarcerated while the writ process proceeded on the issue of whether
Faced with a Motion that Fine be set free on the grounds that the
incarceration was not “coercive” but “punitive” from the outset, Judge Yaffe again
judged his own actions, in violation of Murchison, supra, and denied due process.
witness to the facts and thus was disqualified from deciding the Motion under CCP
§ 170.1. Yet, on August 23, 2010, Judge Yaffe refused to set Fine free, without
As shown in the Petition, Judge Yaffe knew that the incarceration would not
“coerce” Fine to answer questions about his assets, as Fine was determined to
complete the writ process on the issue of recusal which superseded the contempt
judgment. Judge Yaffe knew that if Fine prevailed, Fine would never have to
32
imprisonment and “penal” from the outset as it was not serving any purpose other
than to punish Fine for challenging Judge Yaffe for taking criminal LA County
Judge Yaffe further knew that he did not have subject matter jurisdiction in
the Marina Strand case due to the fraud upon the court of LA County and its
He also knew from the contempt proceeding of the fraud upon the court of
LA County, its attorneys, Del Rey Shores and its attorneys of concealing the
illegality of the LA County Supervisors’ vote approving the EIR and the illegality
Finally, he knew of his own fraud upon the court and obstruction of justice
III. Argument
A. The Writ Must Be Granted Because Judge Yaffe Judged His Own
Actions.
Judge Yaffe judged his own actions by denying Fine’s freedom. The
incarceration was unlawful from the outset because the answering of questions,
which was the purpose of the incarceration, was unrelated to the issue of whether
By imposing the sentence while knowing that the writ process was
proceeding and that Fine was not going to answer any questions during such
33
process, Judge Yaffe was not acting to coerce Fine to answer questions. He was
incarcerating Fine to stop him from pursuing his right to habeas corpus relief and
he was acting to punish Fine for challenging Judge Yaffe’s taking of the criminal
LA County payments.
was required to do under CCP § 170.1, Judge Yaffe violated due process. (See
Murchison, supra.)
answer questions would not work from the outset. Further, as shown in the LA
Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s Answering Brief, it was admitted that the
incarceration was “criminal,” i.e., penal. As such, the incarceration was not only
unlawful, but could only last for five days under CCP § 1218. It has now lasted for
C. Under the Farr Case and U.S. Supreme Court Precedent, the
Incarceration Became Penal Immediately.
was established that there was no substantial likelihood that such contempt order
34
would serve its coercive purpose, the commitment would become punitive in
As of March 4, 2009, as shown in the Petition, Judge Yaffe knew that Fine
was not going to answer any questions unless he lost all the writ proceedings. Fine
told him so. Fine also suggested that the sentence be delayed until after the writ
proceedings were completed. Judge Yaffe refused. At such time, Judge Yaffe
knew that there was no substantial likelihood that the contempt order would serve
its coercive purpose and, as of March 4, 2009, the commitment became punitive in
nature and subject to the statutory five-day limitation. Fine should have been
U.S. Supreme Court precedents hold that confinement beyond the time that
bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which the person is committed is
a denial of due process. (See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) and McNeil
mean “penal” confinement under state law. In California, “penal” confinement for
35
D. The Writ Must be Granted Because the Actions of Judge Yaffe are a
Sham.
In his Response to the January 27, 2010 Demand, Judge Yaffe claimed he
did not receive a service copy. However, the attached Declaration of John Fred
Sottile showed that a service copy was hand-delivered to Judge Yaffe’s clerk, who
then returned it and refused to take it, stating that she would only accept the
original. It was clear that Judge Yaffe would have known this.
In the same Response, Judge Yaffe struck as repetitive that part of the
Demand which showed that he was recused under the U.S. Supreme Court cases.
This was another example of Judge Yaffe’s refusal to adhere to the U.S. Supreme
Court’s precedents. He has taken the position that cases like Murchison, supra, do
not apply to him. He evidently is also of the opinion that CCP § 170.1 and the
Judge Yaffe, in again judging his own actions as he did in the contempt
proceeding, concluded that there is no proof that his Judgment would not serve its
coercive purpose when he was told it would not on March 4, 2009 and, eleven and
a half months later, Fine still had not answered questions, was still incarcerated,
Judge Yaffe’s argument in his Response that Fine should wait until after the
writ process was over and then tell Judge Yaffe if Fine was willing to answer
questions showed that Judge Yaffe’s true intent on March 4, 2009 was not to
36
“coerce” Fine to answer questions through the incarceration, but to punish Fine for
challenging Judge Yaffe for taking criminal payments from LA County, not
disclosing such, and presiding over LA County cases and deciding in favor of LA
On May 21, 2010, when the Supreme Court process was nearing a
conclusion, Fine again moved for a “Farr Hearing.” Judge Yaffe refused to hear
the Motion. He even refused to set it on calendar after the Motion was filed and
On July 13, 2010, Judge Yaffe served his June 18, 2010 Minute Order
requesting other parties in the case to search for Fine’s assets and file declarations
The only party to respond was Del Rey Shores, who did not serve Fine
Judge Yaffe responded by Minute Order, including a copy of the Del Rey
Shores Declaration. Fine filed an August 20, 2010 Declaration stating he would
not answer any questions, and the reasons therefore, such reasons being the fraud
On August 23, 2010, Judge Yaffe, without having had a hearing and by
judging his own actions, refused to set Fine free. He did not give any legal reason.
37
Conclusion
LA County and the LA Superior Court have known that these payments
were illegal since at least November 10, 1988, as shown by a letter from Roger W.
Superior Court, dated November 10, 1988. The letter was produced by LA County
The LA County payments to the state court trial judges in the LA Superior
Court over the 23-year time period of 1987 through the present is estimated to be
approximately $300 million. This number is based upon the $127,250,000 paid
$90 million paid from 2006 to 2010, and the approximate $100 million paid from
1987 to 2006.
All of the payments were illegal. Based upon the fact that only two cases
were decided against LA County by LA Superior Court judges from fiscal year
2005-2006 to 2007-2008, these payments may also be bribes. In fiscal year 2008-
2009, one case was decided against LA County by a LA Superior Court judge.
38
From 1987 through the present, Judge Yaffe received approximately
testimony in the contempt proceeding, he could not remember any case in the last
Judge Yaffe, LA County and its attorneys committed fraud upon the court by
concealing the LA County payments to Judge Yaffe at the outset of the Marina
Strand case.
himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case. He violated Code of Judicial
disclosing such payments on the record; and 3E(1) – by not disqualifying himself
LA County, its attorneys, Del Rey Shores and its attorneys committed fraud
upon the court by concealing the illegality of the LA County Supervisors’ vote
approving the EIR and the illegality of the certification of the EIR by LA County at
The frauds upon the court vitiated the Marina Strand case and voided and
annulled all judgments and orders of Judge Yaffe, including those of the contempt
39
The LA County payments to Judge Yaffe violated due process under the
Judge Yaffe’s presiding over the contempt proceeding violated due process
of a “judge judging his own actions”, as set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court case
Judge Yaffe’s admission in the July 13, 2010 Minute Order that the
March.18, 2008 Order was a draft order that was not filed showed his fraud upon
the court, and obstruction of justice. He concealed this information from the LA
Superior Court, the U.S. District Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme
Court for 2¼ years. He did not disclose such until after the Petition for Certiorari
March 4, 2009, knowing that he had committed fraud upon the court and had
obstructed justice. He knew that he did not have subject matter jurisdiction in the
Marina Strand case, that he could not preside over the contempt proceeding, and
that he should have recused himself in each of the proceedings. Judge Yaffe
further knew on March 4, 2009 that incarceration of Fine would not serve the
purpose of the contempt order as he did not have jurisdiction to act and that Fine
was not going to answer any questions during the writ proceedings.
40
Judge Yaffe violated due process as set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court case
of Jackson, supra, and McNeil, supra, by keeping Fine imprisoned beyond five
days. He also violated due process by denying Fine a “Farr Hearing” and by
refusing to set Fine free and not transferring the case to another judge to determine
In summary, there has not been one relevant Supreme Court precedent that
of justice is a parallel to Richard Nixon, who resigned the Presidency for having
The California judicial system has been broken for over twenty years due to
the illegal county payments to 90% of the state’s judges. Judge Yaffe’s resignation
demonstrated that the system can be restored and the errant judges removed.
The next step is for the Court to obey U.S. Supreme Court precedents and
grant the writ, including issuing an order that all judgments and orders in the
Marina Strand case and the contempt proceeding are void and annulled.
By: __________________
Richard I. Fine,
In Pro Per
41
CERTIFICATION (CRC Rule 8.504(d))
Authorities contain 9,771 words, according to the word count system of Word
42
Declaration of John Fred Sottile
111 N. Hill Street in Los Angeles. The document that I was there to file on behalf
of Richard I. Fine included a Proof of Service that had six names on it, including
Judge David P. Yaffe, who was to receive a courtesy copy. When I handed the
filing to the clerk, I was informed that it had to be filed directly with Judge Yaffe’s
2. I took the elevator up to his courtroom, where I met his clerk and a
person in uniform whom I assume was a bailiff. The bailiff read the first three or
four pages of the document out loud to the clerk, who told her to accept and
conform the copies. The bailiff conformed four copies and handed me three back.
I, now having too many extra copies, offered the woman an extra copy, one for a
file and one for the judge. She said “No, one would be fine.” I said, again, “I have
plenty of extra copies, are you sure?” She said again, “No, one will be fine.” I
then said, “Well at least take the original.” She told me that it was not important to
have the original. I said, “Well, if it doesn’t matter, do me a favor and take the
original.” She took it and just turned her back on me and went back to work.
1
3. Considering that I had handed a copy and offered an extra copy to
Judge Yaffe’s people in his very courtroom, I saw no need to also mail a copy.
5. Judge Yaffe’s response could only have been made with his having a
copy.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct under
California.
By: ___________________
John Fred Sottile
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Dominguez, CA 90220. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party
true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully
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.
California.
_______________________________
FRED SOTTILE
1
Interested Parties & Their Counsel of Record
Party: Los Angeles Superior Court Interested Party: Los Angeles County
Interested Party: Judge David P. Yaffe Counsel: Elaine M. Lemke
Counsel: Kevin M. McCormick Principal Deputy County Counsel
BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM L.A. COUNTY COUNSEL OFFICE
39 N. California Street 500 West Temple Street
P.O. Box 1178 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713
Ventura, CA 93002
Interested Party: Del Rey Shores Dev’t. Interested Party: Del Rey Shores Dev’t.
Counsel: Joshua Lee Rosen Counsel: R.J. Comer
JOSHUA L ROSEN LAW OFFICES ARMBRUSTER & GOLDSMITH, LLP
5905 Sherbourne Drive 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100
Los Angeles , CA 90056 Los Angeles, CA 90024