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
RICHARD I. FINE, Case No. 09-56073
Appellant and Petitioner,
9 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914 JFW (CW)
10 vs.
MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE
11
RELEASE FOR APPELLANT BASED
12 SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES UPON OPENING BRIEF SHOWING
COUNTY, et al, THAT SUPREME COURT
13
Appellees and Respondents PRECEDENTS MANDATE
14 RECUSAL OF JUDGE YAFFE
15
FRAP RULE 23 B
16

17

18

19

20
Based upon the opening brief filed herewith which shows that every
21
Supreme Court case mandates that Judge Yaffe should have recused himself
22
from the contempt proceeding and the underlying case of Marina Strand Colony
23
II Homeowners Assn. v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior
24
Court Case No. BS109420, and that no Supreme Court case supports a non-
25
recusal, the Ninth Circuit is mandated by Supreme Court precedents to order
26
recusal of Judge Yaffe.
27

28

-1-
 1 Given such a mandate, appellant Fine will prevail in this appeal and there
2 is no reason to further incarcerate appellate Fine. Nor was there any reason for
3 the initial incarceration of appellant Fine.
4
Appellant Fine respectfully requests that the Court follow the Supreme
5
Court precedents that are set forth in the opening brief and set appellant Fine
6
free immediately. Failure to do so will demonstrate that the Court is refusing to
7
follow and obey clear Supreme Court precedents.
8

9
The Court is again respectfully reminded that the respondent Sheriff did
10
not oppose or answer the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court is
11
respectfully reminded that the LA County Superior Court and Judge Yaffe did
12
not oppose or contest any of the grounds, facts or claims set forth in the Petition
13
for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Further, the Court is reminded that the LA County
14
Superior Court and Judge Yaffe did not seek to intervene in the Petition for Writ
15
of Habeas Corpus and the Sheriff’s motion to have the District Court direct a
16
response by the real parties of interest was denied as moot.
17

18 Additionally, the Court is respectfully reminded that the District Court did
19 not address all of the grounds of the Petition of Habeas Corpus indicating that
20 the District Court did not even read the full Petition of Habeas Corpus and its
21 exhibits and Addendum, and in particular did not discuss the recent case of
22 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., et al, 566 US___ (2009), decided June 8,
23 2009, which was specifically brought to their attention by appellant Fine.
24
The Caperton case, supra, discussed the relevant Supreme Court cases
25
which mandate the recusal of Judge Yaffe. The Supreme Court held in the
26
Caperton case that due process was denied by a $3-million-dollar contribution to
27
the campaign committee of a successful candidate running for office of Justice
28

-2-
 1 of the West Virginia Supreme Court by the president of a company who had a
2 potential case before the West Virginia Supreme Court.
3
In the present case, Judge Yaffe received unconstitutional and illegal
4
criminal payments from LA County, a party before him, amounting to 28% of
5
his annual state salary paid to him in addition to his state salary, and Judge Yaffe
6
made orders in favor of LA County and then presided over a contempt
7
proceeding to enforce those orders.
8

9
Under the Supreme Court precedents of Caperton, supra; Tumey v.
10
Ohio, 273 US 510 (1927); Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972) (“would
11
offer a possible temptation to the average … judge to … lead him not to hold a
12
balance nice, clear and true”; Lavoie at 825, quoting Monroeville at 60, quoting
13
Tumey at 532, set forth in Caperton, supra, in Slip Opinion page 9); Gibson v.
14
Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 13
15
(1986); In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) (“no man can be a judge in his
16
own case”, “no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the
17
outcome”, page 136, set forth in Caperton, supra, at Slip Opinion page 10); and
18
Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 466 (1971), set forth in Caperton at
19
Slip Opinion page 10, and other cases cited in Caperton, supra, such conduct by
20
Judge Yaffe is a clear denial of due process.
21
///
22

23 ///
24
///
25

26 ///
27
///
28

-3-
 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

-4-
 PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am Fred Sottile. My mailing address is _________________________.

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

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR APPELLANT BASED UPON

OPENING BRIEF SHOWING THAT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS

MANDATE RECUSAL OF JUDGE YAFFE 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:

Aaron Mitchell Fontana Kevin M. McCormick

Paul B. Beach BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM
LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 39 N. California Street
100 West Broadway, Ste. 1200 P.O. Box 1178
Glendale, CA 91210-1219 Ventura, CA 93002

Clerk, U.S. District Court

312 N. Spring St., Rm G-8
Los Angeles, CA 90012

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.
____________________________________
FRED SOTTILE