Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

1 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities

2
3
I. Prefatory Statement.
4
5
6
Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”) has been incarcerated in the Los
7 Angeles County Men’s Central Jail since March 4, 2009 under a Remand Order
8 from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe with “no bail,” without a
9 court date on such Order, and showing as the charge “CCP Section 1219.”
10 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1219(a) is a “coercive incarceration.”
11 From the outset, the “coercive incarceration” was both unlawful and penal.
12
13
Judge Yaffe knew that “coercion” would not succeed and that answering
14 questions was not related to the real issue of the case, his unlawful refusal to
15 recuse himself.
16 It is now obvious that “coercive incarceration” has failed.
17
18 II. “Coercive incarceration was a sham from the outset.
19
20 The “Answering Brief of Appellees, Superior Court of California, County
21
22
of Los Angeles, and the Honorable David P. Yaffe, Judge of the Superior Court
23 of California, County of Los Angeles” stated at page 3, line 16, to page 4, line 2,
24 in describing the contempt proceedings, as follows:
25
26 The proceedings culminated in a finding of both civil and
27 criminal contempt. Coercive civil contempt pursuant to
28 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1219(a) was
imposed. Footnote 4

The Answering Brief then falsely stated in Footnote 4:

…the basis of the finding of the civil contempt was not related to
Fine’s challenges based upon the payment of local judicial
benefits, but to Fine’s failure to answer questions and produce
documents at the judgment debtor hearing conducted by
Commissioner Gross.

The falsity of the aforementioned statement and the coercive confinement


was shown by the fact that Fine had challenged Judge Yaffe’s presiding over the
Marina Strand case, as shown, as Judge Yaffe disclosed that he was receiving
payments from LA County. The first disclosure by Judge Yaffe was made in a
March 20, 2008 court hearing by Judge Yaffe, and Fine’s CCP 170.3 Objection
was filed and served on March 25, 2008. Fine subsequently challenged Judge

-1-
1 Yaffe’s judging his own actions by presiding over the contempt proceedings.
2 The Answering Brief conceded that the LA County payments were one of the
3
crucial underlying issues in the case, stated at page 3, lines 5-8, under the heading
4
5 of Statement of Issues Presented.
6 On July 20, 2009, the Court [the Ninth Circuit] issued its order specifying a
7 single issue on appeal as follows:
8
9 Appellant [Fine] is granted a certificate of appealability on the
10 issue of whether the trial judge [Judge Yaffe] should have
11 recused himself.
12
13 The issue of recusal based upon Judge Yaffe having received payments
14
15
from LA County, a party before him, and Judge Yaffe having presided over
16 contempt proceedings in which he judged his own actions, did not have any
17 relationship or relevance to Fine’s answering questions about his assets before
18 Commissioner Gross.
19 The California case law which Judge Yaffe knew, and was bound to know,
20 at the time he issued the Contempt and Remand Order held in the case of In Re
21
22
Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), that once it was established that there was
23 no substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive
24 purpose, the commitment would become punitive in nature and thus subject to
25 the statutory limitation [five days under CCP § 1218], cited in In Re William T.
26 Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 610-611 (1976).
27 The Contempt and Remand Orders were both penal from the outset as
28
Judge Yaffe knew that such orders and incarceration would not coerce Fine to
disclose his assets. The transcript of the March 4, 2008 hearings shows at page 8,
line 8, to page 9, line 14, that Fine was not going to answer the questions unless
he lost all of the writ proceedings because Fine believed that the proceedings
were illegal as Judge Yaffe had violated the Constitution. This was repeated at
page 16, line 18, to page 25, line 3, which further emphasized the illegal LA
County payments, the immunity from criminal prosecution for Judge Yaffe under
Senate Bill SBX2-11, the violation of the U.S. Constitution, federal law; i.e. 18
U.S.C. 1346, and the risk of false imprisonment by incarcerating Fine.
Despite the knowledge Judge Yaffe violated the law and ordered Fine to the
LA County Jail, and knowing that the incarceration was false and penal from the
outset, under CCP § 1218, Fine should have been released on March 9, 2009,
having served only five days of penal incarceration, which itself was false.
Instead, after eleven months, Fine is still incarcerated.
The criminal contempt referred to in the Answering Brief reflects the penal
incarceration. The second contempt conviction was for “practicing law while not

-2-
1 an active member of the bar”. However, at page 9, line 18, page 10, line 3, Judge
2 Yaffe did not find any court order that ordered Fine inactive or took his license
3
away. It should be noted that the disbarment order did not become effective until
4
5 March 25, 2008, which was after the March 4, 2008 hearing, and the California
6 Supreme Court never ordered Fine “inactive.”
7 Further, the Order to Show Cause contained a criminal charge of practicing
8 law while not an active member of the bar, under CCP § 6126, but Fine never
9 received a jury trial, and the charge was never dismissed. Thus Fine’s Sixth
10
Amendment right to a trial by jury was violated. Additionally, the conviction of
11
12 practicing law without being an active member of the bar is inconsistent with the
13 “not guilty” judgment on the charge of “lying about the status with state bar in
14 pleadings filed in this court and oral arguments made before this court” in which
15 Fine at all times represented and argued that the California Supreme Court had
16 not ordered him inactive. There was never an issue of a disbarment order from
17
the California Supreme Court, as such did not become effective until after the
18
19 contempt proceedings were over. In this regard, the attention of the Court is
20 respectfully invited to the case of Fine v. State Bar of California, et al, USDC
21 case no. CV-10-0048 JFW (CW), which charges the State Bar and others with
22 fraud on the Court in seeking and obtaining the disbarment of Fine. The lawsuit
23 seeks an order voiding and annulling such disbarment.
24
The transcript of the March 4, 2008 hearing was attached as Exhibit “D” to
25
26 the “Declaration of Kevin M. McCormick in Support of the Response of the
27 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, et al, to Petition for Writ of
28 Habeas Corpus, etc.” Judge Yaffe has a copy in that Kevin McCormick is his
attorney in that matter.

III. Proposed orders.

Given the admissions in the Answering Brief and the March 4, 2009
transcript that:
1. the issue is “whether the trial judge [Judge Yaffe] should have
recused himself”;
2. that the convictions were civil and criminal; and
3. that no orders were violated to justify practicing law without being
an active member of the State Bar;

and given that Judge Yaffe knew that Fine would not answer any questions and

would not be coerced to answer any questions, that questions about Fine’s assets

did not have any relationship or relevance to the issue of Judge Yaffe’s recusal

-3-
1 which was the issue of the case, and given that Judge Yaffe knew and was bound
2
3
to know the holding of In Re Farr, demand is made that Judge Yaffe:
4
5
1. 6 Immediately order the LA County Sheriff to release Fine forthwith;
7
2. 8 Void and annul the March 4, 2009 Order of Contempt against Fine;
9
10
3. Void and annul all orders and judgments against Fine in the Marina
11
12
13 Strand case;
14
4. 15 Enter an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Fine against LA
16
17
County and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture, Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North,
18
19
20 their local partners the Epstein Family Trust and Jerry B. Epstein and Pat T.
21
22 Epstein, trustees, and their attorneys Armbruster and Goldsmith, R.J. Comer and
23
24
Joshua L. Rosen;
25
26
5. 27 Void and annul the May 15, 2007 LA County approval of the Del Rey
28
Shores EIR based upon fraud upon the Court by LA County and Del Rey Shores

Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, their local partners the

Epstein family Trust and Jerry B. Epstein and Pat T. Epstein, trustees, and their

attorneys Armbruster and Goldstein, R.J. Comer and Joshua L. Rosen for not

disclosing the illegality of the LA Board of Supervisors 4-0 vote on the EIR due

to contributions given by the Epsteins and Jerry Epstein’s chief of staff, David D.

Levine, of $500 or more by each of them, individually or through the Epstein

Family Trust, within twelve months of the vote, to LA County Supervisors

-4-
1 Antonovich and Knabe, thereby leaving only two lawful affirmative votes when
2
3
three were needed, and because the EIR did not show an economic benefit to LA
4
5
6 County from the project; or alternatively, Judge Yaffe:
7
a) 8 immediately order the LA County Sheriff to release Fine
9
10
forthwith; and
11
12
b)13 recuse himself retroactively from the Marina Strand case as
14
15 of June 14, 2007 (the date that the case was filed), void and annul all orders made
16
17
in the case including the contempt proceedings, and transfer the case to a judge
18
19
20 who does not receive payments from LA County or any other County.
21
22
23 IV. Judge Yaffe knew he was violating the U.S. Constitution, California
24 law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
25
26 Since the illegality of the May 15. 2007 vote did not become known until
27 Fine exposed it during the contempt trial by showing the contributions of the
28
Epsteins and Levine and their proximity in time to the vote, the refusal of Judge
Yaffe to adopt either of the alternatives will further reinforce the fact that the LA
criminal payments to the LA Superior Court judges were bribes. As criminal
payments under SBX2-11, the LA County payments fall into three categories:
1. misappropriation of funds;

2. obstruction of justice; and

3. bribes.

In Judge Yaffe’s situation, the LA County payments were clearly bribes.


He testified on October 22, 2008 that he could not remember any case in the last
three years that he decided against LA County other than concerning the dirt in
the Marina Strand case. However, when he became aware of the illegal May 15,
2007 vote on the EIR and the non-benefit to LA County, he did nothing to void
the EIR.

-5-
1 Judge Yaffe was bound under U.S. Supreme Court precedent to recuse
2 himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case. In Offutt v. United States, 348
3
U.S. 11, 14 (1954), the Court stated “a judge receiving a bribe from an interested
4
5 party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice.” The
6 U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and reaffirmed the principle that “justice must
7 satisfy the appearance of justice” in Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960),
8 citing Offutt, supra. Clearly, by not voiding the EIR when he became aware of its
9 illegality, Judge Yaffe had succumbed to the bribe from LA County, if he had not
10
already done so. At such time his recusal was doubly mandated.
11
12 Further, by presiding over the contempt proceeding where he was judging
13 his own actions of taking payments from LA County and making orders in favor
14 of LA County against Fine, Judge Yaffe violated both the common law and the
15 Supreme Court precedent of In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), which
16 stated the general rule that “no man can be a judge in his own case”, adding that
17
“no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome”, cited
18
19 in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2009), Slip Opinion page
20 10.
21 Even without the LA County payments being criminal, Judge Yaffe
22 violated due process by accepting payments of $46,433 per year, which were
23 equal to 27% of his $178,800 state salary for each of the two years that he
24
presided over the Marina Strand case, or $92,932. This “significant and
25
26 disproportionate influence – coupled with the temporal relationship … [with] the
27 pending case” “’” “offer a possible temptation to the average … judge to … lead
28 him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.” Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion
at page 16, citing to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825 (1986),
quoting Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60 (1972), in turn quoting Tumey v.
Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927).
Under Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, state judges must
follow the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States. By taking the LA
County payments while LA County was a party before him, Judger Yaffe
violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
If Judge Yaffe were a federal judge, his conduct would be cause for
impeachment under Article III, Clause 1, which states that: “The judges, both of
the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their officers during good behavior
…”. In 1965, Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court, upon being
selected as Chief Justice, when it was discovered that he was receiving an annual
retainer from the Wolfson Foundation to provide business advice and attend an
annual meeting. The Wolfson Foundation and Louis Wolfson and his companies
did not have any cases before the Supreme Court. The resignation was made

-6-
1 because of the possibility that a Supreme Court decision might affect the Wolfson
2 business.
3
Using the standard, Judge Yaffe’s conduct of taking money from a party in
4
5 a case over which he is presiding clearly qualifies as a lack of good behavior and
6 would engender his impeachment or result in his resignation, if he were a federal
7 judge.
8 But for the retroactive immunity from disciplinary action provided by
9 Senate Bill SBX2-11, the same result should occur under California law, if the
10
Commission on Judicial Performance were to perform their Constitutional
11
12 function.
13 Absent a resignation, Judge Yaffe’s fate will be decided at his next election,
14 as will that of all the other judges who took LA County payments and who will
15 be seeking re-election.
16 At all times, Judge Yaffe knew that he should have recused himself at the
17
outset of the Marina Strand case due to the LA County payments. He displayed
18
19 this knowledge at page 13, lines 13-23, of the Judgment and Order of Contempt
20 where he rejected his recusal and disqualification, which was based upon his
21 March 20, 2008 admission of receiving LA County payments. Judge Yaffe
22 argued that Fine’s CCP § 170.3 objection should have been filed at the outset of
23 the case, before Judge Yaffe made his March 20, 2008 admission. He stated at
24
page 13, lines 18-21:
25
26
27
Mr. Fine knew that all judges of this court receive compensation from
28 the County of Los Angeles on June 14, 2007, when he filed the
underlying case BS 109420 on behalf of petitioner Marina Strand
Colony II Homeowners Association.

The argument was false. Judge Yaffe knew that he violated the California
Code of Judicial Ethics, which prohibited him from taking the payments, required
their disclosure and mandated his self-recusal. Instead, he did not disclose such
in his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests, did not disclose such at the
outset of the case, did not self-recuse, and refused to obey the Code of Judicial
Ethics. Under CCP § 170, the obligation was on him, not on Fine.
Under the California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canons 3E(1) and (2), Judge
Yaffe was bound to disclose the LA County payments and disqualify himself.
Such canon states as follows:
(1) A judge will disqualify himself or herself 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

-7-
1 Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no
2 actual basis for disqualification.
3
4 Under Canons 4D(1)(a) and (b), Judge Yaffe was prohibited from accepting
5
6
any “compensation” or payments from LA County. Such canon states:
(1)7 A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that
(a)8 May reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial
9 position, or
10
(b) Involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuous
11 business relationships with lawyers, or persons likely to appear before the court on
12
13
which the judge serves.
14
15 The Advisory Committee Commentary makes the prohibition clear. It
16 states in relevant part:
17 Participation by a judge in financial and business dealings is
18 subject to the general prohibition in Canon 4A against activities that
19
20
tend to reflect adversely on impartiality, demean the judicial office, or
21 interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. Such
22 participation is also subject to the general prohibition in Canon 2
23 against activities involving impropriety or the appearance of
24 impropriety and the prohibition in Canon 2B against the misuse of the
25 prestige of judicial office.
26
27 In addition, a judge must maintain high standards of conduct in all of the
28
judges activities, as set forth in Canon 1.
Canon 6(A) requires all judges to comply with the Code of Judicial Ethics.

Conclusion

Judge Yaffe knew that “coercive incarceration” was a sham. He knew that
there was no relationship between ordering Fine to answer questions about his
assets and the issue of the case which was “whether Judge Yaffe should have
recused himself.”
Judge Yaffe knew that, under the Farr case, Fine has to be set free. First,
the “coercive incarceration” was false imprisonment from the outset as Judge
Yaffe knew it would not succeed. Second, it immediately became penal due to
its inability to succeed, and the five-day limitation under CCP § 1218 has long
since passed.
All of Judge Yaffe’s actions have been a fraud and a sham as they violated
due process, federal law and California law, in particular the California Code of
Judicial Ethics.

-8-
1 Judge Yaffe was mandated to recuse himself from the Marina Strand case
2 at the outset of the case, on June 14, 2007.
3
Now, two and a half years later, demand is made that he free Fine, void and
4
5 annul his March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt, recuse himself from
6 the proceeding and the Marina Strand case nunc pro tunc as of June 14, 2007,
7 transfer the case to a judge who does not receive payments from LA County or
8 any other county, and award attorney’s fees to Fine.
9
10
11
12
13 Dated this _____ day of January, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
14
15
16 BY: _________________________
17
RICHARD I. FINE,
18
19 In Pro Per
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-9-
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho


Dominguez, CA 90220.
On January ___, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as
DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM LA COUNTY JAIL AND
OTHER RELIEF; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 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:

Kevin M. McCormick Elaine M. Lemke


Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham Principal Deputy County Counsel
39 N. California Street LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OFF.
P.O. Box 1178 500 West Temple Street
Ventura, CA 93002 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713

Joshua Lee Rosen 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

Rose M. Zoia Judge David P. Yaffe (courtesy copy)


50 Old Courthouse Square, Ste.401 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR CT
Santa Rosa, CA 95404 111 North Hill Street, Dept. 86
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 January, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez,
California.

____________________________________
FRED SOTTILE
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-