Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 1 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

UNIW DSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS RMUOE

LLYccRD
.
s.COII
E
wY1
ERVCLERKD
TOFAôPEALS
FORTHENINTHCmCIJIT Atlp3120%
FILED--- --. --
DOCKETED DATE INI
TI
AL
RJC 1.FINE, CaseNo.09-56073
AppellantandPetitioner,
D.C.No.2:09-cv-019l4JFW (CW)
VS.

SY RIFFOFLOSANGELES
COUNTY,eta1,
AppelleesandRespondents

APPELLANT'SOPEM NG BRIEF

RICHARD 1.FINE
PrisonerID #1824367
c/oMen'sCenkalJail
44lBauchetStreet
LosAngeles,CA 90012
ProSe
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 2 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

15

18
19
20
21

23
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 3 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l (2. -l-l1etllll-kltltl
-A,t)stltrlclftrtisrrlEtrl(1Ettklrectlsftl......................-...................................-.........-3-
7
l.Theunconstltutlonal,lllegalcnmlnalpa entsmandaterecusal.........................3
a 2.Thechargesofattackingtheintegrityofthecourtmandaterecusal....................3
4
5 3 Recusalisman tedbecauseJudgeYaffeisjudgi
nghisownact1
'ons..................38 '
6
21.Jtltlé;tllfKftt-t%tl'SklllAllftlilrrltllltrrlEtlltllttklSrtltlIISEtl.............-.......................-....-.-.........36)
7 5.Recusalismandatedbecausethesystem ofalocalgove entwhoisapa
8 toacasemyingthejudgeofthecasehasbeenheldadem'
alofdueprocess.......39
9 (2()lltlllzs1
-()11.....................-........................................-......................................................................41
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 -
25
26
27
28

-i
ii-
*
'
Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 4 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l I I
2
3
4 ases
t) -<11-l -#r
()l1As (;tl ().A?. ItArtl1 'e,Zl-75 .é5.EI13.......-.....-..........-.....---.....-.............-.....-...-.........-.1
5
a rtonpeta1,v- .T. sey oal o.,lnc- ,etal,566 .S. (2009)-.........................passi
6
7
i
1)S()l1A/.tl 111 -11,Z
l11 .é ;.é;t$21,5:7:5(16):r3)....................................-.-.....-......................321,dl( )
8
11Ar. f t
rlctlr,ti6) Et 1.1, 11.21th11S5t$,EI211(16/216)).......................................................................13
9
ln e Ch1 'son,349 .S.133,136(1955) 3,35,38
10
11 'naSt rand olony11 omeo ers ssociationv. o ofLos ngeles,
12
13
14
C
tlrl)tl Ar.l Dtll
'ls lft ll1
'i
t,21()() .6;.Zl55(16 ):?1)....................-....................................8,6 ),1()
)!-
j
S geonv. o ofLos ngeles,167 a1.pp. 4tik630(2008)arev.deme -d12/ 23/08..........1,2
16
17
1r11133t l)/5f. llit)a1571 3 .1 5.151()(16) :41
7).........-.....-...-.....................-.......-............-.................I)E tSS1
-
18
(1Nr. 1 -llétért
,()l- ()( )t)&rill()
,zl()6) .é 9.15- 7(1f), 7:2).............-............................1s;!1,5 3:3,S421,zl()
1- ()5NrAC. C t
flçl
-llyZ
l111 -é !.: !5aZ 1e/(16)*71$).......................................-......-......................5: !,321,3ts
19
20
21 tutes

25 ltl1
-f-
() -
Et tls1
-C1()SS llrtlt-
k
lSS1
-()!1s ()(1ej*Z1&
/3((l).....................................-..............................;
!()
26 ltl1
-1D
()
r1
3l
'
1t 11S1
-l:()ss l7rtlt-
t
lSs1
-()11S ()(lejt$()ilZl................................................................;!; !
27 Ctl1
-t-
()1'
ét tlsilztlss 17r()t-
t
)ss1
-()l)s ()cl()jti1:?ts........................................................1t$,; !15,é
l()
28 alifomia usiness Professions odej6127(b) 25
-'
1
-.'i
.-
t):
I'
l'
.l(
.l
-
. .t'
a1:: tli() eso ces ()cl.
1. e.-.........-.....-.-.....................................-........................................21.44

-I
V-
Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 5 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 6 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 1. lntroduction
2
'
IhiscaseisaclassicexampleoftheactionsofajudgewhîchSupremeCottrt
3
4 caseshave consistently held to be a denialofdue processassuch itoffera
:
5 possibletemptationtotheaverage...judgeto ...leadhim nottoholdthe
6
7 balancenice,clearandtnze''.(Capertonv.,4.XMassevCoalCo.,etal,566U.S.
8 (2009)decidedJune8,2009,SlipOpinionpage16(quotingAetnaLi felns.
9
Co.v.Ltnwjc,475US8l3,825(1986)nquotingWardv.Monroeville,409U.S.
10
11 57,60(1972),inttu'nquotingTumevv.Ohio,273U.S.510,532(1927).)
12 ln this.case,LosM gelesCotmty SuperiorCourtJudgeDavidP.Yaffe
13
14 (alongwith al1otherLosAngelesCountySupeliorCourtjudges)received
15 $467300peryearfrom LosAngelesCotmty(hereinafterKCLA County'l. This
16
payment was paid as ''
M egaFlex'' benefits, a professional development
17
18 allowanceandacontributiontohis40l(k)plan.'
I'
heûtMegaFlex''benefitsand
19 theprofessionaldevelopmentallowancecouldbetakenincash. Thepayments
20
zl weremadetoG&attractandretainqualifiedpeopletoserveasjudgesinthis(LAj
22 county''. (seeSturgeonv. Counp(lé/vo,
gAngeles,l67Cal.App.4th630(2008),
23
24 rev.deniedl2/23/08,forah
.i
storypfpayments.)
25 JudgeYaffeanda1lSuperiorCourtjudgesarestateemployeesandare
26
electedeverysixyearsundertheCalifomiaConstimtion.'
Fheirûûcompensation''
27
28 is setby the Califomia Legislattzre underArticle V1,Section 19,of the

--l-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 7 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l CalifomiaConstitution. TheLA Countypaymentsareapproximately 28% of

2
theirstatesalaryof$178,800'
,withtheLA Cotmtypayments,andtheirstate
3
4 benefitsandtheLA Countypayments,theLA SuperiorCourtjudgesreceive
5
approximately $249,000peryear. (LA Cotmty'spaymentstojudgeswere
6
7 recentlyreportedashavingbeenincreasedto $57,026,or32% oftheirstate
8 Salal
y.See,forexnmple,theDailyBreeze'sJtme6,2009,editorialGKAQuestion
-
9
10 ofJudmn
G e
nt''athttpr
=/
/o w.dailv
rbr
eeze.com/editorial/ci-l2537056.)
11 TheSturgeoncaseheldthattheLA CountypaymentsviolatedArticleVl,
12 Section l9,ofthe Califomia Constitution. Subsequentthereto,Senate Bill
13
14 CCSBXZ 115
'7 written by the JudicialCotmcilofCalifomia,was enacted on
15 February20,2009.Suchbillgaveretroactiveimmtmityfrom itseffectivedate
16 .
17 ofMay21,2009,toa11judges,amongstothers,from criminalprosecution,civil
i8 liability and disciplinary action on thepotmdthattheçç
benefits''judicial
19
20
paymentsjEûwerenotauthorizedunderlaw''.SenateBillLLSBXZ11''wasastate
21 statuteanddidnotaffectFederallaw ortherightsundertheU.S.Constitution.
22 TheLA Cotmtypaymentshavebeenoccurringsincethe1980s(Sturgeon,
23
24 supra).LA SuperiorCourtjudgeshavecontinuouslypresidedoverLA County
25 CaSeS. senate BillûtSBXZ ll''hasprovided thatcounty paymentsshould
26
continueastheyexisted,wit,
ha180-dayterminationnotice,exceptastothose
27
28
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 8 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l judgescurrently serving. '

I'
he constimtionality oftLSBXZ 11''underthe
2
CaliforniaConstimtionisnotbeforethiscourt.
3
4 TheactionsofJudgeYaffe,however,ofreceivingLA Countypaymentsin
J
5 addition tohisstatesalaryandbenefits,wllileLA Cotmtywasapartybefore
6
7
him inthetmderlyingcaseofMarinaStrandColony11HomeownersAssociation
8 V.CONnlvofluosAngeles(LASCcaseno.BSl09420.
)Makinganorderinfavor
9
ofLA Countyforappellanttopayattorney'sfeesandcoststoLA Countyandits
10
11 co-applicantforanEnvironmentalImpactReport(E&
E1R'')withoutnoticeto
12 Appellant,withoutAppellantpresentatthe hearing,and in violation ofthe
13
14 PublicResourcesCode,andthenpresidingatacontemptproceedingtorequire
15 Appellanttoparticipateinjudgmentdebtorproceedingsincludingincarcerating
16
17
AppellantuntilhedisclosedhisassetsisbeforethisCourt.
18 TheSupremeCourtprecedenthasbeen crystalclearfrom Tumey supra,
19 through Caperton,supra. '
l'
he payments from LA Cotmty to Judge Yaffe
20
21 mandatehisrecusalinboththeMarinaStrandcaseandthecontemptcase.
k2 '
Further,hecannotjudgehisown actsin the contemptcase(1n Re
23
24 Murchison,349U.S.133,136(1955),citedinCa-perton,juprwSl
aipOpinionat
25 Pzge10.
26
27
28

--3-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 9 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l H.StatementofJurisdiction.
2
3 ThejurisdictionoftheDistrictCourtwmsbasedupon28U.S.C.j2254
4 (PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpusbyPersoninStateClzstody). Appellant
5
Richard1.Fine(hereinafter'' Fine'')hasbeeninthecustodyofLA Cotmty
6
7 SheriffLeroy D.Baca since March 4,2009,having been found guilty of
B contemptofcourt. Heisbeing heldwithoutbail, foran indefmiteterm and
9
10 withoutany scheduled courtappearance. (See Judgmentand Order of
11 Contempt,SectionV,Subsection4,page14,ExhibitILC''tothePetitionforWrit
12
ofHabeasCorpus,Dkt.#1.çç
Mr.Fineissentencedtoconfmementinthecounty
13
14 jailuntilheprovidesa1loftheinformationhehasbeenorderedtoprovide...'')
15 A CertificateofAppealabilitywasgrantedonAugust12,2009,tmder28
16
17 U.S.C.j2253(c)andFed.R.App.proc.22(b),therebyestablishing appellate
18 jurisdiction.
19
20
111. Theappealistimelvandfrom afinalorder.
21
22 TheDistictCourtentereditsjudgmentonJtme30,2009(D1d.#30).A
23 NoticeofAppealwastiledonJuly1,2009(Dkt.#34).
24
1V. State-mentofissuespresentedforreview.
25
26
The issue presented for review as set forth in the Certificate of
27
28 Appealabilityis:
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 10 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l WhethertheGaIjudgeshouldhaverecusedhimself.
'
Fhisissuewasspecitically addressed in theGrotmdsinthePetition for
4 Wl'
itofHabeasCorpus(hereinafterthe''Petition''),Grounds1,2and6.
5
TheRespondent(SherifgdidnotanswerthePetition.Instead,theSheriff
6
7 movedGltodisrnissorinthealternativerequestthatthiscourtdirectrealparties
8 ininteresttorespond...''.(Dkt.#12).Suchmotionwasdeniedasmoot.(Dk1.
9
10 #30).
11 Priortosuchdenial,withoutseekingleavetointervene,norfilinganotice
12
ofinterestedparties,theLA SuperiorCourtandJudgeYaflbfiledaûtResponse''
13
andlreclarationofKevinMccormickinSupportofResponse''(Dkt.#15and
15 #16).Neitherofthesedocllmentsopposedorcontestedthegrounds,factsor
claimssetforthinthePetition.
lntheDistrictCourt,theSheriffdefaultedontheissuebynotanswering.
lntheDiskictCourt,theLA SuperiorCourtandJudgeYaffewerenotparties.
However,eveniftheywere,theyconcededtheissuebynotopposingitandnot
contestingit.
Despitethelack ofopposition,theDistrictCourt,on itsown accord,in
violationof28U.S.C.j2243,andwithoutcitationtotherecord,heldthatJudge
Yaflbdidnothavetorecusehimself.(SeeDkt.#25-2,pages14-22. )
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 11 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 lnparticular,theDistrictCourtdidnotmentionGround6ofthePetition,
2
Part3,which stated that ûipetitionerwas denied due process because the
3
4 January8,2008,Order was entered withoutnotice to Fine and Fine being
5 presentatthehearing,makingsuch ordervoid. JudgeYaffewasdecidingthe
6
7 legalityofhisownvoidOrderinthecontemptproceeding.
8 F11rther,theDistrictCourtreliedonthejudgmenttoestablishûifacts,''when
9
Addendum 8tothePetition,wasnotopposed,sholedtheseL'facts''tobetmtrue.
10 >,
11 ThisactbytheDistrictCotlrtviolated28U.S.C.j2243,whichrequiredthe
12
DistrictCourttohaveahearingiftherewasadisputebetweenthefactsinthe
13
14 PetitionandtheResponse.Asnosuchdisputeoccurred,theDistrictCourtcould
15 notrelyontheJudgmentwhichwasdisputedbythePetitionandnotcontested
16
17 byanyresponse.
18 Additionally,atpage 19,theDistrictCourtcitesto thetçorderStriking
19
Notice,''Exhibit&IB''totheDeclaration ofKevinMccormick. Thisdocument
20
21 wasnotanexhibitinthecontempttrialandonitsfacewasneverservedonFine.
22 Also,atpagel9,foomotel1,theDistrictCourtcitestoaSeptember19,2008,
23
24 StateBarOpinionwhichwisalsonotanexhibitatthecontempttrial.('
Fhisis
25 a1sotruefortheitemsinfoomote4atpage6,andfoomote7atpage9. )
26
27
Finally,the DistrictCourtttmakesup''arecord by making statements
28 attributed totheççrecord''withoutcitation,atpages21,lines24-26 -- çû-
l-he
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 12 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

record showsthatJudgeYaffegavePetitioneramplewarning aboutpossible

contemptsanctionsforhisactions ...'''
,andatpage22,lines23-25 çuudge
YaffewaspatientandprofessionalindealingwithPetitionerwhilecarryingout
ltisjudicialdutiesandvindicatingthepropertyauthorityofhiscourt.''
Grolmd 1ofthePetition claimedthatFinewasdenied dueprocessand
Judge Yaffe should have recused himself because Fine was charged with
criticizingJudgeYaffeinmanyways,including(1)attackingtheintegrityof
11 JudgeYaffeand theLA SuperiorCourt(seeOrderto Show Causedated
November3,2008(û&OSC'')exhibittoPetition)(SeeAddendllm toParapaph7
ofPetition,page405'
,(2)takingunconstimtionalpayments9om LA Countyand
simultaneously heming cases in which LA County is a party and making
decisionsinfavorofLA ColmtyasintheMarinaStrandcaseandthenenforcing
thosedecisionsincontemptproceedings(seeOSC',seeAddendum toparagraph
7ofPetition,page4-5),'and(3)thecriminalactoftakingpaymentsfrom LA
21 County (see SenateBill' tSBXZ 11''enacted Febnlary 20,2009,effective
May2l,2009,AppendixtoPetition,page176,
.seeReporter'sTranscliptdated
January22,2009,page165ofAddendum toPetition;seeSentencingTranscript
datedMarch4,2009,Exhibit''D''toMccormickDeclaration,pagel7,linel8
throughpage25,line4,Dkt.#l6).
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 13 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 CitingtotheSturgeoncaseandSenateBillûûSBXZ1l''7theDistlictCourt
2
acknowledgedatpagel7,lines12-19,inrelevantpart:
3
4 ...thus the state legislature has reaffmned the practice in
5 q
.
uestion(countypaymentstojudgesq,.setstandards,andprovided :
lmmtmitytogovernmentalemployeeshudges)whomightotherwise
6 besubjectedtosuit,(criminallprosecution,ordisciplinaryactionon
7 thegrotmdsthatthepriorcountybenetitsforjudgeswereillegal.
Petitioner is correctthatthe courtofappealfound thatthe
8 mannerinwhichthecotmtypreviouslyprovidedadditionalbenefitsto
9 judgeswastmconstitutional....
10 Upon theseclearfactsandwithoutany referenceto any SupremeCourt
11
12 caseoranyprecedent,theDistictCourtrefusedtorequirerecusalonGrotmd1.
13 DtlringthecaseandbeforetlzeMagistrateJudgehadmadeherReportand
14
15
Recommendation(thelAepolf'l(Dk4.#25-2,adoptedbytheDistrictCourt,
16 Dk4.#29and#30),FinehadinformedboththeMagistrateJudgeandtheDistrict
17 CourtoftheSupremeCourt,srecentCaperton decision wherein theSupreme
18
19 Courtheldthatalegitimates3-million-dollarcontributionbyapotentiallitigant
20 tothecampaigncommitteeofan ultimatelysuccessfulcandidatefortheWest
21
22
VirginiaSupremeCourtmandatedhisrecusalfrom theconkibutor'scase.
23 Additionally,theDistrictCourtdidnotaddressthecaseofMayberrvv.
24
Pennsvlvania,400U.S.455(1971),raisedinthePetitioninGrolmdlfor-the
25
26 propositionthatacriticizedjudgecmmotjudgehisownactions.
27 '
I'
heDistrictCourtdidnothaveanylegalprecedentto deny recusalon
28
Ground1.

--8-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 14 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 Ground2ofthePetitionstatedttdenialofrighttoanimpartialadjudicator''
2
3
because Judge Yaffe was ûû
personally embroiled''in the proceeding. The
4 Grotmd stated that lûhe was personally accused of tnking unconstimtional
5
payments from a party and these accusations gave rise to the contempt
6
7 proceeding.JudgeYaffe'sconductshowedhefelttheemotionalandfmancial
8 stingoftheacctusation.'
'(SeePetition-Ground2.)
9
10 TheAddendum toParapaph 7ofthePetition setforthfurtherfactsand
11 legal arpzments and incorporated page references to flpetitioner's brief
12
supportinghisPetitiontotheCaliforniaSupremeCourt''attachedasExhibit&QE''
13
14 to the Petition. lncluded in such were Judge Yaffe's refusalto leave the
15 tmderlying Marina Strand case afterhisdisqualification, hisappointmentoç
16
17 attomeyswhohadafmancialinterestin theunderlying casetoprosecutethe
18 contempt,andhisemotionalinvolvementinvindicating hishurtfeelingsand
19
20
angeragainstFine. In theOSC,hesignedmzillegalprosecution forattacking
21 theintegrityofthecourtgludgeYaffelwhichviolatedCCP jl2ll(a)(11),
22 which statesthatacontemptchargecnnnot1ieforthe tiling ofany pleading
23
24 criticizingajudge.'
l'
heGroundalsocitedto0@/v.UnitedStates,348U.S.11
25 (jpjy;.
26
27
TheDistrictCourtdidnotrespondtothespecificfactsin Ground2 and
28 citedtoMqvberly,supra,butwrongfullyaddressedthespecificcommentsofthe
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 15 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l lawyer. (Seepages20-22.) Thiscaseonlyconcemsoneofthecontempt

2
chrges.ltisJudgeYaffe'sreactiontosuchwrittenpleadingssuchassigning
3
4 antmlawfulOSC forattackingtheintegrityofthecourqandsigninganOSCto
5 enforcehisownillegalandcriminalconductoftakingmoneyfrom LA County,
6
7 apartytoacasebeforelzim inwhosefavorheissuedavoidOrderthatshowshis
8 &:emtsojjment7:.
9
10
TheDistrictCourtdidnotaddressthesefacts,anddeniedGrotmd2despite
11 theprecedentofMqvberl,suprw andOfut,supraamandatingrecusal.Other
12
examplesoflçembroilment''aresetforthintheStatementofFacts.
13
14 Insllmmary,neithertheSheriff,theLA SuperiorCourtandJudgeYaffe
15 northeDistrictCourtsetforthanyfactualorlegalbasistoopposeJudgeYaffe,s
16
l7 recusal.
18 V. Statementofease:proceedinasanddecisioninDistrictCourt.
19
2c A.Statementofcase.
21 Thisisanappealfrom adenialofaPetitionforWritoj-uabeasCopusina
22
23 contemptproceeding.'
FhejudgeinthecontemptproceedingwasLA Superior
24 CourtJudgeDavid P.Yaffe,an elected statejudgeundertheCalifornia
25
Constitution.lnadditiontohisstatesalary,hehadreceivedpaymentsf'
rom LA
26
27 Countyknownasûllocaljudicialbenefits''.In2008,thesepaymentsamountedto
28
approximately$46,300peryear(seeSturgeon,supra)orapproximately28% of

-- 1
0--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 16 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 hisstatesalaryof$178,800peryear. Sturgeon,supraaheld thatthese

3
CountypaymentswereunconstitutionalasaviolationofArticleVl,Section 19,
oftheCaliforniaConstitmion.
Such Article statesin relevantpart: l'The Legislature shallprescribe
compensationforjudgesofcourtsofrecord.''
Sturgeonalsoheldthatthelegislamre'sdutywasnotdelegable.
ln responsetoSturgeon,supra,SenateBillQûSBXZ 11''wasenactedon
z
r
.-
.
t
'
3q.
.
February 20,2009,and became effective on May 21,2009. Such Bill
recognizedthattheLA Countypaymentsandal1ççlocaljudicialbenefits''were
criminalactsandprovided immlmity from criminalprosecution,civilliability
anddisciplinaryactiontoa1lgovernmentalemployees,includingjudges.
SenateBillLCSBXZ11''statedinrelevantpart:
Notwithstandinganyotherlaw,no governmentalentity,orofficeror
employee ofa governmentalentity,shallincurany liability orbe
subjectto prosecution ordisciplinary action because ofbenefits
providedtoajudgetmdertheofficialeffectivedateofthisactonthe
groundthatthosebenetitswerenotauthorizedunderlaw.
SenateBill11SBX2 l1''alsoextendedthebenetitsasofJuly 1,2008,to
judgesthenreceivingbenefits,withal80-dayterminationpotice,exceptasto
thosejudgesservingacurrentterm.T' heBilldidnotobligatethestateorthe
JudicialCounciltopayforbenefitspreviouslyprovidedbythecolmty,cityand
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 17 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l county,orthecourt. (SeeSenateBillQLSBXZ 11''7page176,Appendixto

2
3 Petition.)
4 lnhistestimonyatthecontempttrial,JudgeYaffeadmittedthathewas
5 receivingpaymentsfrom LA County,thathedidnotdisclosesuchonhisForm
6
7 700 StatementofEconomic Interest,thathe did nothave any employment
8 G eementOrarfangementtoPCrfOn11SeW iceswithLA Countyand,excluding
9
10
hisdecision regarding the ç'dirt''in the Marina Strand case,he could not
11 rememberany caseinthelastfiveyearsthathedecided againstLA County.
12
13
(SeeReporter'sTranscriptdated12/22/08,pagel55etseq.ofAppendixto
14 Petition.)
15 The takl
.
ng of the money from LA County, which was both
16
17 tmconstimtionaland a criminalact,mandated Judge Yaffe's recusalunder
18 Califomialaw intheMarinaStrandcasewhereLA Cotmtywasaparty,andthe
19
contemptproceedingwherellisactionsandordersinfavorofLA Countywere
20
21 theb%esoftheproceeding.
22 Canon2oftheCalifomiaCodeofJudicialEthicsstatesthatajudge:t
,
shall
23
24 avoidtheimproprietyandtheappearanceofimproprietyina1lofthejudge's
25 activities.'
''lhecommentarytothisCanonprovidesanobjectivetestforthe
26
27 appear anceofimpropriety:thequestionisnotwhetherthejudgeisactt
zally
28 bi%ed,butççwhetheraperson awareofthefactsmightreasonably entertain a

--l
2--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 18 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l doubtthatthejudgewouldbeabletoactwithintegrity,impartiality,and
2
3
competence.''(See,e.g.,Hallv.Harker,69Cal.
App.4t
h836,841(1999).)
4 Judge Yaffeengaged in criminalactsby taking thepaymentsfrom LA
5 .mmtmityprovidedby SenateBill'û
Cotmty. Butforthel SBXZ ll''7hewould
6
7 havebeenprosecutedandremovedfrom thebenchforsuchacts.ltisclearthat
B t:apersonawareofthefactsmightre%onablyentertainadoubtthatthejudge
9
10 ( Yaffelwouldbeabletoactwithintegrity,impartiality,andcompetence.''
11 JudgeYafferefusedtorecusehimselfintheMarinaStrand cmse,refused
12
to transferthecase orttvoid''hisunconstitutionaland void orders,and was
13
14 disqualified(seeMotion,TrialExhibit1û1A''7page31,etseq.,Appendixto
15 Petition',see TrialExhibitûû9''forcopyofJanuary 8,2008,Order,page67et
16
17 seq.,AppendixtoPetition,
'seeTrialExhibittûl4''forMotiontoVoid,pagel16,
18 etseq.,AppendixtoPetition'
,andseeTrialExhibittQ1''forDisqualificationof
19
20
JudgeYaffe,page143,etseq.,AppendixtoPetition).Hestillrefusedtoleave
21 andpresidedoverthecontemptcase.
22 JudgeYaffeknew thathecouldnotpresideoverthecontemptcase. (See
23
24 Reporter'sTranscriptdatedJanuary22,2009,page 165,AppendixtoPetition,
' .
25 sentencingTranscript,pagel7,line l8throughpage26,line3,ExhibitLûD''to
26
27 MccormickDeclaration,Dk4.#16-5.)
28

--1
3--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 19 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 B. ProceedingsanddecisioninDistrictCourt.
2
3 TheproceedingsintheDistrictCourtviolated28U.S.C.j2243.
4 '
l'
hePetitionwasfiledonMarch20,2009.'
lheMagistrateJudgeviolated
!
5
28U.S.C.j2243andwaitedlmtilAplil7,2009,toordertheSherifftofilean
6
7 answeronAplil21,2009,insteadoforderingaresponsetoanOSC Qûforthwith''.
8 (SeeDkt.#6) OnApril9,2009,Finefiledan ExParteApplication and
9
10
Memorandum forOrderforlmmediateReleasePendingDecisiononPetitionfor
11 WritofHabe% CorpusandAppeal. (SeeDk't.#9) OnApril9,2009,the
12
MagistrateJudgeorderedtheSherifftorespondtotheExParteApplication on
13
14 or before April 17,2009. The Sheriff never responded. The Ex Parte
15 Applicationshouldhavebeengrantedforlackofopposition.
16
17 OnApril21,2009,theSheriffdidnotfileananswerorûtcertifylingjthe
18 truecauseofdetention''orttshow causewhythewritshouldnotbegranted''as
19
20
requiredby28U.S.C.j2243.lnstead,hefiledaNoticeoflnterestedParties
21 designatingonlytheSheriffandFine(Dkt.//11)andaMotiontoDismissorin
22 theAlternativeThatThisCourtDirecttheRealPartieslnlnteresttoRespondto
23
24 Petitioner'sHabeasCorpusPetition.(Dk4.#12)
25 OnApril23,2009,theMagistrateJudgedirectedFinetofileanopposition
26
27
byMay 1,2009,anddirectedtheLA SuperiorCourtandJudgeYaffeand'rel
28 Rey Shores Joint Venture'' and ûrel Rey Shores Joint Venture North''

-- l
4--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 20 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 (hereinaftercollectivelyreferredtoasçrelReyShores'')tofileananswerby
2
Mayl,2009.TheMay1,2009,dateviolatedthe20-daylinlitationof28U.S.
C.
3
4 j2243,whichexpiredonApril27,2009.Additionally,theDistrictCourtdid
:
5
6
nothavejurisdictionovertheseentities.
7 FinetiledanoppositiononApril24,2009.(Dk't.//14)
8 TheSheriffsMotionwasultimatelydeniedasmootbytheDistrictCourt
9
10 judgeonJune30,2009.(Dk4.#30)
11 On May 1,2009,the LA Superior Courtand Judge Yaffe filed a
12
13
ûçResponse''(mislabeledinthedocketasanç'answef')andaDeclarationof
14 KevinMcconnick.(Dk4.#15and#16)
15 OnMay5,2009,theMagistrateJudgeeitherdeterminedthattheResponse
16
17 didnotraiseanissueoffactwiththePetitionorviolated28U.S.C.j2243as
18 shedidnotscheduleahemingwithPetitionerpresenttodisputeanyfactsinthe
19
20
Response.lnsteadshegaveFinetmtilMay22,2009,toreplytotheResponse
21 andthenwouldtakethematlerundersubmissionwithoutoralargument.(Dkt.
22 #19)
23
24 On May 5,2009,the Magistrate Judge struck the Opposition to the
25 sheriff'sMotion.
26
27
On May 14,2009,Fine filed hisResponse in SupportofPetition and
28 RequestforImmediateReleaseFrom Custody.(Dk4.//24)

--l
j--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 21 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502
<

On June 12, 2009, the Magiskate Judge filed her Report and
2
3
RecommendationtodenythePetition.(Dkt.#25-2)TheReportindicatedthat
4 shehadnotreadtheentirePetition. ShestatedthatthePetitionhadonlytive
5
pounds(page10,line28-pagel1,line1)whenithadseven.Shestatedthat
6
7 thecontemptproceedingdidnothaveacriminalcharge(page14,lines3-6)
8 WhentheOSC (page1,etseq.,AppendixtoPetition,page3,paragraph l6)
9
10 showsacriminalchargetmderB&PCodej6126.Further,asshownabove,she
ll referencedtofalseûtfacts''byquotingfrom thedisputedjudgment,docllments
12
whichwerenotinthettrecord''ofthecontemptproceedingandttmakingup''her
13
14 ownrecord. ShealsoomittedtodiscussrelevantprecedentsuchasCaperton,
15
SUPra.
16
17 FinetiledhisobjectionstotheReport.(Dkt.#26)OnJune20,2009,the
18 DistrictCourtJudgeacceptedtheRepol' tandenteredjudgment.mkt.#29and
19
20 //30).
21 Fine filed a Notice of Appeal and a Request for a Certit
icate of
22 Appealability,whichwasdenied(Dk4.#34).Finet
iledanExParteApplication
23
24 tobereleasedpendingtheappeal,whichwasdenied(Dk1.#37).
25 on August 127 20097 the Courtof Appealgranted the Certit
icate of
26
27 Appealability.
28
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 22 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 V1. Statementoffactsrelevanttoissues.
2
a A.ActionsrelatedtoFine.
4 Fineisaprominentattorneywhohaspracticed over45yearsin various
5
6
State and Federalcourts throughoutthe colmtry. He isa graduate ofthe
7 University ofWisconsin,theUniversityofChicagoLaw Schooland holdsa
8
9
Ph.
D.inlnternationalLaw from theUniversityofLondon-LondonSchoolof ;
10 EconomicsandPoliticalScience.
11 Finehasbeen involvedin manyhigh-profilecasesachievingresultsfor
12
13 taxpayersandcitizens. Asexamples: AD v.United Way- requiredUnited
14 way to allow donorsto designatethecharity to receivetheircontributions,
'
15
CSEA v.Matsushitaaeta1,--restructured the consumerservice industry in
16
17 CaliforniatmdertheSong-BeverlyActwhenthestaterefusedto enforcesuch'
,
18
MalibuVideov.Wilsonandothercases-returnedandsavedtnpayersover$1
19
% billion ofmoniestakenbystate,countyandmunicipalgovernmentsfrom trust
21 and specialfunds, andWhitev.Davis(HowardJarvisTupayersAssoc.v.
22
23 Colmell)-prohibitedtheStateofCalifonziafrom payinganybillswithoutan
24 appropriation(i.e.,budget). '
25
FinehadalsobroughtandfoughtthecasesofHenv.CityofLosAngeles,
26
27 eta1,--involvingtheflrstterroristkillingataU.S.airpol
't,andlAM v.OPEC-
28 involvingpricefixingbytheOPEC countries.

--1
7--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 23 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l Fine was with the U.S.Departmentof Justice in Washington,D.C.,

2
founded theftrstmunicipalantitrustdivision in theU.S.fortheCity ofLos
3
4 Angeles,andistheHonoraryConsulGeneralfortheKingdom ofNonvayinLos
:
5
AngelesandotherSouthernCalifomiacounties. (SeeRéslzméofRichard1.
6
7 Fine,ExhibitLEA''toPetition.)
8 Finehasproperlychallengeda11ofthejudgesoftheLosAngelesSuperior
9
10
Courtandpm icularly JudgeYaffefortaking tmconstitutionalpayments9om
11 LA CountywhileatthesametimeLA Countywasapartybeforethem.(See
12
13
Addendum toParapaph 7,Ground 1toPetition.) Thesechallengeshave
14 resultedinadisbnnnentactionagainstFinecommencedbyBruceE.Mitchell,a
15 LA County Superior Court Commissioner who was receiving the
16
17 unconstitutionalandcriminalLA Countypaymentsandwhowasadefendantin
18 a Federal civilrights cl%s action suit broughtby Fine challenging such
19
paymentsasaviolationofArticleVl,Section19,oftheCaliforniaConstitution,
20
21 andArticles1andXIV oftheU.S.Constitution.ThecasewasSilvav.County
22
ofLosAngeles,etal.ltsoughtinjtmctiverelieftostopallLA Countypayments
23
24 toanyLASuperiorCourtjudicialofficerwhowouldhearaLA Cotmtycase.
25 I'
hedisbarmentactionwastiledonFebruary6,2006.Atthattime,Fine
26
27
represented theMminaStrand Colony 11HomeownersAssociation beforetlze
28 LA County RegionalPlanning Commission. Hewould laterrepresentthem

--1
8.--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 24 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l againstLA CountyintheMarina S-trand case. TheopponentbeforetheLA

2
3
ResonalPlanningCommissionwmsDelReyShores. Theirlocalmanaging
4 partnerwastheEpsteinFamilyTrust,thetnlsteeswereJerryandPatEpstein.
5 They becamethe;Nrealpartiesin interesty,jn jjy;ugyyg jpmy;y raso. a ujy
6
7 atlorneyswereArmbruster& Goldsmith,who becametheirattorneysin the
8 MarinaStrandcaseandwhoprosecutedthecontemptcase.
9
Atthe same time,Fine was fighting the Cotmty of Los Angeles in
10
11 ntlmerous other cases in the LA Superior Court. ln fotlr ofthese cases,
12
consolidatedunderCoalitiontoSavetheMarinaandMnn'
naTenantsAssoc.,et
13
14 a1,v.County ofLos Angeles,eta1,Fine had moved to disqualify Judge
15 Brugueraonthegrotmdthatshewasreceivingpaymentsfrom LA County,and
16
17 movedtochangevenuetoSanFrancisco,wherejudgesdidnotreceivecounty
1S payments.Themotionsweredenied,aswerethesubsequentmits.
19
Atthesametime,FinewasfightinganotherEpsteinentityinthecaseof
20
21 CoalitiontoSavetheMminw etal,v.CountyofLosAngelesandMarinaPacitic
22 Associates, eta1. '
l'helocalu:
managingpartner,,of.valinapacjj-
jcAssociates
23
24 wastheEpsteinFamilyTmst,whosetrusteeswereJerryandPatEpstein.One
25 oftheirattomeyswasSheldonH.Sloan,amemberoftheBoardofGovernorsof
26
27
the California State Bar,President-Elect of the California State Bar,and
28 subsequentlyPresidentoftheCaliforniaStateBar.

--1
9--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 25 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l TheEpsteinsandtheirattorney,SheldonH.Sloan,hadaninterestinFine's
2
disbannentandremovalfrom theircases.
3
4 'l'
hefirm representingLA CountyinitsnegotiationwiththeEpsteinsfor
!
5 theleasein theMarinaStrmzd casewasMtmger,Tollesand Olson. Jefgey
6
y Bleichofsuchfirm wasontheBoardofGovernorsoftheCaliforniaStateBar,
8 thePresident-ElectoftheStateBardmingSheldonH.Sloan'spresidency,and
9
10
succeededSheldonH.SloanasPresident.
11 LA Countyanditslawyers,Munger,TollesandOlsonandJeffreyBleich,
G
12
hadaninterestinFine'sdisbarmentandremovalfrom theircases.
13
14 ln 1996orearly 1997,LalzraChick,aformerLA CityCouncilmember
15 andthenLA CityController,wisappointedasapublicmemberoftheStateBar
16
17
BoardofGovemors.ShewasanLA CityCouncilmemberduringthecaseof
18 Shinklev.CityofLosM geles,oneofthecasesintheStateBar'scaseagainst
19
Fine.Additionally,Finehadexposedthatshehadgiven afavorablereportfor
20
21 thePlayaVistaDevelopmentwhilehavinghada$5,000tt
behest''giveninher
22 nameonedayafterthereportwasreleasedandduringthetimethereportwas
23
24 beingconsideredbytheCityofLosAngeles.
25 FinewastheattorneyfortheGrassrootsCoalitioninthecaseofEtinaand
26
Gr%srootsCoalition,eta1,v.CityofLosAngeles,eta1,whichwasseekingto
27
28 enforceanorderagainstthecityofLosAngelesregardinganElR.Thegiftwas

--2
0--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 26 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

givenbyLatham andWatkins,thelobbyistsandattorneysinthecaseforPlaya
VistaCapitalCop.,therealpartiesininterestinthecase.
4 LauraChickhadaninterestinhavingFinedisbarredtoremovehim from
thecaseandtocleartheactionsoftheCityofLosAngelesintheShinklecase
6
wheretheCitymadeanurllawfulB&Pj473dmotiontochangethesubstanceof
8
ajudgment.
9
10 UndertheStateBarAct,thesalariesoftheStateBarCourtjudgeswereset
11 bystatute,buttheirttcompensation''wassetbytheBoardofGovernors. They
12
werepaidbytheStateBarfrom theduesofthemembersandthefmesandcosts
13
14 leviedupontheattorneyswhom theyconvicted.Tlzissystem isadenialofdue
15
processastheStateBarCourtjudgeshaveantçinterest''intheoutcome,whichis
16
17 unconstimtional.(SeeTumevandMonroeville,supra.)
18 ThechieftI'
iaIcounseloftheStateBarservedattheple%ureoftheBoard
ofGovernorsandreportedtoacommitteeoftheBoardofGovemors.
21 ThechargesagainstFineincluded chargesforfilingFederalcivilrights

23
lawsuitschallengingtheLA CountypaymentstotheLA SuperiorCoul'
tjudges
asviolatingArticleVl,Section l9,oftheCalifomiaConstitution,andtheFirst
andFourteenthAmendmentstotheU.S.Constit
m ion.
Dtuingthedisbarmentcase,theStateBarCourtHearingDepaltnentjudge
wasamemberoftheBoard ofGovernorsoftheSouthern CaliforniaSpecial

--2l-
-
E! . Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 27 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l Olympicswhichreceivedacontributionof$30,000from LA Cotmtydul
ingthis
2
3
sametimeperiod.A representativeofLA ColmtysatontheBoardwithhim,
4 and a partnerofLatham and Watkinssaton the Board ofDirectors. The
5
6
Henri
ngDepartmentjudgedidnotdisclosethisinformationanddidnotrecuse
7 himself.OnOctober12,2007,herecommendedFine'sdisbarmentandordered
8 Fineinactive:effectiveOctober1772007.
9
10 FineleR therepresentation ofa1ltheabovecases,includingtheMarina
11 Strand c%e. TheCalifomiaSupremeCourtdeniedFine'sPetitionforReview
12
on theinactive Orderbutdidnotaffirm the OrderororderFineinactiveas
13
14 requiredunderB&PCodej6084.OnlytheCaliforniaSupremeCourtcanorder
15
an attorneyinactive. Theaction oftheStateBarismadesubjecttothe
16
17 immediateandindependentreview oftheCalifomiaSupremeCourt. (1nRe
18 Rose>22Ca1.4th430(2000)>
'ConwF v.StateBar,47Ca1.3d1107(1989).)
19
20
AfterFinelefttheMarinaStrandcase,JudgeYaffeissuedavoidOrderon
21 January8,2008,forFinetopayattomey'sfeesandcoststoLA Countyandits
22
23
co-applicant,DelReyShores.'
l'
heOrderwasenteredwithoutjurisdictionover
24 Fine,withoutnoticeto Fine,and withoutFinebeing presentatthehearing.
25 Further>theOrderviolatedthePublicResourcesCode. (SeeTrialExhibitsIA>
26
27 page31,9page67and 14page116,AppendixtoPetitionkExhi bittoPetition
28 pages33-35,
.ExhibitCC
D''toPetitionpages11-15.)

--22-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 28 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 AfterJudgeYaffe'sadmissionsin open courttmderquestioningbyFine

2
3 thathereceivedLA Countypayments,Fineservedhim withaCCPj170.3
4 ObjectiononMarch25,2009.Hedidnotrespondandwasdisqualifiedunder
5
6
CCPj170.3(c)(4)onApril7,2008.(T1ialExhibit21,page143,Appendixto
z Petition.
)
8 There are notany trialexhibits showing actions ofJudge Yaffe after
9
10 Aprill0,2009,whenhewasgiventheNoticeofDisqualiscationtTrialExhibit
11 21,filedApril11,2009).JudgeYaffedidsignajudgmentsubmittedtohim
12
13 afterApril10,2008,towhichFineobjected,howeversuchjudgmentwasnotan
14 exhibitatthetrial.
15 OnNovember3, 2008,JudgeYaffeexecutedanOrdertoShow Causere
16
17 Contempt(ExhibitLC
B''toPetition)(hereinafterthe'ûOSC'7).'
l'
heOSCcontained
18 16cotmts.Thetçcomplaint''wastheDeclarationofJoshuaL.Rosen(page27,
19
20 AppendixtoPetition).Finemovedtodismiss.Fineflledamit.Bothwere
21 denied.
22 The trialoccurred on December 22, December 24,December26 and
23
24 December30,2008,andJanuary8,January l2,andJanuary22,2009. Judge
25 Yafl-
e presided despite demandsforhisrecusal. The wimesseswere Judge
26
27 Yaffe,whopresidedwhilehewasawimess. (SeeReporter'sTranscriptof
28 December22,2008),*JoshuaL.Rosen,R.J.ComertthecolmselforDelRey

--23-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 29 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l Shores)andacustodianfromtheStateBarofCalifomia.'
l'
heprosecutorswere
2
3
JoshuaL.RosenandR.J.Comer.
4 Fineraisedvariousafflrmativeand constitutionaldefensesincludingbut
5 notlimited to denialofdueprocessofJudge Yaffepresiding,denialofdue
6
7 process due to lack ofnotice ofdoctlments and wimesses,the underlying
8 January8,2008, Orderisvoidresultingin allotheractionsbeingvoid,Judge
9
10 Yaflb wasdisqualitied forfailingtorespondtothe3/25/08 CCP j170.3
11 ObjectionpllrsuanttoCCPj170.3(c)(4),anyactionbyJudgeYaffeafterthe
12
13
disqualificationwasvoid,theApril15,2008,jud> entwasvoid,theWritof
14 Execution and subsequentactionswerevoid,CommissionerGrosswmsnota
15 ççtemporaryjudge''noraçûreferee''withauthoritytoenforceajudgment,under
16
17 Sturgeon,supra,theLA CotmtypaymentstoJudgeYaffewereunconstitutional,
18 andtmderSenateBillLCSBXZ11''theLA CotmtypaymentstoJudgeYaffewere
19
illegalandcriminalbasedupon theimmtmitygiventohim,anddenialofdue
20
21 processbytheattomeysforapartyactingasprosecutors,amongstotherthings.
22 OnJanuary22,2009,JudgeYaffefotmdFine::notguilty,,on 14 counts
23
24 andGûguilty''on2counts.(SeeReporter'sTranscriptofJanuary22,2009,pagç
25 153:Appendixto PetitionandMinuteOrderdated1/22/097pagel537Appendix
26
27 to Petition). TheJanuary 22,2009,Transcriptand Minute Orderdiffer
28

--2
4--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 30 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l signiticantlyfrom theMarch4,2009,Judgment.(SeeAddendum toParagraph

2
3 8ofPet itionandExhibitûCC''toPetition-Judpnent.)
4 AfterJanuary22,2009,andpriortosentencing,Finemovedtosetaside
5
thejudgment,eventhoughnotwrittenjudgmenthadbeenentered.TheMotion
6
7 wasdenied.
8 On March 47 20097 Fineagain raised theissue oftherecusalofJudge
9
10
Yaffe,andthetmconstitutional,illegalandcriminalpaymentsfrom LA Cotmty
11 toJudgeYaffeandtheLA SuperiorCourtjudges.JudgeYafferespondedat
12
13
Reporter'sTranscript(Dkt.#16-5),page23,lines4-5:
14 TheCourt:çtlsthereanyjudgeorjusticeinCalifomiathatcanorderyou
15
todoanything?''
16 AfterreceivingtheresponsecitingthejudgesinSanFrancisco,Mendocino
17
andYoloCotmtieswhodidnotreceivecotmtypayments,andjusticeswhodid
18 -
19 notreceive county payments,and being informed thateven with Line 20:
20 immlmity hewasstillsubjecttoprosecution tmder18U.S.C.j1346 for
21
violating the lçintangible righf'to honest services,Judge Yaffe stated,at
22
23 Reporter'sTranscriptdatedMarch 4,2009,page25,line20,ExhibitQûD''to
24 -
McconnickDeclaration,Dkt.#16-5:
25
26 Thecourt:1W1lright.'
Fhankyou,Mr.Fine.''
27 JudgeYaffethensignedtheJudgmentandorderedFinetothecustodyof
28
theSheriff(ld.,page27,line6),whereheistoday.
--25-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 31 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l UndertheJanuary22,2009,MinuteOrder,Finewasfound ç'guilty''of
2
3 Count1-notansweringquestionsatajudgmentdebtorhearingonJtmel8,
2008,andCount16- holdinghimselfouttopractice1aw inviolationofB&P
5
Codejj6126and6127(b).B&PCodej6126wasacriminalsectionwitha
penaltyofoneyearinjail.Finewasfotmd''
notguilty''ona1lothercotmts,
includingCount5-'tlyingabouthisstatuswiththeStateBarinpleadingsfiled
inthiscourtandoralargumentsbeforethecouf'.
11 Thetûguilty''judpnentonCotmt16andthettnotguiltf'judpnenton
Colmt7 are inconsistenton theirface. Fine could nothold himselfoutto
practice 1aw illegally dnd notmisrepresenthis status. lfhe was correctly
representinghisstatus,hewasnotillegallyholdinghimselfouttopracticelaw.
As to Count 1,itwas shown thatany judo entwas void and
CommissionerGrosswasneitheratttemporaryjudge''noraûû
referee''
Finally,itshouldbenotedthattheStateBaractionagainstFinewenttothe
State Bar CourtReview Department. The State Bardid notappealcounts
disrnissedbytheHearingDepaM entjudge,howeverwithoutnoticetheReview
DepartmentreinstatedsuchinviolationofdueprocessandtheStateBarRules
ofProcedure. The Review Department dismissed numerous counts. The
remainingcotmtsrelatedtothetilingofthreeFederalcivilrightsactionsagainst
LA SuperiorCotu'
tjudgeswhoreceivedlmconstimtionalandcriminalpayments

--26-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 32 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 from LA County,andotherpleadingst
iledincourtswhichareprotectedbythe
2
3
FirstAmendment.
4 A PetitionforReview wastiledwiththeCalifomiaSupremeCourtaswell
5
6
asmotionstorectlsethosejusticeswhohadreceivedtheunconstitutionaland
7 cn'
minalpaymentsfrom counties,andthosejusticeswhowereontheJudicial
B COImCilofCaliforniw whichwroteSenateBillC&SBXZ1l''.
9
10 'Fherecusalmotionsweredenied.ThePetitionwasdenied.
11 A Petition foraWritofCertiorariispresentlybeforetheU.S.Supreme
12
Court,caseno.08-1573. TheStateBarhaswaiveditsresponse. Oneofthe
13
14 issuespresentediswhethertheCaliforniaSupremeCourtjtlsticesshouldrecuse
15 themselves as they have received tmconstitutional illegal payments from
16
17 counties,immunityforsuchandwrotethelaw grantingsuchimmunity.
18
B.ActionsrelatedtoJudgeYaffe.
19
20 Assetforthabove,JudgeYaffeanda11LA CountySuperiorCourtjudges
21 received tmconstimtional,illegal and criminalpayments from LA Cotmty.
22
23 ThesepaymentsoccurredwhileLA CotmtywasapartybeforeJudgeYaffein
24 theMarinaStrandcaseandwhilehewasenforcingtheJanuary'8,2008,Order
25
and its progeny,presiding over the attack on his integrity for taking the
26
27 payments,presidingoverhisembroilmentwithFineintheMarinaStrandcase
28

--27-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 33 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 andpresidingoverclaimsthatFinehadmisrepresentedhisprofessionalstatus
2
3
andwasillegallyholdinghimselfouttopracticelaw inthecontemptcase.
4 Butfortheimmtmity provided to them underSenate BillQLSBXZ ll''7
5
6
JudgeYaffeandalloftheotherLA CountySuperiorCourtjudgeswhotookthe
7 unconstimtional,illegal,criminalpaymentsfrom LA County,wouldbefacing
8 actionsto repay the monies, criminalprosecutionsand disciplinary actions
9
10 resultingintheirremovalfrom office.
11 Assetforthabove,JudgeYaffemadetheJanuary8,2008,OrderofLA
12
Countyanditsco-applicantfortheEIR intheMarinas'
/rlzl casewithoutany
13
14 noticetoFine,withoutFinebeingpresentatthehearing,withoutjmisdiction
15
overFineandinviolationofthePublicResourcesCode(seeTrialExhibit1A,
16
17 page3l,to AppendixtoPetitionv
'TrialExhibitût9''7page67toAppendix to
18 petitîon).
19
20
Assetforthabove,JudgeYaffewasdisqualifiedonApril7,2008,whenhe
21 didnotrespondtoaMarch25,2008,CCPj170.3Objectionserveduponhim
22
23
afterheadnzittedinopencourttoreceivingtlzeLACotmtypayments.(SeeTrial
24 Exhibit21,page.143,AppendixtoPetition.)
25 'rhe osc si>edby JudgeYaffeonNovember3, 2008,(page1oft he
26
27 AppendixtothePetition)supportedbytheDeclarationofJoshuaL.Rosen(page
28

--2
8--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 34 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l 4oftheAppendixtothePetition),theû'complaint,''providestheKûembroilment''
2
3
ofJudgeYaffewithFineintheMarinaStrandcase.
4 Counts1-6areanattempttoenforcethevoidJanuary8,2008,Orderand
5
anyvoidsubsequentorders.Additionally,thesecotmtsareanattempttoreject
6
7 thçdisqualificationafternotrespondingtotheMarch25,2008,CCPj170.3
8 Objectionbaseduponhisadmission ofreceivingtheLA Countypayments.
9
10 JudgeYaffeknowsthathecannotenforcethesecounts,yethisangerissopeat
11 athavingbeenexposedforhavingtakenthepaymentsandmadeillegalordersin
12
13
favorofLA Countyanditsco-applicant,herefusestobeobjectiveandfollow
14 thelaw.
15 Hethenaddstohismisconductbyselectingtheattomeyswj
aowjjjtlejaujjt
16
17 from hisillegalorderstoprosecutethecontemptproceeding.Heknowsthatitis
18 adenialofdueprocesstohaveanon-independentprosecutor. However,an
19
20
independentprosecutorwouldnotprosecutevoidactions.
21 counts7and 16arelinkedasJudgeYaffeisangeredthatFinehaslisted
22 hl
'
mself as '
tformer counse1 jbr Marina Strand Colony 11 Homeowners
23
24 Association''. Fine is notthe currentlawyerforMal
ina Strand,yetFine's
25 actionsareinterfel
ingwithJudgeYaffe's''arrangement''withLA County.
26
27 Hehasadmittedthathecannotrememberacaseinthelastfiveyearsthat
28 he decided againstLA County,excepttheûûdirt''in theMarina Strand case.

--2
9--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 35 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 Fine'sactionsofexposingtheLA CountyrelationshiphaveangeredJudgeYaffe
2
3
topllnish Fine. Atthesentencinghearing,JudgeYaffestatedthathedidnot
4 thinkthattherewasacourtorderregardingprohibitingFinetopractice1aw (see
5 D,,to
SentencingTranscript,pagel0,line30,throughpagel1,line2,Exhibitû'
6
7 MccormickDeclaration,Dkt.#16-5). Asshownabove,onlytheCalifornia
0 SupremeCourtcanorderanattonzeyinactive. SinceJudgeYaffeadmittedthat
9
10 therewasnocourtorder,therecouldnotbeacontempt.
11 Thisleavesthechargein Count16asanotherexampleofembroilment.
12
Additional,theRosenDeclarationdidnotshow thattherewasacourtorderasa
13
14 basisforthecotmt. Theembroihnentwasepegiousasthecotmtcontaineda
15
criminalchargeunderB&PCodej6126.
16
17 Count8showedJudgeYaffe'sangeratFine'sactionofpursuingthevoid
18 January8,2008,OrderanditsprogenyandthedïsqualificationaRerJudgeYaffe
19
2o didnotrespondtotheMarch25,2008,CCP j170.3Objection. Thecotmt
21 alleged çl
motions for reconsideration7'. Yetno motion for reconsideration
22
occurred.
23
24 Colmts9-14showedJudgeYaffe'sembroilmentastheychargeFinewith
25 attackingtheintepityofthecourt(JudgeYaffe)(Counts9- 10),theLA
26
27 Super iorCourt(Counts11-12),theStateBarCoul
'ttcotmt13)andcotmselfor
28 RealPartieslnlnterest(DelReyShores)tcount15).Asshownabove,under

--3
0--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 36 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 CCPj1211(d),acontemptchargecnnnot1ieforcriticizingajudge.Thatwould
2
eliminateColmts9-13. A contemptchargealsodoesnotlieforattackingthe
3
4 intep'
ityofopposingcounsel(Count14).Thusallcountsareasham.Theonly
5
reasonforthecountswastheembroilmentofJudgeYaffeduetoFine,scriticism
6
7 ofhistakingtheLA Countypaymentsandshowingthatsuchactionviolated18
8 USCj1346y
.t
hett
intangiblerighttohonestservices''e
9
10 Cotmt15 also isan exampleofJudgeYaffe'sembroilment. ltcharges
11 behavingin disorderly,contempmousorinsouciantmannertoward thecourt.
12
However,theRosenDeclarationdoesnotrefertoanyconductinthecourtroom.
13
14 Thecotmtwasapuresham.ltssolepurposewastoagpavateFineandforce
15 him to defend afalsecontemptproceeding. Judge Yaffeknew thisasany
16
17 conducthadtoappearbeforehim,andhewasboundtohaveatimelycontempt
18 trial.Onceagain,thecotmtwmsanexampleofJudgeYaffeactingagainstFine
19
20
whileknowingthatnochargeexisted.
21 'l'heresultofJudgeYaffe'sactionswasthatevenhecouldnotstomachall
22 ofhismisconduct.HefotmdFineqtnotguilty,,on !4qojmts. yjowever,when
23
24 questionedonCotmt16,hedidnotfindanunderlyingcourtordermakingFine
25 inactive.'
Fhisshowsthathisçtguilty''decisionwasanadmittederror.
26
27
ThisleavesCotmt1,whichisbaseduponhisvoidJanuary8,2008,Order
28 in the Marina Strand case where he received the tmconstitutional,illegal,

--31-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 37 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 criminalLA County payments. Asstated above,butforthe immunity he

2
receivedfrom SenateBill''SBXZ 1l''7JudgeYaffewouldnothaveevenbeen
3
4 thejudgeinsuchcaseandmayverywellhavebeenincarcerated.
5 Reco>izingthepossibility,asshownaboveJudgeYaffeenquiredofother
6
7 courtsandjudgeswhocouldhearthecmse.Heknew thatheshouldnothave
8 presidedovereithertheMarinaStrandcaseorthecontemptproceeding.
9 .-'
10 V1l. Summarvofaraument.
11 A. Standardofreview.
12 .
13 Thestandardofreview isobjectiveassetforthinWithrowv.Larkin,421
14 Uœs*35>47(1975). '
15
16 B.Objectivestandards.
17 ObjectivestandardswerereviewedandestablishedinCaperton,supra.
18
Thesestandardsareadoptedandusedintheargtlment.
19
20 C.'
I'
heobjectivestandardsmandaterecusal.
21 1. Theunconstitt
ztional,illegalcriminalpaymentsmandaterecusal.
22
Thepaymentsrepresenting28% ofhisstatesalaryposearisk ofactual
23
24 bi%,and reflectLA County'ssignificantand disproportionate influence On.
25
JudgeYaffe,coupledwit.
h thefactthatLA County isaparty totheMarina
26
27 StrandcaseandabeneficiaryoftheJanuary8,2008,Order,çtofferatemptation
28

--32-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 38 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 totheaverage...judgeto...leadhim nottoholdthebalancenice,clearand
2
W C2SS
3
4 2. The charges of attacking the integrity of the courtmandate
5 recusal. s
6 Asacriticizedjudge,JudgeYaffe'sresponsetoFine'sexposttreofhis
7 receivingtmconstitutional,illegal,criminalpayments,from LA County,Fine's
8
9
chargeofviolating18U.S.C.j1346,Fine'sexposttreoftheJanuary8,2008,
10 OrderandfilingtheMarch25,2008,CCPj170.3Objection,wastofilethe
11 invalidchargewhichheknewviolatedCCPjl211(a)(11).
12
13 3. RecusalismandatedbecauseJudgeYaffeisjudginghisown
actions.
14
15
JudgeYaffeisjudginghisownactionsinviolationoftheRuletçnoman
16 canbethejudgeinhisowncase''andttnomanispermlxedtotrycaseswherehe
l7 hasaninterestintheoutcome.!
,
!
)
18
19 4. JudgeYaffe'sembroilmentmandatesrecusal.
20 A11ofthecountsintheOSC manifestJudgeYaffe'sembroilment. Bias
21 existsasa11ofthecountsareasham.
22
5. Recusalismandatedbecausethesystem ofalocalgovenunent
23 whoisapartytoacasepayingthejudgeofthecasehasbeenheld
24 adenialofdueprocess.
25 'hecasesofTumey-v.OhioandWardv.Monroevillehaveheldittobea
I'
26
27
denialofdueprocessforamayorofacitytobeajudgeandassessfmeswlzich
28 wentintothecity'stTisc.''Evenifhewasnotbeingpaidtobethejudge,asin

--3
3--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 39 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 Monroeville.Here,JudgeYaffedecidescaseswl
zich$vemoneytotheCotmty
2
wllichpayshim.TheSupremeCourthmsheldthattheinterestneednotbethat
3
4 direct. In Gibson v.Bernhill,411U.S.564,573(1973),itheld thatan
:
5 .nl
adml .slativeboard ofoptometri
stscouldnotpresideoverahearing against
6
7 competingoptomeGsts.
8 vltl* Areument.
9
10 A.Standardofreview.
11 'rheCourtreviewsthefactstoapplyobjectivestandardsthatrequire
12
13 recusalwhentl
theprobabilityofactualbiasonthepartofthejudgeordecision
14 makeristoohightobeconstitutionallytolerable.'' Withrow v.farkin,421U.S.
15
16 35,47(1975),citedinCaperton,supraaSlipOpinion,page1.
17 B.Theobjectivestandards.
18
Caperton,suprwsetforththebmsicelementsoftheobjectivetest,citingthe
19
20 maxim thatûûlnlommzisallowedtobeajudgeinhisowncalzse, 'becausehis
21 interestwotlldcertal '
n1ybiashisjudpnent,andnotimprobably,con-upthis
22
23 integrity''(citationsomitted)(Caperton,SlipOpinion,page6).
24 Citing to Tùmey,theCourtin Caperton,suprw atpage7 setforth the
25
26
followingprinciplesregardingpaymentstojudges:
27 Every procedttre which would offer a possible temptation to the
28 averagemanasajudgetoforgettheburdenofproofrequiredto
convictthedefendantorwhichmightleadhim nottoholdthebalance

w-3
4--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 40 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 nice,clearandtruebetween thestateand acctlsedodeniesthelatter

2 dueprocessoflaw.
3 '
l'heCapertonCourtstatedatpage7:
4 ltlthecourqwasalsoconcemedwithameregenerajconceptoj-
5 intereststhattemptadjudicatorstodisregardneutrality.
6 Thisconceptwasextendedtonotrequiretodecideifthejudgewas
7
8
influencedbylû
whethersittingonthecase...''wouldofferapossibletemptation
9 totheaverage...judgeto...leadhim nottoholdthebalancenice,clearand
10
11
true''ûti(citationsomitted)(Caperton,suprwpage9)to whatkindofdepeeor
12 kindofinterestissufficienttodisqualifyajudgef'
rom sittingKcannotbedefmed
13
withprecision',y(citationsomitted)(1d.).
14
15 A secondsetofstandardsasdiscussedatpages4- 11ofCaperton,supra,
16 resultedintherulethatlt
nomancanbethejudgeinhisowncase''andiç
noman
17
ispermittedtotl'
ycœseswherehehasan interestintheoutcome''citinglnRe
18
19 Murchi
son,349U.S.133,136(1955).
20
lndiscussingcriticismofajudge,theCapertonCourtstatedatpage11:
21
22 T'
hecourtas1 notwhetherthisjudgeisactually,subjectivelybi&sed,
butwhethertheaveragejudgeinhispositionistûlikely''tobeneutral,
23 orwhetherthereisantmconstitutionaltt
potentjajj-
or'
bjas>'.
24 -*
The Court in Caperton, supraa then analyzed a s3-n1illion-dollar
25
26 contlibutionbyBlankenshiptothecampair colllmitleeofBenjaminwhowasa
27
candidatefortheWestVirginiaSupremeCourt.
28

--3
.5--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 41 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l Benjaminwon. Blankenship'scompany,A.
T.MasseyCoalCo.,hada
2
3
casebeforethecourtwhichitwonona3-2vote.Benjaminrefusedtorecuse
4 himself.
5 '
Fhis court,atpage 13 citing Withrow,421 U.S.at47,setforth the
6
z defmitionofthestandardsasfollows:
8 Whethertûunderarealisticappraisalofpsychologicaltendenciesand
9 human weakness,''theinteresttt
posessuch arisk ofactt zalbiasor
preiudrnentthatthepracticemustbeforbiddeniftheguaranteeof
lO -
due-pro
--
'
cessistobead'
*quatelyimplemented.,,
e
11
12 TheCourtconcludedthatilthereisaseriousriskofactualbias-basedon
13 objectiveandre%onableperceptions-whenapersonwithapersonalstakeina
14
particularcasehadasi>ificantanddisproportionateinfluencein placingthe
15
16 judgeonthecasebyraisilzgfundsordirectingthejudge'selectioncampaign
17 .
whenthecasewaspendingorl mminent.:,A(ld.,pagel4)
18
19 TheCourtconcludedthatBlankenship'scontributionsincomparisontothe
20 totalamotmtcontributed and thetotalamountspenton thecampaign had a
21
significantanddisproportionateinfluenceontheelection. ltfurtherconcluded
22
23 thattheriskthatBlankenship'sengenderedactualbiasissufficientlysubstantial
24 thatitûûmustbe-forbidden iftheguaranteeofdueprocessistobeadequately
25
26 implemented''.Withrow,supra,at47(1d.At15).
27
28

--36-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 42 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l TheCapertonCourtconcludedatpage16:
2
Dueprocesstû maysometimesbartrialbyjudgeswhohavenoact -ual
3 biasandwhowoulddotheirverybesttoweighthescaleso$.justjcu
4 equally between contending parties ûû... the failure to consider
5 objective standardsrequiring recusalis notconsistentwith the
imperativesofdueprocess. WefmdthatBlankenship'ssi>ificant
6 and disproportionate influence - coupled with the temporal
7 relationship between theelection and thepending case-''tûoffera
possibletemptationtotheaverage...judgeto...leadhim nottohold
8 thebalancenice,clearandtrue.''
9
10 C.Theobjectivestandardsmandaterecusal.
11 1. Thetmconstitutional,illegalcri
minalpaymentsmandaterecusal.
12 JudgeYaffereceives$46,300peryearinunconstitutional,illegal,criminal
13
14 paymentsfrom LA Cotmty,apartyintheMan'
naStrandcaseandabeneticiary
15 oftheJanuary 8,2008,Orderwhich isthebasisoftheOrderenforcedin the
16
contemptproceeding.'
Fhispaymentisapproximately28% ofhisstatesalaryof
17
18 $178,800peryear.The$46,300ispaidtohim inadditiontohisstatesalm'yand
19 st
atebenefits,givinghim atotalcompensationofapproximately$249,000per
20
21 Y021-'
22 2 The charges of attacking the intepity of the coul'tmandate
23 recusal.
24 Here Judge Yaffe is reacting to Fine's expostlre of his receiving
25
26
tmconstitutional,illegaland criminalpayments from LA County and Fine's
27 chargethatheisviolating18U.S.C.j1346thelûintangibleright''tohonest
28
servicesby signing the November 3,2008,OSC. Fine's exposttre ofthe

--37-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 43 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 January8,2008,Orderand the disqualification b%ed on the paymentsalso

2
3
angeredhim.He%ewunderCCPjl21l(a)(11)thatthechargescouldnotbe
4 brought,yethestillsignedtheOSC.
5 Thestandardissetfort
hinCaperton,supraoatpage11:
6
1 T'
hecourtaSKSnotwhetherthejudgeisacmally,subjectivelybi%ed,
butwhethertheaveragejudgeinhispositionislikelytobeneutral,or
8 Whetherthereisanunconstitutionalçûpotentialforbias''.
9
10
Here,thebiasclearlyexists. First,nojudgewouldbeinhisposition.
11 However,evenifinthepositionofhavingbeen exposedfortakingmoneyand
12 beingchticized,thejudgewouldneverhavesi>edtheOSCknowi ngthatitwas
13
14 illegal.JudgeYaflk'sactionsshow bothactualbiasandaçû
potentialforbias.''
15 3 RectlsalismandatedbecauseJudgeYaffeisjudginghisown
16 actions.
17 JudgeYaffeisjudginghisownactionsoftakingthetmconstit
mional,
18
19
illegal,criminalLA Colmtypayments'
,makingtheJanuary8,2008,Orderand
20 subsequentacts,andnotrespondingtotheMarch25,2008,CCPObjectiony
'and
21
subsequentactsintheMarinaStrandcase.
22
23 Theruleislç
nomancanbethejudgeinhisowncase''and''
nomanis
24 permitted to try cases where he has an inter-estin the outcome,, ln Re
25
26 Murchison,349U.S.133,136(1955).
27 Here,JudgeYaffewillbejudginghisownactions,andcannotavoidsuch,
28
asthecountsareb%eduponhisactions.

--38-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 44 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

l 4. JudgeYaffe'sembroilmentmandatesrecusal.
2 AsshownintheççactionsrelatedtoJudgeYaffe''7al1ofthecotmtsinthe
3
4 OSC maaifestJudgeYaffe'sembroilment.
E
5
6
Thestandardisthesameasthatsetforthin#2above.
7 Hereagainthebiasexistsboth forthereasonssetfort
h in//2above,but
8
9 also forthefalsechargesin a1loftheothercounts,astheCourtmayrecall,
10 foundFineçt
notguilty''onJanuary 22,2009,on al1countsbut1and 16. On
11
March4,2009,headmittedthattherewasnotanyordermakingFineûç
inactivev''
12
13 therebyshowingthattheççguilty''decisiononCotmt16wasinerror.
14
15
Asthesamehearing,JudgeYaffedidnothavearesponsewheninformed
16 ofthejudgeswho could hearthecasesandwho did notreceivecotmty
17
18
payments.SuchjudgeswouldruleJudgeYaffe'sactsvoid.Theselatterfacts
19 demonstratethattheentireOSC wasasham.
20
21
TheentireOSC wasamanifestation ofJudgeYaffe'sanger,hatred and
22 desiretoZjureFine.
23
5. Recusalismandated becausethesystem ofalocalgovenunent
24 - wlzichisapartytoacasepayingthejudgeofthecasehasbeen
25 heldadenialofdueprocess.
26 Here,JudgeYaffeandLA SupeliorCourtjudgesarebeingpaid$46,300in
27
28
additiontotheirstatesalariesbyLA County. JudgeYaffepresidesoverLA

--3
9--
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 45 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

1 Countycasesandinthiscase,onJanuary8,2008,orderedatlonaey'sfeesand
2 coststobepaidtoLA Countyanditsco-applicantwithoutnoticeorFinebeing
3
4 presentattheheari
ngandinviolation ofthePublicResourcesCode.Hethen
:
5 presided atthe contempt proceeding to enforce such Order after he wms
6
7 disqualitied.
8 '
l'heU.S.Supreme Courthasheldthatthe system underwhich alocal
9
10 govenunentpaysajudgeandthatjudgedecidescaseswhichbringmoneytothe
11 city,sgeneralftmdwhichpayshissalaryviolatesdueprocess.(SeeTumev,in
12
13 wl zichthemayorkatasjudgeandwaspaid9om fmesleviedforviolationsof
14 statealcoholicbeveragelawsandfmesalsowentintothecity'sgeneralfund;
15
seeWardv.Monroeville,supra-unlikeTumey themayordidnotshareinthe
16
17 town'sgeneralfisc.BOthcasesinCaperton,SupraaSlipOpinionatpages7-8.
18
19
Here,themoniesawardedbyJudgeYaffegotoLA County,whichpays
20 themoniestohimaasin Ward,supraaalbeitnotdirectlyfrom theçlfines''but
21
from thegeneralfund.
22
23 TheCourtinCaperton,suprw atSlip Opinionpage8,explainedthatthe
24 -
25 interestcouldbelessdirect:
26 &ç... t
hejudge'sjfmancialstakeneednotbeasdirectorpositiveasit
27 appearedinTumev.''Gibsonv.Berlyhill,411U.S.564,573(1973)
28
(anadminiskativeboardcomposedofoptometristshadapeclmiary

--40-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 46 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

interestofçûsufticientsubstance''soitcouldnotpresideoveraheming
againstcompetingoptometrists.)
Here,JudgeYaffehadthefmancialinteresttlto...leadhim nottoholdthe
balancenice,clearandtrue.''(Tumev,suprwat532.)

Conclusion
Fine respectfully requeststhatthe Courtpantthe Writforthwith,and
relereFinefrom thefalseimprisonmentwhichcommencedonMarch4,2009.

12
13

///
15
16
17

19

21

--4l-
-
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 47 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

Datedthis& dayof)y#t ,2009 Respectfullysublnitted,

xr-
BY: A
R1 ARD 1.FINE,
lnProPer

8
9
l0

14
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 48 of 48 DktEntry: 7047502

PROOFOFSERWCE
STATEOFCALIFORNIA,
COUNTYOFLOSANGELES

lam FredSottile.MymailingaddressisW ojff.Vlcivzz/

4Xr-.4.1tk-.
OnAugust2.1 ,2009,lservedtheforegoing documentdescribed as
APPELLANT'S OPEM NG BRIEF on interested parties in this action by
depositing atruecopy thereof,which wasenclosed in a sealed envelope,with
postagefullyprepaidailltheUnitedStatesMail,addressedasfollows:
AaronMitchellFontana KevinM.Mccormick
PaulB.Beach BENFON,ORR,DUVM ,&BUCKINGHAM
LAWRENCEBEACHALLEN&CHOI,PC 39N.CaliforniaStreet
100WestBroadway,Ste.1200 P.O.Box1178
Glendale,CA 91210-1219 VentttrwCA 93002
Clerk,U.S.DistrictCourt
312N.SpringSt.,Rm G-8
LosAngeles,CA90012
lcertifyanddeclare,underpenaltyofperjurytmderthelawsoftheUnited
StatesofAmericaandtheStateofCalifomia,thattheforegoingistl'
ueand
correct.
Executedonthis3.7 dayofAugust,2009,inthecityofkptvctiobôwcl
wtotfc
Califomia.

ln-
prm -% 7pfLa-i
FR/DSOTTILE
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 1 of 4 DktEntry: 7047502
<

r R E c E lv E D
l RICHARD1.FINE,l1iProPer 't%.
7JùSrI
7A
B//JrSK
2 PrisonerID#1824361 Akg3122%
3 c/oMen'sCentralJzll FILED ----
441BauchetStreet oocxEzsp DAYE -
1NITIAL
4 LosAngeles,CA 90012
5
6 UNITED STATESCOURT OFAPPEALS
7 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
8
9
10 RICI'
IA'
RD 1.FINE, CaseNo.09-56073
ll AppellantandPetitioner,
12 D.C.No.2:09-cv-019l4JFW (CW)
VS.
13
14 CERTIFICATE OFCOW LIANCE
SHERIFFOFLOSANGELES
15 cotm-fy'etal7
16 AppelleesandRespondents F.R.
A.P.Rttle32(a)(7)(C)
17 l
18
19
20 CertiticateofComplianceWithType-volumeLimitation,
21 TypefaceRequirements,andTypeStyleRequirements
22
23
24
25

27
28
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 2 of 4 DktEntry: 7047502

Appellant's Opening Brieffiled,ftled concurrently herewith,complies

P.Rule32(a)(7)(B)becausei
withthetype-vollzmelimitationofF.R.A. tcontains
10,048words.

Appellant'sOpeningBriefalsocomplieswiththetypefacerequirementsof
F.
R.A.
P.Rule32(a)(5)andthetypestylerequirementsofF.
R.A.
P.Rule32(a)(6)
because itvvaspreparedin aproportionallyspacedtypefaceusings4icrosoR
Word2002inl4-pointTimesNew Roman.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 ///
23
24 ///
25
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 3 of 4 DktEntry: 7047502

oatedthisJdayoflktor,2009 Respectfullysubmittedo
zt
BY:
RICLIARD 1.FINE,
hlProPer

10
11
12

14
15
16

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
 Case: 09-56073 08/31/2009 Page: 4 of 4 DktEntry: 7047502

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OFCALIFORNIA,
COLWTY OFLOSANGELES

Iam FredSottile.MymailingaddressisT-toIb
-.k2lc'
-ogt
f. gX;-V/.0k
On August IRV ,2009,lserved the foregoing documentdescribed as
CERTWICATE OF COMPLDVNCE F.R.A.P.RULE 32(a)(7)(C) on
interested partiesinthisaction by depositing a true copy thereof,which was
enclosed in asealed envelope,with postagefully prepaid,in theUnited States
Mail,addressedasfollows'
.
AaronMitchellFontana KevinM.Mccormick
PaulB.Beach BENFONV01< DUVAL&BUCKINGHAM
LAWRENCEBEACHALLEN& CHOI,PC 39N.CaliforniaStreet
l00WestBroadway,Ste.1200 P.O.Box1178
Glendale,CA 91210-1219 VenturwCA 93002
ClerkaU.S.DistrictCourt
312N.SpringSt.,Rm G-8
LosAngeles,CA90012
lcertifyanddeclare,underpenaltyofperjuryunderthelawsoftheUnited
StatesofAmericaandtheStateofCaliforniw thattheforegoingistnleand
correct.
Executedonthis'
2-
7 dayofAugust,2009,inthecityoffz-t
lpcttoil
sal
14ItvGt
//cl.
(2alifornia.

V/e-fwnXsn7rlc.;
FRED soTTILE
i