RICHARD I.

FINE
ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
RichardIFine@gmail.com

November ___, 2009

ATTN: Panel Justices Assigned to Case # 09-56073

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

95 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

RE: Pre-Decision on the Issue of “Whether the Trial Judge [Judge Yaffe]
Should Have Recused Himself” Against Appellant Fine by the Ninth
Circuit in the Pending Writ of Habeas Corpus Appeal in Fine v. Sheriff of
Los Angeles County;
Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-56073, District Court Case No. CV-09-1914
JFW (CW)

Dear Panel:

Attached hereto is a copy of a November 2, 2009 article from Law.com which

refers to a hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on the subject of
“Federal recusal guidelines amid controversies that have swept through
State Court systems in recent years, culminating in a U.S. Supreme Court
decision five months ago that tightened the recusal requirements for elected
state judges”.

The relevance of this article to the instant case is that the article refers to
the scheduled testimony of Ninth Circuit Justice M. Margaret McKeown, the
Chairwoman of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct.
Although she declined to be interviewed for the article, the article stated: “In
a statement, she noted that the Committee on Codes of Conduct ‘provides
ethics advice and training that includes issuance of more than 100 advisory
opinions annually and response to nearly 1,000 informal requests for ethics
advice.’”

In this case, LA Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe received $46,346.00 per
year from LA County. Judge Yaffe is an elected state judge, not a County
employee. LA County’s payments amount to 27% of his state salary. He did
not disclose the payments on his form 700 Statement of Economic Interests.
He did not have any contact or agreement or arrangement to perform
services for LA County. LA County was a party before him in the underlying
case and he made an order in its favor, ordering Fine to pay LA County and
its co-applicant for an Environmental Impact Report attorneys’ fees and
costs. He then held Fine in contempt and ordered Fine into “coercive
incarceration” without limit to enforce the order and its progeny.
Ninth Circuit Panel
November ____, 2009
Page 2

Fine has been in “coercive incarceration” for approximately nine months,

since March 4, 2009, in the LA County Jail.

LA County’s payments to LA Superior Court judges have been 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.
The payments were also acknowledged to be criminal by Senate Bill SBX2-
11, enacted February 20, 2009, effective May 21, 2009. Such Bill gave
retroactive immunity from its effective date from criminal prosecution, civil
liability and disciplinary action to the judges and other government officials
related to county payments to judges.

The spectre of pre-decision by the Ninth Circuit against Fine in this case
arises from Justice McKeown’s “statement” that the panel of which she is
Chairwoman issues “more than 100 advisory opinions annually and responds
to nearly 1,000 informal requests for ethics advice”, which shows a pre-
disposition on the issue on appeal of “whether the trial judge should have
recused himself” and her scheduled appearance before the House Judiciary
Committee to defend the actions of the judges of self-recusal.

In particular, a bias against recusal is indicated to exist in this case for the
following reasons:

1) The Ninth Circuit has denied Fine’s unopposed motion to grant the writ
based upon Fine’s Opening Brief;
2) The Ninth Circuit has denied Fine’s unopposed motions to strike
Appellees’ Answering Briefs;
3) The Ninth Circuit has denied Fine’s two unopposed motions to be
released from incarceration and one unopposed motion for
reconsideration of motion to be released from incarceration; and
4) The Ninth Circuit has ordered that no further motions to be released
from incarceration be filed.

In summary, the Ninth Circuit has denied five unopposed motions. This
conduct is highly irregular for a court, particularly when one of the
unopposed motions would have disposed of the appeal by granting the writ.

This conduct, combined with the statement of Justice McKeown to Law.com

and her scheduled appearance before the House Judiciary Committee to
defend judges holding the power to recuse themselves as distinguished from
being bound to do such, demonstrates a pre-disposition by the Ninth Circuit
against Fine in this case.

Ninth Circuit Panel

November ____, 2009
Page 3

Sincerely,

RICHARD I. FINE
RIF/mlm
cc: Aaron Mitchell Fontana, Esq.
Paul B. Beach, Esq.
Kevin M. McCormick, Esq.