Judge David Yaffe Served With Demand for Immediate Release Of Richard Fine

FULL TEXT AND POINTS & AUTHORITIES

Demand For Immediate Release From LA County Jail, And Other Relief

Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”) hereby demands immediate release from the Los Angeles County Jail and other relief as set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Grounds for demand are:

1. From the outset, Judge Yaffe knew that “coercive incarceration” would not “coerce” Fine into answering questions about his assets because:

A. The issue in the case was whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself, and had no relevance or relationship to Fine’s assets, and

B. Fine informed Judge Yaffe in open court that Judge Yaffe had violated the law by taking payments from LA County, that he could not preside over the case and that Fine would answer the questions only if he lost all appeals on the issue.

2. Under the case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), once it was established that there was no substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, the commitment would become punitive in nature and thus subject to the statutory limitation. Cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976).

3. Judge Yaffe knew from the outset of March 4, 2009 that his confinement of Fine violated the Farr case, was penal and unlawful.

4. Judge Yaffe knew that the LA County payments to him violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, were criminal (including misappropriation of funds, destruction of justice and bribes), and required him to recuse himself in the Marina Strand case at the outset under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

5. Judge Yaffe also knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics also required him to recuse himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case even if the LA County payments were not criminal.

6. Judge Yaffe further knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution required him to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings because he was judging his own actions of receiving payments from LA County and making orders in the County’s favor. The demand is based upon the aforementioned grounds and other reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto.

Dated this 27th day of January, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

BY: RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW .............

DO YOU THINK JUDGE YAFFE SHOULD RELEASE DR. FINE ?

Should Federal Judges Woehrle & Walters Have Recused Themselves? ..........On The Richard I Fine Case?

DID ILLEGAL COUNTY PAYMENTS INFLUENCE JUDGES?

Los Angeles, CA U. S. Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and District Judge John F. Walter considered Richard I Fine's petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Immediate Release (09-cv-1914) and his Complaint against the State Bar of California (08-cv-2906) but according to documents filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Central District Court, Fine claims the Judges failed to disclose a serious conflict and should have disqualified themselves from the case, instead they denied his petition and his due process in their own self interest.

JUDGES RULE IN SELF INTEREST?

Fine alleges both Judges would be adversely impacted if they ruled in favor of his petition according to the motion to Recuse Judge Woehrle and the motion to recuse Judge Walter in which he describes a horror story scenario whereby legal malpractice lawsuits would result. against the Federal Judges who were former criminal defense attorneys and their law firms, comparing the circumstances as stated in his writ of Habeas Corpus petition:

"it was a violation of due process for L. A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, who had received illegal payments from L.A. County, to preside over a case where L A County was a party, make an order in its favor and in favor of its co-applicant for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and then preside over a contempt proceeding to judge his own actions and enforce the order."

MOTIONS TO RECUSE ALLEGE:
"based upon former past practice and actions (as criminal defense attorneys) if Judge Woehrle (and Judge Walter ) "had decided to grant the writ, they would open themselves up to malpractice claims from clients for who they did not raise the issue of denial of due process and transfer the case(s)"...(of clients who were convicted by L.A. Superior Court Judges who received illegal payments from the County.)............
"knowing all of this information Magistrate Judge Woehrle (and Judge Walter) were under a duty to disclose such (and recuse themselves) but did neither and elected to conceal the information."

Watch 9-1-1 call video (9 min) from Richard Fine .

Did Illegal County Payments From 1988 to 2009 Influence The Criminal Justice System ?

This Report sent to Full Disclosure from the Free Richard Fine Website

California Legislative Analysts's 2009 Report (excerpts)

Read Full Report Here

State Corrections Population in a Historical Context— Rising Caseloads and Spending

Significant Prison Growth Driven by Several Factors. As previously noted, the prison population has increased significantly over the past 20 years. The factors contributing to this increase are the (1) number of new admissions sent to prison by criminal courts, (2) amount of time served by non–lifer inmates, (3) number of inmates in prison with life sentences, (4) number of parolees returned to prison by criminal courts for new felony offenses, and (5) number of parolees returned to prison by the state’s administrative revocation process. As Figure 5 shows, most of these factors have increased significantly between 1987 and 2007.

Not Demographics or Crimes. Our analysis indicates, however, that changes in population and crime rates do not explain much if any of the growth in the number of admissions from the courts. Between 1987 and 2007, California’s population of ages 15 through 44—the age cohort with the highest risk for incarceration—grew by an average of less than 1 percent annually, which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison admissions. Moreover, the number of crimes committed actually decreased over the past two decades. Specifically, the total number of reported violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and grand theft) decreased by an average of about 1 percent annually over the past two decades.

Law Enforcement and Prosecution Help Explain the Trend. So, what does explain the increase in court admissions? Arrest and prosecution data tell at least part of the story. As shown in the figure below, despite declining crime rates, the number of adult felony arrests has remained relatively stable over the past two decades. However, the number of felony charges filed, convictions achieved, and prison sentences ordered by the courts have significantly increased during the same time period. These outcomes suggest that law enforcement has increased the percent of felony crimes resulting in arrests. In addition, prosecutors have increased the proportion of (1) arrests resulting in prosecution, (2) charges resulting in a conviction, and (3) convictions resulting in a prison sentence. As a consequence, a felony arrest is almost twice as likely to result in a prison sentence than it was two decades ago.

FULL DISCLOSURE WANTS YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT:
PLEASE LEAVE YOUR FEEDBACK AND OPINION
IN THE COMMENT SECTION BELOW

Fear Rules in Los Angeles Court System: Anonymous Attorney Speaks Out

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON

FULL DISCLOSURE COVERAGE OF THE RICHARD I. FINE CASE

Great work. You may be on the way to another Emmy. I could say that what you reveal is shocking, but I am getting used to it after 44 years of practice. From your story I am not clear what the 9th Circuit did. There is apparently no case number there and no formal order. If the District Court is doing nothing, what will make them act?

ATTORNEYS LIVE IN FEAR
We attorneys live in an atmosphere of fear. There seems to be more interest in maintaining the appearance that our legal institutions are just, than in allowing a critical examination of cases, where they appear not to be. The California Supreme Court in Fine’s Bar case is an example. The California Supreme Court failed to review his case and issued no opinion much less a well reasoned one. What this does is lead to arbitrary action.

PLIGHT OF RICHARD FINE
Fine appears to be in a legal no man’s land, where he has been judged by Judges, whose partiality is questioned, under laws which are not defined, under opinions which are not published, and with reasoning which is not disclosed, in a system where decent persons are afraid to speak out.

JUDICIAL REVENGE?
What appears to be the case here as in many others, is if those in authority can’t get a person for the legal action the person did, they will spend millions to uncover something to get him or her for something else. Fine’s case appears to be a simple one where he has failed to answer questions at a debtor examination, based on a judgment, which either has not been appealed or for which there is no stay pending appeal.

COERCIVE CONFINEMENT TILL SUBMISSION
Ordinarily a judgment creditor has a right to collect a judgment and the debtor examination is part of the process. I am sympathetic to Fine. He has some interesting constitutional issues to address, but my question is whether he is addressing them in a proper manner. What is wrong here, is that he is jailed during a protracted process to wear him down, to restrict him from preparing his case, and by isolating him from the tools by which he needs to prepare his case.

DUE PROCESS DENIED---COURT ORDER BY CLERK PHONE CALL?
Why can’t he get a stay from the District Court? Why can’t the District Court stay proceedings in Superior Court and release Fine pending its review? If the District Court won’t grant a stay but won’t rule, it might be appropriate to seek a mandate in the Court of Appeals for it to rule one way or the other. What appears strange is that apparently this is what the Court did by a phone call rather than a formal order. Why?

Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption: Powerful Friends Support Judges Bid To Keep Double Benefits (Video 7 min)

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a seven minute preview video featuring excerpts from Part 3 and 4 from an on going series entitled “Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption.” These two new episodes feature Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch attorney, whose 2008 successful lawsuit found the L.A. County’s payments of double benefits to Judges was unlawful. (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles).

The San Diego Appellate Court decision in favor of the Judicial Watch lawsuit was upheld when the Supreme Court refused to hear it. However, in this series Norris describes the behind the scenes court maneuvers conducted by the California Judiciary that is apparently determined to retain the illegal benefits, while serving as employees of the State of California.

Here are few of the points made by Norris in the two new episodes:

• Failure of California Judges to disclose receipt of payments from counties either to the parties involved in lawsuits or on their economic interest disclosures.


• In the last ten years each of the 600 Judges in L.A. have received $350,000 in illegal payments.


• L.A. Superior Court hired a lobbyist for $60,000 to sponsor SBX211 legislation. Has the Superior Court hired lobbyists before?


• SBX211 (part of the Feb. 2009 Budget Bill) legalized retroactively the judicial double benefits and


• SBX211 provided retroactive criminal and liability immunity from prosecution to the Judges and County officials involved in the payments of public money. Norris asks why? They must have thought crimes were involved.


• Have the L. A. Superior Court ever intervened in any other lawsuit, as they have with this issue of double benefits?


• Judicial mind-set and integrity questioned as the battle over wages escalated.


• Legal and law enforcement forces step forward to fight for judicial double benefits, ignore conflict and judicial bias potential


• Major forces on record defending double benefits to Judges: L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley, County Public Defender, All Bar Associations, big law firms who appear before the Judges. Norris asks, did the Court stop to think about a resulting bias and prejudice?

“COERCIVE CONFINEMENT” Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption: Video Preview of Series (10 min)

L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe

Los Angeles, CA. Why was prominent anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine sentenced to “coercive confinement” in the L.A. Central Men’s Jail for an indefinite period of time? It has been sixty days in solitary confinement and is growing each day. On May 1, 2009 Fine and his supporters learned the reasons why. In a ordered response to his Writ of Habeas Corpus and request for immediate release. A Ventura, California law firm representing the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe, filed a response and revealed the intent of the confinement was to “coerce” Fine into submission.

Full Disclosure Network® presents a ten minute preview from a two-part series covering this extraordinary case where Richard I. Fine and others discuss the circumstances and implications of Los Angeles Superior Court Judges, including Judge David Yaffe, of taking illegal payments from Los Angeles County while sitting in judgment on cases where the county is a party. Having raised the issue of Judicial corruption since 1999, Fine maintains that over a period from 2005 through 2008 only two cases have been decided against the County by a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge.

JUDGE YAFFE'S RESPONSE

Here is a quote from the Court Ordered response filed by the Ventura, California law firm of Kevin M. McCormick (BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM) hired by L. A. County Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe where they are opposing the release of Richard I Fine from solitary “coercive confinement”.

“The use of COERCIVE CONFINEMENT resulting from civil contempt has been approved and found appropriate by the United States Supreme Court, federal district and appellate courts and California state courts, regarding the right of a civil judgment creditor to pursue and of a trial court to impose for purposes of an individual’s compliance with a valid court order.”


JUDICIAL BENEFITS AT HEART OF CONROVERSY

This is an on-going series covering the issue judicial benefits and court corruption. Part Three and Four feature a one-hour interview with Judicial Watch organization and former prominent L. A. Deputy District Attorney, Sterling Norris, whose landmark case (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) found that payments made to Superior Court Judges from the Counties was illegal. Judicial Watch has vowed to challenge the legislation enacted in February 2009 as part of the California budget bill SBX 211 that provided retroactive immunity from prosecution for all state judges and county officials who received or approved the illegal payments since 1988.

The entire series is featured on 40 cable systems and the Full Disclosure Network website.