1

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4

5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

6
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
7

8
MARINA STRAND COLONY II Case No. BS 109420
9 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
10 DEMAND FOR AN IMMEDIATE
Petitioner, “FARR HEARING” NO LATER
11
vs. THAN 3/31/10 PURSUANT TO
12 COURT’S 2/3/10 MINUTE ORDER
13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al,
14
Respondents.
15

16
DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE;
17 DATE:
DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE
TIME:
18 NORTH,
COURTROOM: Dept. 86
19
Real Parties In Interest.
Trial Date: 12/22/2008
20 _______________________________
21

22

23 Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of February 8, 2010, Richard I. Fine

24
(hereinafter referred to as “Fine”) demands an immediate “Farr Hearing” to be
25

26
heard no later than March 31, 2010. The purpose of the hearing is to determine:

A. 27 If there was, as of March 4, 2009, or any time thereafter through the

28
present, “no substantial likelihood that the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of

-1-
 1
Contempt would serve its coercive purpose; and

B. 2 When the commitment became punitive in nature and subject to the

3
5-day statutory limitation of CCP § 1218 (see In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584
4

5 (1974), cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3rd 605,

6
611-612 (1976).
7

8 As shown in Fine’s Demand of January 27, 2010, Fine contends that the
9
incarceration should not have occurred. A true and correct copy of the Demand
10
and Memorandum of Points and Authorities marked as Exhibit “A” is attached to
11

12 the Declaration of Richard I. Fine (the “Fine Declaration”) and incorporated

13
herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
14

15 The February 3, 2010 Minute Order at pages 1 and 2 affirms: “Fine stated
16
to the Court that he would not answer questions put to him at a Judgment Debtor
17

18
Examination until he exhausts his right to petition for Habeas Corpus”. This

19 concession and admission by Judge Yaffe, who is also Fine’s direct adversary in
20
this case (as he appeared personally in the writ proceedings), shows that there
21

22 was “no substantial likelihood” on March 4, 2009, or any time thereafter, that the
23
March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt would serve its “coercive”
24

25 purposes.
26
The commitment became “punitive” on March 4, 2009 and should have
27
ended 5 days later, on March 9, 2009. It has now been almost 13 months, and as
28

shown in the Fine Declaration, Fine will still not be coerced into answering the

-2-
 1
questions.
2 The admission of Judge Yaffe, as set forth above in the Minute Order,
3
dispels and invalidates any argument in the Minute Order at page 1, paragraph 3,
4

5 that the incarceration is anything but punitive.

6
Further, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed and served with
7

8 the Demand referred to the 3/4/09 sentencing transcript at page 8, line 8, to page
9
9, line 14, and page 16, line 18, to page 25, line 3, which emphasized that Fine
10
was not going to answer the questions. There is no way that Judge Yaffe could
11

12 conclude in the Minute Order that the Judgment and Order of Contempt was
13
anything but punitive, when both Judge Yaffe and the transcript agree that Fine
14

15 said he would not answer the questions while the appeals were proceeding.
16
Judge Yaffe’s statement at paragraph 2 of page 1 of the Minute Order is
17

18
also very “off the wall”. The 1/27/10 Demand and Memorandum of Points and

19 Authorities refers to the same arguments to disqualify Judge Yaffe as have been
20
used throughout the case.
21

22 Judge Yaffe’s denial of service is also very strange as the 2/10/10 letter
23
from Fred Sottile shows that service was made in Judge Yaffe’s courtroom, with
24

25 a copy for him and his “clerk” who verbally advised Mr. Sottile that “one copy is
26
enough”.
27
The Declaration of Richard I Fine, incorporated herein as if set forth in full,
28

states all the reasons to grant the within demand.

-3-
 1
Dated: March 24, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
2

3
BY: _________________________
4
RICHARD I. FINE,
5 In Pro Per
6
Former Counsel for
Marina Strand Colony II HOA
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-
 1
DECLARATION OF RICHARD I. FINE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4

6
I, RICHARD I. FINE, declare:

7 The following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if called to

8
testify, I could and would competently testify as follows:
9

10 1. I have been incarcerated in the Los Angeles County Jail in “coercive

11
confinement” under a Judgment and Order of Contempt entered by Judge Yaffe
12

13 in this case since March 4, 2009 when I was taken from Judge Yaffe’s courtroom
14
directly to the Los Angeles County Jail. The “Remand Order” from Judge Yaffe
15
to the Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, remanding me to his custody,
16

17 does not show any “bail amount” or any “appearance date”, which is mandatory
18
as shown on the Remand Order.
19

20 2. The “Remand Order” lists, under the heading “Charges”: “CCP §

21
1219(a).” CCP §1219(a) by its terms allows a judge to order a person to be
22

23
confined in a county jail indefinitely to “coerce” such person to divulge

24 information which the judge has ordered such person to divulge. Such “coercive
25
confinement” may last for a lifetime, unless it is established that is there is no
26

27 substantial likelihood that this Contempt Order would serve its coercive purpose.
28
When the Contempt Order is no longer able to fulfill its purpose of coercion, it

-5-
 1
becomes “penal” in nature and the confinement is “punishment”. The term of
2 incarceration for “penal” confinement is five days in the county jail under CCP §
3
1218. See In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 573, 584 (1974), cited in In Re William T.
4

5 Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976). In the worst case,
6
the confinement should have ended on 3/9/09, over a year ago.
7

8 3. The Contempt Order had two operative “orders”:

9
A. “Fine is sentenced to confinement in the County Jail until he
10
provides all the information he has been ordered to provide or is
11

12 hereafter ordered to provide, by the Commissioner...”. Fine

13
may end his confinement by filing a declaration under penalty of
14

15 perjury “stating that he is willing to answer the all questions...”;

16
and
17

18
B. “Fine is sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00 or to spend five days

19 in the county jail for advertising or holding himself out as

20
practicing or as entitled to practice law, and for practicing law in
21

22 this court without being an active member of the State Bar”

23
(Contempt Order, page 14, paragraphs 4, 5 and 7).
24

25 4. The Order of Confinement to “coerce” me to answer questions did

26
not provide for any release from confinement as set forth in the cases of In Re
27
Farr, supra and In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, supra. This clear
28

omission shows a deliberate refusal to provide a mechanism to be relieved from

-6-
 1
life imprisonment other than answering questions and giving all information
2 sought. It further states that any and all forms of civil and political rights were
3
summarily removed from me.
4

5 5. Such deliberate removal of my civil and political rights as part of the

6
coercion constitutes “torture” and is a violation of the International Covenant on
7

8 Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the United States in 1992. Under Article VI
9
Clause 2, “treaties made under the authority of the United States must be
10
followed by state court judges along with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S.
11

12 laws.” A formal complaint setting forth the violations of the International

13
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, as has occurred in this case, has been filed
14

15 with the United Nations. Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
16
Clinton announced that the United States is submitting to the review of the
17

18
United Nations Council on Human Rights. Attached hereto and incorporated

19 herein by this reference, marked collectively as Exhibit “B”, are true and correct
20
copies of the March 10, 2010 article from the Sacramento Bee referring to me as
21

22 a “political prisoner”, and a formal complaint to the United Nations (without

23
attachments).
24

25 6. The formal complaint to the United Nations and the documents

26
attached thereto shows that “torture” as defined in the Geneva Convention on
27
War Crimes and the Covenant violations have occurred in my case and that
28

neither the California judiciary nor the Federal judiciary took any action to stop

-7-
 1
the abuses. The complaint and attached documents also show the
2 misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice and bribery between the Los
3
Angeles County Supervisors and Los Angeles County on the one hand, and the
4

5 state judges sitting in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
6
Angeles on the other hand. The complaint and the attached documents
7

8 demonstrate that, due to the same schemes existing in 55 of 58 of California’s

9
counties, and due to the State Senate Bill SBx2-11 (giving retroactive immunity
10
to judges, governmental entities, employees, and state officials from criminal
11

12 prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action regarding county payments to

13
judges) that “the entire California judicial system cannot function.” It is
14

15 estimated by Daniel Gottlieb, a retired professor emeritus of mathematics at

16
Purdue University, that over the last 20 years, the judges and the county
17

18
supervisors in the 55 counties have committed approximately Ten Million

19 Felonies through county payments to the judges. It is estimated that over 90% of
20
the justices on the California Court of Appeal have received the illegal payments
21

22 and retroactive immunity. Five of the seven California Supreme Court justices,
23
including Chief Justice Ronald M. George, were formerly Superior Court judges
24

25 in counties where the illegal payments were made during a time when they were
26
made. A sixth California Supreme Court Justice, Baxter, was on the Judicial
27
Council of California, which drafted Senate Bill SBx2-11 and gave it to Senate
28

President-elect Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg for introduction.

-8-
 1
7. The formal United Nations complaint and attached documents show
2 that, in the Federal writ of habeas corpus case challenging Judge Yaffe’s actions,
3
Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle and Judge John F. Walter of the U.S.
4

5 District Court, Central District of California, violated 28 USC § 2243 by not

6
following the time limitations, nor granting the writ when Sheriff Baca did not
7

8 oppose it. The U.S. District Court did not address the crucial issue of Judge
9
Yaffe judging his own actions by presiding over the contempt proceedings even
10
though it was raised in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the U.S.
11

12 District Court does not cite to any precedent in denying Judge Yaffe’s recusal for
13
taking bribes and illegal payments from L.A. County. These acts by the District
14

15 Court demonstrated the complicity of the U.S. District Court in the bribery and
16
corruption scheme and its abject refusal to enforce the U.S. Constitution, U.S.
17

18
laws or treaties authorized by the United States.

19 8. The formal United Nations complaint and attached documents show

20
that the Ninth Circuit denied four (4) unopposed motions, including: two
21

22 motions to set me free, one motion for reconsideration, and one motion to grant
23
the writ based upon my opening brief. Also shown is the bias of the Ninth
24

25 Circuit panel due to their financial and other relationships with the L.A. County
26
and its Supervisors who received retroactive immunity under Senate Bill SBx2-
27
11. The Ninth Circuit panel, comprised of Circuit Judges Stephen R. Reinhardt,
28

Stephen S. Trott and Kim M. Wardlaw, denied the writ while a 28 U.S.C. §

-9-
 1
455(a) motion to disqualify each of the panel members was pending. The panel
2 members then “judged their own actions”, and denied the motion to disqualify
3
themselves.
4

5 9. In a “not-for-publication”, “not precedent” “Memorandum” (despite

6
the right to cite the opinion as precedent under FRAP Rule 32.1 (which prohibits
7

8 a court from restricting the citation of the opinion)), the Ninth Circuit panel
9
falsely stated that the District Court had decided the issue of a “judge deciding
10
his own actions”, used the wrong criterion to determine bias, and did not address
11

12 the fact that the retroactive immunity of Senate Bill SBx2-11 did not extend to
13
judges presiding over cases where a county had given the judge a bribe or illegal
14

15 payment, nor did the legislature’s continuation of county payments to state judges
16
from county funds commencing May 21, 2009 without immunity, have any
17

18
relevance to Judge Yaffe’s actions or affect whether state judges who are

19 receiving payments from counties who are appearing before themselves, as the
20
misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice and bribery still exists. The
21

22 state legislature does not have the power to order a county taxpayer to pay a state
23
employee a second time. This is a tax and would require a vote under
24

25 Proposition 13.
26
10. No judge in the Ninth Circuit voted for an en banc hearing. The
27
documents attached to the United Nations complaint show that the Ninth Circuit
28

was complicit in the state bribery and corruption scheme.

-10-
 1
11. Both the U.S. District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court refused to
2 follow clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In the recent case of Caperton v.
3
A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 566 U.S. __ (2009), the Supreme Court reviewed the
4

5 principals relating to recusals:

6
At Slip Opinion page 10, it cited to In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136
7

8 (1955), which stated the general rule that “no man can be a judge in his own
9
case”, adding that “no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in
10
the outcome”. In Caperton, supra, the Supreme Court stated that the test for bias
11

12 was objective. It showed that the common law principal of a direct pecuniary
13
interest was not the only test, but that the Court, after Tumey v. Ohio, 273, U.S.
14

15 510 (1927), “was also concerned with a more general concept of interests that
16
tempt adjudicators to disregard neutrality”. (Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion page
17

18
8.) This manifested a test of any procedure or action which “offer a possible

19 temptation to the average … judge to ... lead him not to hold the balance nice,
20
clear and true” between the parties is a denial of due process. Caperton, supra,
21

22 Slip Opinion page 16, citing to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 57, 60
23
(1972), in turn quoting Tumey, supra, 273 U.S. at 532. In Caperton, supra, the
24

25 actions were A.T. Massey’s chairman and principal officer’s “significant

26
disproportionate influence – coupled with the temporal relationship ... [with] the
27
pending case”. (Caperton, supra, Slip Opinion at page 16.) He had contributed
28

$3 Million Dollars to Justice Benjamin’s campaign committee during the election

-11-
 1
for the high court in West Virginia, while at the same time A.T. Massey had a
2 case which was to appear in such court. The U.S. Supreme Court held that
3
Justice Benjamin was required to recuse himself under the due process clause.
4

5 As stated above, the Ninth Circuit did not use the test used by the Supreme Court
6
in Caperton, supra, which is the current test and has been such since 1927. Had
7

8 they used such, the writ would have been granted.

9
Judge Yaffe received $46,466.00 per year in illegal payments (bribes) from
10
L.A. County. That is 27% of his state salary of $178,800.00 per year. He
11

12 presided over L.A. County cases and decided them in favor of L.A. County. In
13
this case, he did not grant the writ on the grounds that the L.A. Board of
14

15 Supervisors’ vote was illegal, even though such was brought to his attention
16
during the contempt trial. Instead, he proceeded to incarcerate me.
17

18
12. The complaint to the United Nations and attached documents show

19 that an application was made to Justice Kennedy for a Stay of Execution of

20
Sentence. The Application was denied on March 12, 2010.
21

22 13. The complaint to the United Nations and attached documents show
23
that the federal judiciary is complicit with the bribery and corruption scheme and
24

25 will remove fundamental constitutional rights to maintain and preserve the

26
bribery and corruption scheme, and does not provide the safeguards or
27
protections mandated in the Covenant.
28

14. At the same time, other branches of the California and federal

-12-
 1
governments have not responded to pleas for help. I and others have sent formal
2 complaints to both U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his predecessor
3
seeking prosecution under federal law for the bribery and corruption scheme. No
4

5 help was forthcoming. A formal complaint was filed with California Attorney
6
General Jerry Brown seeking prosecution. No help was forthcoming.
7

8 15. The California Legislature has the power to impeach and convict all
9
of the state judges who have taken the county bribes and illegal payments and
10
who have presided over cases where the county who made the illegal payment or
11

12 paid the bribe to the judge was a party to the case. However, since the State
13
Legislature passed Senate Bill SBx2-11, it is doubtful that the members would
14

15 engage in the impeachment process. The same may be said for the Governor
16
who signed Senate Bill SBx2-11. In summary, the federal executive branch, the
17

18
State Legislature and the State Governor are all complicit with the bribery and

19 corruption scheme. The State Legislature and the Governor are, however, more
20
than complicit as they are active participants through the enactment of Senate Bill
21

22 SBx2-11.
23
16. This leaves the U.S. Congress. The Congress does not allow judges to
24

25 take bribes from parties or lawyers appearing before them. On March 11, 2010,
26
the House of Representatives voted to impeach New Orleans U.S. District Court
27
Judge Thomas Porteous. He received money from lawyers who appeared before
28

him when he was a state judge and failed to reveal this activity during his

-13-
 1
nomination proceedings in the Senate. Under Article III, Section 1, of the U.S.
2 Constitution, “the judges of both the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their
3
offices during good behavior..”. Unfortunately, Article III, Section 1, only relates
4

5 to federal judges. The U.S. Congress cannot impeach state court judges. If it
6
could, Judge Yaffe would be impeached. He has admitted to having received
7

8 payments from the L.A. County. L.A. County appears as a party in cases before
9
him, as well as in this case, through the “in-house” L.A. County Counsel. The
10
L.A. County Counsel is not an independent lawyer, but an employee of L.A.
11

12 County. The illegal payment (bribe) that Judge Yaffe received from L.A. County
13
came from the L.A. County Counsel as they are “one and the same”. Neither
14

15 Judge Yaffe nor L.A. County nor the L.A. County Counsel disclosed the illegal
16
payments (bribes).
17

18
17. The U.S. Congress can only pass legislation which may require

19 recusals of state court Judges as a function of due process. The House of

20
Representatives’ Judiciary Committee has a sub-committee studying the recusal
21

22 issue. However, no oversight is in place and the Congress cannot do anything to

23
enforce the Covenant beyond passing legislation which the executive and judicial
24

25 branches may ignore, as they have done in this case.

26
18. The only remaining domestic governmental organization which could
27
act is the Commission on Judicial Performance, which is established under the
28

California Constitution. It has the power to discipline and remove a judge.

-14-
 1
However, Senate Bill SBx2-11 gave the judges retroactive immunity from
2 disciplinary action for receiving the illegal payments or bribes as of its effective
3
date, which was May 21, 2009. The immunity did not extend to any payment
4

5 (bribe) a Judge received from a county after May 21, 2009, even if such payment
6
was authorized by the State Legislature. The “retroactive immunity” by the
7

8 terms of Senate Bill SBx2-11 was limited to “benefits provided to a judge under
9
the official action of the governmental entity on the ground that those benefits
10
were not authorized by law” (2009 Cal. Legis. Serv., 2d Ex. 5655. Chap. 9
11

12 (S.B.11)).
13
19. The Commission on Judicial Performance could prosecute and
14

15 remove Judge Yaffe and other judges who received the illegal payments for
16
violations of the Canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics and refusing to
17

18
recuse themselves under CCP § 170.1(a)(3)(A)(iii) in any case where a county

19 who made an illegal payment (bribe) to the judges was or is a party before him.
20
CCP § 170.1(a)(3)(A)(iii) states in relevant part: “A judge shall be disqualified if
21

22 one or more of the following is true: ‘A person aware of the facts might
23
reasonably entertain a doubt that the Judge would be impartial.’”
24

25 Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 2 states: “A judge shall avoid impropriety

26
and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.”
27
Canon 2B(1) states in relevant part: “A judge shall not allow other
28

relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a

-15-
 1
judge convey any individual is in a special position to influence the judge”.
2 Canon 3E(1) and (2) state: (1) “A judge shall disqualify himself in any
3
proceeding in which disqualification is required by law; (2) “In all trial court
4

5 proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that is reasonably

6
relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure Section
7

8 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.”

9
Canon 4D(1) states in relevant part: (1) “A judge shall not engage in
10
financial and business dealings that (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit
11

12 the judge’s judicial position, or (b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or
13
continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to appear
14

15 before the court on which the judge serves.” The advisory note specifically refers
16
to persons likely to appear before the judge personally or other judges on the
17

18
judge’s court.

19 20. Even with the retroactive immunity, the Commission on Judicial

20
Performance could have rendered Judge Yaffe and every judge who received an
21

22 illegal county payment and presided over a case where the county was a party
23
under Canons 2, 2B(1), 3E(1) and (2) and CCP § 170.1(a)(3)(A)(6)(A)(iii). If the
24

25 judge just received the illegal county payment and received retroactive immunity,
26
but did not preside over a case where the county was a party, the Commission on
27
Judicial Performance could remove the Judges under the same Canons and
28

statute, but omitting Canon 3E(2). For any judge who is receiving county

-16-
 1
payments after May 21, 2009, Canon 4D(1) would also apply. The case of
2 Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied
3
Dec..23, 2008 held that the L.A. County payments to the state judges in the L.A.
4

5 Superior Court violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution.
6
Such Article states that only the State Legislature can “prescribe” the
7

8 compensation of the judges. The case reaffirmed the principal that the duty of
9
the Legislature could not be delegated.
10
21. One part of Senate Bill SBx2-11 states that, as of May 21, 2009, the
11

12 counties shall pay the judges the “benefits” on the same terms as such were paid
13
on July 1, 2008. Under Sturgeon, supra, the Legislature is not “prescribing”
14

15 compensation. Each county had previously voluntarily determined its illegal

16
payment to the judges. There was no prescribing. The Legislature was
17

18
“reacting”. In L.A. County, the July 1, 2008 payment structure expired on

19 June.30, 2009, by its own terms. The payments were implemented as one-year
20
budget appropriations. In the best case, if the payments were constitutional, that
21

22 could only be so for 39 days. After June 20, 2009, if L.A. County decided to
23
continue the payments, such payments violated Article VI, Section 14, of the
24

25 California Constitution under Sturgeon, supra. Since the State Legislature cannot
26
delegate its duty to “prescribe” the compensation of the judges, it cannot pass a
27
law allowing the counties to set the level of compensation. Under Canon 4D(1),
28

none of the judges can accept the county compensation, and, if they did, the

-17-
 1
Commission on Judicial Performance should remove them.
2 22. Despite its obligations, the Commission on Judicial Performance has
3
done nothing. However, even if it had removed all of the judges who received
4

5 and are receiving the illegal county payments (bribes), this still would not cure
6
the problem. The Commission on Judicial Performance does not have the power
7

8 to change or reverse judicial decisions, or to order my release.

9
23. The history of illegal payments in California, and particularly in LA
10
County, is long and deeply rooted. It encompasses the Superior Court judges of
11

12 55 of the 58 California counties. The bribery scheme has been going on for
13
more than 20 years since its inception in the late 1980’s. From the outset, both
14

15 L.A. County Supervisors and the L.A. Superior Court judges knew that the
16
payments were illegal, to wit: In a November 10, 1988 opinion letter from L.A.
17

18
Senior Asst. Court Counsel Roger Whitby (approved by L.A. County Counsel

19 DeWitt Clinton) to Frank S. Zolin, County Clerk/Executive Officer, Superior

20
Court, the L.A. County Counsel admitted at Page 2 that the Attorney General had
21

22 issued two opinions stating that the word “compensation” in Article VI, Section
23
19, encompassed the county employee benefits which L.A. County was providing
24

25 the state judges. He gave the citations of the opinions and the citation to the case
26
of County of Madera v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.3d 668 (1974), which held
27
that the Legislature could not delegate a duty to “prescribe” something such as
28

the compensation of judges of courts of record. He also did not find any statute

-18-
 1
that specifically authorizes the counties to provide any benefits to the judges and
2 admitted that “superior court judges are technically state constitutional officers..”.
3
The rationale for the payments to the judges stated at Page 6 in relevant part as
4

5 follows:
6
“The Board of Supervisors has evidently found that in order to attract
7 and retain qualified Judges to serve in this [L.A.] County, it is
8 necessary and appropriate to provide them with benefits such as a
flexible benefit plan contribution and the 401(k) match…”.
9

10

11
The letter was part of documents procured by L. A. County during the appeal of
12

13 the Sturgeon case.

14
24. The letter showed that the Supervisors’ claimed reason to pay the
15
judges benefits and retirement in addition to the benefits and retirement that the
16

17 judges were receiving from the state as state employees was a sham. It was also
18
a sham to pay the “benefits”, which the letter stated could be taken in “cash”, to
19

20 “attract” judges who were already in an elected office, or “retain” a judge who
21
could only keep his job by winning the next election. The “benefit” payments
22

23
were either a bribe or an illegal campaign contribution inasmuch as the judge

24 could not be “attracted” to a job he already had, and could not be “retained” in a
25
job where he had to first win an election.
26

27 25. The bribery scheme was shown to be true upon the analysis of the
28
L.A. County Counsel Annual Litigation Cost Management Reports (which

-19-
 1
commenced in 2005) for fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, which were
2 attached to the March 25, 2008 CCP § 170.3 Objection to Judge Yaffe as Exhibit
3
“6” and showed that no person won a case against the L.A. County when a
4

5 Superior Court judge made the decision and not a jury, with hundreds of cases
6
being dismissed before trial each year.
7

8 26. L.A. County’s Bribery and Corruption Scheme is estimated to have

9
paid the judges approximately $300 Million in illegal payments in the last 23+
10
years. For just fiscal year 1999-2000 to fiscal year 2005-2006, Judicial Watch
11

12 informed the California Court of Appeal in the Sturgeon case (in a letter dated
13
February 22, 2008) that the payments to the judges from L.A. County during such
14

15 time period was $127,250,409.00, based upon documents produced in discovery.

16
This represents 7 of the 23 years of payments, with the highest payments in fiscal
17

18
years 2006-2010. (The annual payments are now reportedly $57,017.00 per

19 judge and commissioner, of which there are now approximately 571. The
20
salaries of County Supervisors and others are also set by County Charter to equal
21

22 the judges’ salaries.)

23
27. When the effect of the payments is felt over 55 of California’s 58
24

25 counties over a 20+-year time period, one may begin to appreciate the total
26
devastation that has occurred to California’s judicial system and begin to
27
understand how it has spread to other parts of California’s government and into
28

the Federal judiciary. Effectively, a generation of judges, county supervisors and

-20-
 1
government employees at all levels have grown up and only worked under a
2 scheme of bribery and corruption. It has become so common that bribery and
3
corruption are considered the “norm”, while the people’s right to enjoy honest
4

5 judiciary and government to serve them and uphold the Constitution is no longer
6
available as an option.
7

9
28. It was in this environment that the present lawsuit was filed in June,
10
2007. Prior thereto, I had challenged the L.A. County payments to state judges
11

12 when it became known that the judge in that case was receiving payments.
13
Without specific knowledge, however, one could not make a CCP § 170.3
14

15 objection. The only way to get the knowledge was either by the judge admitting
16
to the payment in open court or obtaining payment records from L.A. County.
17

18
No judge, including Judge Yaffe, was disclosing the payments on their

19 mandatory Form 700 Financial Interest Statements, despite the obligation to do

20
so.
21

22 29. I filed the Petition for Writ of Mandate on behalf of the Marina
23
Strand Colony II Homeowners Association. The Petition was filed against L.A.
24

25 County as Respondent. It also named Del Rey Shores, which later was amended
26
to better identify that Respondent as Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey
27
Shores Joint Venture North, the co-applicant with the L.A. County for an
28

Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to redevelop the Del Rey Shores

-21-
 1
apartment complex in Marina del Rey, California, as the Real Party in Interest.
2 30. The case was assigned to Judge Yaffe. Judge Yaffe did not disclose
3
on record the payments he was receiving from L.A. County at any time while I
4

5 was the attorney for Marina Strand. Additionally, L.A. County had not
6
completed its website showing campaign contributions to members of the Board
7

8 of Supervisors.
9
31. By not disclosing the L.A. Country payments to him and not
10
immediately recusing himself, Judge Yaffe violated Canons 2, 2B(1), 3E(1) and
11

12 (2) and 4D(1) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, and CCP § 170.1 (a)(3)(A)(6)(A)
13
(iii). At the same time, L.A. County and its counsel committed fraud by not
14

15 disclosing the payments to Judge Yaffe. Further, L.A. County and its counsel
16
committed fraud along with Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores
17

18
Joint Venture North and their counsel by not disclosing the contributions of Jerry

19 B. Epstein and David O. Levine to the campaigns of Supervisors Antonovich and

20
Knabe, who subsequently within six weeks made illegal votes approving the Del
21

22 Rey Shore project.

23
32. Jerry B. Epstein is a Trustee of the Epstein Family Trust. The
24

25 Epstein Family Trust is the managing partner of Del Rey Shores Joint Venture
26
and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North (collectively “Del Rey Shores”). David
27
O. Levine is the “Chief of Staff” for Jerry B. Epstein. The campaign
28

contributions were made in April 2007 and were greater than $500.00 to each

-22-
 1
Supervisor. This made each Supervisor ineligible to vote on the Environmental
2 Impact Report on May 15, 2007 under the California Fair Political Practices Act
3
and the case of BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal. App.4th 1205
4

5 (2000). The vote in favor of the EIR was 4-0, including the votes of Supervisors
6
Antonovich and Knabe. Without the two illegal votes, the vote would have been
7

8 2-0 and the EIR would have failed to lawfully pass.

9
33. The L.A. County Counsel never discussed the illegal votes, nor did
10
Del Rey Shores’ counsel, R.J. Comer and Joshua L. Rosen, even though they all
11

12 had knowledge of such. During the contempt trial, I presented documents

13
showing the contributions and the illegal vote. Judge Yaffe refused to enter the
14

15 writ and stop the EIR even though he knew that the L.A. Board of Supervisors’
16
May 15, 2007 vote in favor of the EIR was illegal.
17

18
34. In the present case, the scheme of corruption and bribery was as

19 follows:
20
1) L.A. County pays bribes to Judge Yaffe, who does not recuse
21

22 himself from the case nor reveal the bribes;

23
2) Del Rey Shores, through Epstein and Levine, make campaign
24

25 contributions to Antonovich and Knabe in April 2007;

26
3) Antonovich and Knabe illegally vote for EIR whose co-
27
applicants are L.A. County and Del Rey Shores;
28

4) L.A. County Counsel and Del Rey Shores’ lawyers do not

-23-
 1
disclose that the EIR vote is illegal;

5) 2 In October 2007, I left the case;

3
6) On January 8, 2008, Judge Yaffe orders me to pay attorney’s fees
4

5 to L.A. County and Del Rey Shores in violation of the Public Resources Code
6
and in violation of due process as the Order was given without notice to me and
7

8 without me being present at the hearing;

9
7) On March 20, 2008, Judge Yaffe admits for the first time, under
10
my questioning, to receiving payments from L.A. County;
11

8) 12 On March 25, 2008, I served Judge Yaffe with a CCP § 170.3

13
Objection and filed such based upon the L.A. County payments.
14

9) 15 On April 10, 2008, Judge Yaffe fails to respond to the CCP §

16
170.3 Objection and is automatically disqualified as of April 7, 2008 under CCP
17

18
§ 170.3(c)(4); Judge Yaffe takes my Motion to Dismiss the January 8, 2008

19 Order off calendar.

20
10) On November 3, 2008, Judge Yaffe signs Order to Show Cause
21

22 Re Contempt against me on 16 counts for trial before Judge Yaffe.

23
a. After denying Motions to Dismiss, Judge Yaffe begins
24

25 contempt trial. He is first witness and testifies to his actions of receiving money
26
from L.A. County, not disclosing it on his Form 700 Statement of Economic
27
Interests, not having any employment or service contracts with L.A. County, not
28

putting the money in his re-election campaign account, and that he could not

-24-
 1
remember any case in the past three years that he decided against L.A. County
2 other than the re-noticing of a minuscule part of the EIR relating to the “moving
3
of dirt” issue in this case.
4

11) 5 During the trial, I show that the L.A. County Board of
6
Supervisors’ vote on this EIR was illegal and that the Del Rey Shores project did
7

8 not provide any positive financial benefit to L.A. County in the EIR.

12)9 Despite proof of the illegality of the vote on the EIR and the
10
failure of the EIR to show a positive financial benefit to L.A. County, Judge
11

12 Yaffe refused to strike the EIR on these grounds.

13
35. In the contempt trial, Judge Yaffe “judged his own actions”. He
14

15 found me “not guilty” on 14 counts and “guilty” on 2 counts. The first “guilty”
16
count was “Failure to Answer Questions Before the Commissioner”. The second
17

18
“guilty” count was “Practicing Law While Not an Active Member of the Bar”.

19 36. Even Judge Yaffe did not believe my guilt on the second count. At
20
page 9, line 18, to Page 10, line 3, of the March 4, 2009 Reporter’s Transcript of
21

22 the sentencing hearing (hereinafter referred to as "RT"), Judge Yaffe admitted

23
that he did not find any court order that ordered me “inactive” or removed my
24

25 license to practice law. It should be noted that the California Supreme Court
26
ordered me “inactive” despite the October 12, 2007 report of the State Bar Court
27
Hearing Judge. Also, at the time of the contempt proceeding, the California
28

Supreme Court had not entered an order for my disbarment based upon the

-25-
 1
recommendation of the State Bar Review Department. Additionally, the
2 “practicing while not an active member of the State Bar” was inconsistent with
3
Judge Yaffe’s “not guilty” judgment on the charge of “lying about the status with
4

5 State Bar in pleadings filed in the Court and oral arguments made before this
6
Court” in which I had always represented and argued that the California Supreme
7

8 Court had not ordered me inactive and shown the disposition of my Petition for
9
Review of the October 12, 2007 State Bar Hearing Department Decision, which
10
disposition did not order me inactive.
11

12 37. For the information of the Court, I have filed a Request to Enter
13
Default in the case of Fine v. State Bar of California, et al, USDC Case No. CV-
14

15 10-0048 JFW (CW). The case seeks to void and annul my disbarment by
16
showing the State Bar’s fraud upon the Court. At all times, the State Bar knew
17

18
that its Notice of Disciplinary Charges was a sham, without merit, in violation of

19 the First Amendment and brought in concert with the L.A. Superior Court judges
20
in retaliation for my exposing and “prosecuting” them for taking illegal payments
21

22 from L.A. County. As an example, the State Bar held me guilty of “moral
23
turpitude” for bringing a case in the U.S. District Court that challenged the L.A.
24

25 County payments to state judges in L.A. County as a violation of Article VI,

26
Section 19, of the California Constitution, and the First and Fourteenth
27
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Under this theory, the lawyers of Judicial
28

Watch who won the Sturgeon case, the Court of Appeal justices who decided the

-26-
 1
case, and the California Supreme Court justices who denied review would all be
2 guilty of “moral turpitude” if brought before the State Bar for filing any
3
document in a court reflecting their opinion on the case.
4

5 38. In his February 3, 2010 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe violated the law
6
by not having a hearing but stating “When Fine notifies the court by declaration
7

8 under penalty of perjury that he has exhausted or abandoned his quest for a writ
9
of habeas corpus, this court will immediately set a hearing to determine whether
10
Fine will answer the questions put to him and if not, why not.”
11

12 39. Under Farr, supra, coercive incarceration ended when the contempt
13
did not fulfill its purpose. That was on March 4, 2009. The ensuing year has not
14

15 changed my mind. If anything, I am more firmly convinced of my position. I

16
have seen the complicity, duplicity and incompetence of the Federal judiciary. I
17

18
firmly believe in the U.S. Supreme Court procedures set forth herein as well as

19 Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), wherein the Court stated “a judge
20
receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not
21

22 give the appearance of justice”, and Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (1960),
23
in which the Court cited Offutt, supra, and ruled and reaffirmed the principal that
24

25 “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”.

26
40. At the present time, a petition for writ of habeas corpus has been
27
before the California Supreme Court since March 4, 2010 with respect to Judge
28

Yaffe’s February 3, 2010 Minute Order. An Application for Stay of Execution of

-27-
 1
Sentence is before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A true and
2 correct copy of the letter to her marked as Exhibit “C” is attached hereto and
3
incorporated herein as if set forth in full. A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is
4

5 presently at the printer and will be delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court by
6
March.26, 2010. A complaint has also been filed with the United Nations.
7

8 41. For the perspective of Judge Yaffe and the Superior Court, this case
9
is over. The Supreme Court precedents are clear, as are the international
10
obligations of the United States. The California precedents are clear. The
11

12 Canons of Judicial Ethics are clear. They all mandate that Judge Yaffe should
13
have recused himself from the contempt proceeding.
14

15 42. Judge Yaffe, the California judiciary, the U.S. District Court, the
16
Ninth Circuit Court and even the U.S. Supreme Court, by denying the Petition for
17

18
Certiorari in the disbarment case and Justice Kennedy’s denial of the Application

19 for Stay of Execution of Sentence, have all “lost”.

20
43. This case has not been hidden or buried; it has been and is being
21

22 avidly followed. Details concerning the bribery, corruption and “coercive

23
confinement” issues have been extensively distributed via PR Newswire out of
24

25 Washington, D.C., by news network FullDisclosure.net in Los Angeles, by the

26
Los Angeles Times, Fox Business News, USA Today, Reuters News Services,
27
the Los Angeles Daily News, and the Sacramento Bee, amongst others. (See
28

attached Exhibit “D” consisting of the latest PR Newswire press release and

-28-
 1
related release report concerning the issue of my being held as a political
2 prisoner, just one example of the many stories in the news of late.) The once-
3
respected American judicial system has now been shown to be no better than
4

5 those countries that the United States so avidly criticizes. It is difficult to

6
criticize a foreign country for bribery and corruption when the United States has
7

8 the example of California, $300 Million Dollars and Ten Million Felonies in its
9
own backyard. It is difficult to criticize a foreign country for allowing criminals
10
to roam free while California gives retroactive immunity to almost its entire
11

12 judiciary (over 2,000 judges and commissioners) and past and present supervisors
13
of 55 of its 58 counties.
14

15 44. In the end, some good will come from this. The voters will hopefully
16
vote out every judge who took a bribe or illegal payment and every County
17

18
Supervisor who authorized such. In six years, California will have a new

19 Superior Court and within twelve years, a new Court of Appeal and Supreme
20
Court. At the federal level, literally no California Superior Court judge will now
21

22 be able to receive a federal appointment unless they disclose the illegal payment.
23
And if they disclose such, their nomination will be withdrawn.
24

25 45. At the international level, the U.S. will now be more closely
26
scrutinized. This will only encourage more “integrity“ in the judiciary and other
27
branches of government.
28

46. Based upon all of the statements in this Declaration and my firm

-29-
 1
belief in the righteousness of the principals of the U.S. Constitution, the
2 Covenant and the moral, ethical, and legal correctness of my position, I will not
3
answer the questions and cannot be coerced into answering the questions.
4

5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
6
that the foregoing is true and correct.
7

8 Executed this 24th Day of March, 2010 at Los Angeles, California.

9

10 BY: _________________________
RICHARD I. FINE,
11
In Pro Per
12

13

14

15 RICHARD I. FINE #1824367

c/o Men’s Central Jail
16
441 Bauchet Street
17 Los Angeles, CA 90012
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-30-
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
4 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
5

6
I am _________________. My address is _________________________.
7 On March ___, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as
DEMAND FOR AN IMMEDIATE “FARR HEARING” NO LATER THAN
8
3/31/10 PURSUANT TO COURT’S 2/3/10 MINUTE ORDER on interested
9 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
10
as follows:
11
Kevin M. McCormick Elaine M. Lemke
12
Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham Principal Deputy County Counsel
13 39 N. California Street LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OFF.
P.O. Box 1178 500 West Temple Street
14 Ventura, CA 93002 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713
15
Joshua Lee Rosen R.J. Comer
16 Joshua L Rosen Law Offices Armbruster & Goldsmith, LLP
5905 Sherbourne Drive 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100
17 Los Angeles , CA 90056 Los Angeles, CA 90024
18
Rose M. Zoia
19 50 Old Courthouse Square, Ste.401
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
20

21
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
22
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
23 correct.
Executed on this _____ day of March, 2010, at ____________, California.
24

25

26 __________________________ ____________________________
SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME
27

28

-31-