SHORT SUMMARYSince the late 1980s, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of Los Angeles County proper, has illegally paid the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges bonus payments, now slightly over $57,000 per year, on top of their already generous salary and benefits, giving them a gross salary of more than a quarter of a million dollars each year, all in violation of the California Constitution. The highest ranking judge in the entire country, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, makes only $218,000, and Federal District Judges receive $157.000. As of 2009, Los Angeles County taxpayers have paid over $300 million dollars for these judges’ bonuses. Is there evidence that Los Angeles County got something in return? The County attorney’s “Annual Litigation Cost Report” for the year 2007-2008, begins with the statement that “attorney fees and costs reached a five-year low … and were down 13 percent as compared to last year. … Meanwhile, the County was sued with increasing frequency – up 10 percent over last year.” The County reports that it prevailed in nearly two-thirds of its trials (current statistics report that figure has grown to almost 90%, and is now a point of braggadocio in the County's appellate briefs), and received favorable decisions in over 90 percent of its appellate cases. Actual statistics were: 25 total cases tried, of which there were 16 wins, 7 losses, and 2 resulting in hung juries. (Link) Their statistics showed that 670 new cases were filed in fiscal year 2007, and 261 dismissals occurred based upon favorable rulings for the County. This is approximately 39%. The October 3, 2007, letter did not state the ratio of filed cases to dismissals for non-LA County cases. Los Angeles County took 24 cases to trial and prevailed in 15. Five were defense [jury] verdicts. This shows that 10 defense decisions were done by the LA Superior Court judges. This is over 41%. These are more cases decided by judges against the plaintiffs than the 9 cases the plaintiffs won at trial before a jury. It appears the plaintiffs did not win any cases before a judge. Is that all the County got? NO! Those sneaky Supervisors, having rewritten the County Charter to say that their salaries are to match the compensation received by the superior court judges, are also receiving the same "judicial benefits" that the judges are. This was all done under the table, kept from the knowledge of the public. Luckily, they aren't quite as smart as they think they are because there is no pardon for them for receiving these payments. Significant prison time is in the futures of these blatant crooks. In the meantime, Richard I. Fine, a 70-year-old attorney with a long and very distinguished history bravely fighting for and protecting California taxpayers, the man who has saved them almost $1 billion dollars so far, found himself jailed on trumped-up contempt charges on March 4, 2009, after clashing with certain judges for years who refused to concede their bias when deciding cases concerning the County at the same time they were receiving hefty bonus payments from the county. In fear of losing this lucrative addition to their paychecks, coupled with the likelihood of their having to repay said sums and possibly face prison terms, a few judges are attempting to silence Mr. Fine and force him to abandon his rights and give up this quest in exchange for his freedom. Mr. Fine remains jailed to this day, in solitary confinement in the "worst jail in the United States," the L.A. County Men's Central Jail downtown, according to an ACLU investigation and report. Deprived during the first three weeks of incarceration of simple pen and paper needed to prepare legal documents to contest his confinement, Dr. Fine's friends and supporters helped and the habeas corpus process was begun. Since then, the judges have basically ignored his right to be heard, sitting on their hands and doing nothing while months pass. Meanwhile, Mr. Fine cannot earn an income, resulting in extreme financial damage to his family. Mr. Fine has not even been allowed one minute of time outdoors for fresh air and exercise. (Link) Mr. Fine’s record was impeccable prior to this; now his reputation and livelihood hang in the balance. "One man with courage makes a majority." ~ Andrew Jackson Some of Mr. Fine’s noteworthy cases, which had great societal impact, were: California Supreme Court: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Connell, et al.; White v. Davis, et al., a taxpayer lawsuit to declare unconstitutional the state of California's expenditure of monies without a budget or an emergency appropriation. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The California Supreme Court held that the State cannot expend monies without an appropriation.
United States Supreme Court:
Eastman Kodak Company, Petitioner, v. Image Technical Services, Inc., et
al.: Represented the California State Electronics Association and
approximately 60 other state associations, national associations and companies as amicus curiae
in a landmark tying arrangement and monopoly case. The Supreme Court decided in
favor of the brief thereby preserving the U.S. Service industry by keeping
jobs, and reducing the balance of payments.
EVENTS LEADING TO TODAY (LONG SUMMARY) From the outset, the judges knew that the payments
were illegal, yet they continued to accept them and, in direct conflicts of
interest and bias, did not disclose them to parties in cases in which the County of Los Angeles was involved. Mr. Fine was also robbed of millions in fees
he’d rightfully earned in efforts to stop him from publicly revealing judicial
corruption. Following is a brief chronology: 1988 (Nov 10) - Roger W. Whitby, Senior Assistant, LA County Counsel, issued a Memorandum to Frank S. Zolin, the County Clerk/Executive Officer of the Superior Court, stating that Los Angeles County had decided to pay LA Superior Court judges "local judicial benefits" consisting of "MegaFlex cafeteria benefits" [with an income value equal to 19% of the judge's salary], a "professional development allowance", and a 401(k) match "to attract and retain quality judges to serve in [LA] county. 1997 - The Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act (Cal. Govt. Code §77000 et seq.) declared that the State was solely responsible for trial court funding, to remove the differences in compensation received by judges in different counties. (Link) 1997-1998 - A "deal" was struck between judges and the California Legislature: "[T]he California Legislature promised its continued support of local judicial benefits in return for judges' support of the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act and of the 1998 Trial Court Unification Act. Thus, it is fundamentally unfair for those benefits now to be stripped away, particularly when the Legislature has stated expressly that they must be continued." (Link) Judge Kurt Lewin1999 (May) - In May, 1999, a lawsuit filed by Richard Fine (in 1994) resulted in a requirement that Los Angeles County create a special environmental inspection fee fund from monies that had wrongfully been deposited in the Los Angeles County General Fund (co-mingling of funds so monies can be spent for purposes other than that for which they were given) with an initial deposit of $11 million dollars, to freeze the environmental inspection fees until the $11 million dollars was expended, and to deposit approximately $40 million dollars a year in environmental inspection fees annually into the “special fund” into the indefinite future, in the taxpayer case of Amjadi and LACAOEHS v. LA Board of Supervisors, et al., (LASC Case No. BC 110446, App. Nos. B137683, S. Ct. No. S 096448 and B 138307). The income to taxpayers in the “special fund” since 1999 has grown to over $400 million dollars, and is growing by over $40 million dollars each year. The Court did not award Amjadi and LACAOEHS (a Los Angeles County union of environmental inspectors) attorneys fees, depriving Richard Fine payment for his years of work on this successful lawsuit. After the case was over, Mr. Fine discovered that Superior Court Judge Kurt Lewin was receiving money from Los Angeles County during the time the case was before him. Judge James C. ChalfantAlso in 1999, in the case of Silva v. Garcetti and Los Angeles County (LASC Case No. BC 205645, App. No. B 150641, S. Ct. No. S 105221), Los Angeles County and its District Attorney were sued for unlawfully withholding $14 million in child and spousal support payments beyond the 6 month statutory time period. Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant dismissed the case, even after the County had testified that it begun to pay out the overdue child and spousal support monies. After the case was over, it was discovered that Judge Chalfant had been receiving monies from the County during the case and did not disclose it. The issue of the payments to Judge Chalfant was then raised with the California Court of Appeal, which ruled that it was too late to raise it. The issues was then brought to the California Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case in May 2002. Later in 2002, Richard Fine discovered that Justice Todd of the California Court of Appeal, one of the justices who refused to consider the payments to Judge Chalfant, had also received payments from Los Angeles County while she had been a Superior Court judge, and did not disclose this in the appeal; nor did the other appellate justices disclose that they also knew of the payments to Justice Todd. 2000 - Judges, court commissioners, state bar court judges and county supervisors are all subject to the California Political Reform Act, enacted in 2002, which has both disclosure requirements for judicial officers (Government Code § 87200 and § 82030(b)(2), as interpreted by Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Division 6 California Code of Regulations, Regulation 18232(a)), and recusal (disqualification) requirements for elected officials (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 81000 et seq., 87100 and 87103 (which requires disclosure of receipt of political contributions of $500.00 or more within the previous twelve months of voting on the contributor's project and prohibits voting on the project, See BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1227-1229 (Second App. Dist., Div. 2, 2000)). 2002 (March) - Fine files LACAOEHS v County of Los Angeles and Kurt Lewin, USDC Case No. CV-02-02190 AHM, a Federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that Los Angeles County's payments to Los Angeles County Superior Court judges violated Article VI, § 19 of the California Constitution, and also violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and John Silva v. County of Los Angeles, James C. Chalfant, Kathryn Doi Todd, Bruce E. Mitchell, Roger W. Boren, and Michael G. Nott, USDC Case No. CV-02-04645, filed in June, 2002, a federal taxpayer class action civil rights lawsuit alleging that the County payments to County judges violated Article VI, § 19 of the California Constitution, and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Judge James A. Basque2003 (Apr 23) - LA Superior Court Judge James A. Basque, former Presiding Judge of Los Angeles Superior Court, filed a complaint with the State Bar in State Bar Case No. 00-O-10175 (In Re Richard I. Fine) which case was "dismissed in the furtherance of justice" by the State Bar after Richard Fine moved to dismiss the case on the eve of trial. Judge Soussan G. BrugueraIn 2004-2005, Mr. Fine filed four (4) taxpayer class-action lawsuits, each alleging a gift of public funds had been given to private individuals in violation of Article XVI, § 6 of the California Constitution by virtue of the Los Angeles County Supervisors’ leases to "developers" in Marina del Rey. The lawsuits were filed against Los Angeles County, Archstone Smith Operating Trust, Kingswood Village- Marina, Villa Venetia, Neptune Marina and the Oakwood, later consolidated under the case name Coalition to Save the Marina and Marina Tenants Association, et al., v. County of Los Angeles et al., LASC Case No. BS 085898. Judge Soussan G. Bruguera did not disclose that she was receiving Los Angeles County’s payments. She also unlawfully "struck" the "Objection" to her being the judge to decide the case based upon her receiving such payments: she admitted receiving the payments and argued the legality of them in the "Strike Order" (CCP § 170.3). This violated CCP § 170.3(c)(5), which tells judges not to make decisions "upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party." Judge Bruguera then remained as the judge on the four consolidated cases and dismissed them prior to trial despite the knowledge that the plaintiffs had shown violations of law and the California Constitution which would lead to their winning the lawsuit. This action has so far cost Los Angeles taxpayers approximately $910 million dollars in lost income from Los Angeles County's leases of "public land" to private developers in Marina del Rey. At the time that she dismissed the consolidated cases, Judge Bruguera knew that on June 29, 2005, her fellow Superior Court Judge, Elihu M. Berle, had issued an oral Order denying a preliminary injunction and holding that the County of Los Angeles does not control prices of apartments and boat leases of a year or less under its "restated lease" with Marina Pacific Associates in Marina del Rey; amongst other grounds, stating (at pages 61, line 26, to page 62, line 15, and page 64, lines 3 to 26) that the "restated lease" submitted as evidence by plaintiffs does not show any "control or system of control on the price at which accommodations may be offered for rent or lease," which is the basis to require the lessee, Marina Pacific Associates, to offer any redeveloped accommodation [boat slip] first to the then-existing tenant under Government Code § 7060.2(B)(3). The failure to control prices meant that the lease was a gift of public funds to private individuals in violation of Article XVI, § 6 of the California Constitution, under well-established California case law. The case was Coalition to Save the Marina, Inc., et al., v. County of Los Angeles, Marina Pacific Associates, a California Limited Partnership, and Bellport Group, et al., LASC Case No. BS 092794, filed in 2005, alleging violations of the California Constitution and particularly the lease between Los Angeles County and the developer lessees. In the same Marina Pacific case, Los Angeles County argued that it did not control the actions of the lessee under the lease. This was also brought to Judge Bruguera’s attention. Judge Berle later dismissed the Marina Pacific case prior to trial. Taxpayers lost approximately $700 million dollars of income from the developers in Marina del Rey when Judge Bruguera dismissed the consolidated cases before trial. This particular loss to taxpayers is continuing at approximately $70 million dollars per year in fees for "lease renewals". At the present time, the loss over the past thirteen years is approximately $910 million dollars and growing. In 2004-2007, in a series of taxpayer cases consolidated as Coalition to Save the Marina and Marina Tenants Association et al., v. County of Los Angeles et al., LASC Case No. BS 089838, Los Angeles County and various developers of Marina del Rey were sued to void the leases between the County and the developers on the grounds that they were "an unconstitutional gift of public funds to a private person" in violation of California Constitution Article XVI, § 6. The lawsuits also sought to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars owed to the taxpayers of Los Angeles County due to underpayments on the leases compared to fair compensation which would have been paid in a "fair" commercial transaction paying Los Angeles County the fair market value for the land leased to the developers. Judge Soussan G. Bruguera struck the disqualification even while admitting that she was receiving money from Los Angeles County. The California Court of Appeal refused to hear the petition for writ of mandate to order her disqualified and the case transferred out of the LA Superior Court (App. No. B178404) and the California Supreme Court refused to review the petition (S. Ct. No. S128928). Judge Bruguera dismissed the cases before trial, however she delayed her decision for over 90 days, thus placing plaintiffs in a position that they either had to file a notice of appeal before she rendered her decision, thus losing their constitutional right to have a court decide their case, or allow her to decide and be subject to California Rule of Court (CRC) Rule 8.104(a) and CRC Rule 8.108(b) and (d) requiring a notice of appeal to be filed the earlier of 90 days after a motion for reconsideration is filed or 180 days after the judgment is filed, when no time limit is set on the trial court to decide the motion. These CRC rules are a denial of due process, as they remove the Constitutional right to trial in the first instance and the right to have a court hear the matter in the second instance. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal filed after the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on the 91st day (App. No. B198659) and the California Supreme Court refused to hear the matter (S. Ct. No. S157640), thereby denying the plaintiffs their constitutional right to have a court hear their matter. Commissioner Bruce E. MitchellCommissioner Bruce E. Mitchell is a "temporary judge" assigned to the Eminent Domain Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Commissioner Mitchell does not disclose the County payments on his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests as required under the California Political Reform Act. The Eminent Domain Department decides cases involving Los Angeles County and its agencies. A judge's receipt of "unconstitutional" payments from a party to a lawsuit, not disclosing them, and violating a state law violates the "implied right to honest services". Commissioner Mitchell knew that his taking of payments from the County violated Code of Judicial Ethics Cannons 2A, 2B (1) and (2), 3B(5), 3E(1) and (2), and 4D(1) (4) and (5), and that not disclosing them violated the Political Reform Act. === WEBMASTER TO INSERT HISTORY OF MITCHELL’S PRIOR ACTS === An example of judicial officers using class settlement monies for their own benefit occurred in the case of Paul DeFlores et al, v. EHG National Health Services, et al, LASC Case No. BC 150607, in which a class settlement fund of $7.86 million was established to pay class members who were examined by a "fake" doctor. Court papers show that Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell, purporting to act as a "temporary judge," transferred the class settlement fund from Wells Fargo Bank to Bank of America (where, according to his filed Form 700 Financial Disclosure Form, he had loans), signed papers approving the taking of over $2 million from the class settlement fund to be used to "purchase claims against Bruce E. Mitchell, the Superior Court, and other 'judicial officers'," pay legal fees of approximately $300,000 to defend an action to stop such purchase, pay private lawyers over $1.6 million of unearned fees on the condition that they would withhold 35 percent [$535,000] to pay further legal fees to defend an action to stop such purchase, and pay approximately $600,000 in fees to others. Amongst the members of the class from whom this $2 million was stolen are FBI agents and Secret Service agents.2005-06 - On April 1, 2005, Commissioner Mitchell also unlawfully approved the expenditure of $80,000 to purchase all claims of Mr. Fine against "Bruce E. Mitchell, other judicial officers and others" from the DeFlores Class Settlement Fund in violation of the “Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgment” in the case of Paul DeFlores, et al, v. EHG National Health Services, et al, LASC Case No. BC 150607, and subsequently unlawfully paid approximately $270,000 from the same Fund to defend his April 1, 2005, action. On July 27, 2006, Commissioner Mitchell approved and ordered the payment of approximately $1.6 million dollars to attorneys from the DiFlores Class Settlement Fund and the Attorney's Fee Fund, in violation of the Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgment, on the condition that they would withhold 35%, or approximately $566,684.65, to defend his April 1, 2005, action. These actions violated numerous State laws, including "theft", which is defined in Cal. Penal Code § 484 as "fraudulently appropriat[ing] money which has been entrusted to him or her", amongst other things. The actions are also "larceny", in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 490a, and may also be "obtaining money by false pretenses" in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 532, of monies entrusted to the Superior Court and its judicial officers, Bruce E. Mitchell, Byron Moldo-the Disbursing Agent, Bank of America-the holder of the funds and the attorneys for the class members who received and consented to such unlawful payments. Other problems include court personnel illegally taking monies from court-controlled conservatorships, trust funds or class settlement funds. The court file in the DiFlores case shows that the Settlement and Mutual Release under which $80,000 was paid from the DiFlores Class Settlement Fund to the Trustee to purchase Mr. Fine's claims against "Bruce E. Mitchell, other judicial officers and others", manifests an "obstruction of justice". Penal Code § 96.5 (Obstruction of Justice ) makes any act that the "judicial officer" or "court commissioner" knows to pervert or obstruct justice to be punishable by up to one year in County Jail. Here, Commissioner Mitchell knew that his actions of accepting the "release" specific to him in exchange for his approval of the Settlement and Mutual Release was obstructing justice and within the definition of a "bribe". Cal. Penal Code §§ 7, 92 and 93 Commissioner Mitchell further knew that he was accepting a gift in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.9, and violating Code of Judicial Ethics Cannon 4D (1) by engaging in financial dealings with a person who appears before him. Commissioner Mitchell, John Moe, II, and Peter Leeson, IV (the lawyers whom he appointed as bankruptcy counsel for the DiFlores class members and who negotiated the acquisition of the claims against ‘Bruce E. Mitchell, other judicial officers and others), engaged in bribery and soliciting a bribe by their actions, as shown by the court file in the DiFlores case and the Settlement and Mutual Release under which the $80,000 was approved and transferred from the DiFlores Class Settlement Fund. 2005-07 - Since Los Angeles County could not use "local judicial benefits" "to attract and retain qualified judges to serve in this [LA] County" either under the California Constitution, the Code of Judicial Ethics or as a contribution to the judicial election campaigns, the only "benefit" which Los Angeles County could receive from the payments was preferential treatment in the cases which Los Angeles County had or would have before the LA Superior Court judges. This treatment occurred, as disclosed by the June 9, 2005, October 3, 2007 and October 1, 2008 County Counsel Annual Litigation Cost Reports to the LA Board of Supervisors. The 2005 Report shows that 404 lawsuits were dismissed in the first three quarters of 2004-2005 as compared to 163 in the first three quarters of 2003-2004 and no decision in favor of a party by a judge in 2004-2005. 213 new lawsuits were filed in the third quarter of FY 2004-2005. (Pages 1 and 2) The October 3, 2007 Report shows no decision in favor of a party by a judge in 2006-2007, (Page 3) and 261 dismissals in 2007 which was 12% less than 2006 (page 4). There were 670 new cases filed in 2007, which was 21% less than 2006 and 5% less than 2005 (page 4). The October 1, 2008 Report shows the County tried 25 cases, prevailed in 16, received adverse verdicts or decisions in 7 and 2 cases resulted in "hung juries". The Report did not show that any adverse "decision" was rendered by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. (page 3). Unlike previous years, the 2008 Report did not report "new cases filed" or "dismissals". As shown by the June 9, 2005 and October 3, 2007 Los Angeles County Counsel Annual Reports, Los Angeles County knew that it had cases before the LA Superior Court judges and the LA Superior Court judges knew that Los Angeles County had cases before them. At the same time, Los Angeles County was giving the LA Superior Court judges approximately $21 million per year. (Sturgeon, supra, page 3). No document shows that the LA Superior Court judges disclosed these payments to the party opposing Los Angeles County or to the State on the Form 700 Disclosure Statement of Economic Interest forms. Supervisors Michael Antonovich and Don KnabeJudge David P. YaffeState Bar Judge Richard A. HonnEpstein Family Trust2007 (May 15) - On May 15, 2007, Los Angeles County Supervisors Michael Antonovich and Donald Knabe voted for the approval of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Del Rey Shores Project, after having accepted campaign contributions from its proponents. The Del Rey Shores Project was the redevelopment of a 202-unit apartment complex into a 544-unit apartment complex with 1088 parking spaces. Neither Supervisors Antonovich nor Knabe disclosed such contributions prior to, or at the time of the hearing, nor did they recuse themselves. The proponents, time of contribution and amount given, as shown on the Los Angeles County Registrar's Official Campaign Contributions website, were Marina del Rey "developers" Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North through Jerry B. Epstein (Real Estate, Jerry B. Epstein Mgmt. Co)- 4/24/07, Antonovich, $1,000.00, the Epstein Family Trust (Jerry B. Epstein, Trustee)- 4/4/07, Knabe, $1,000.00, Pat Epstein (Artist, Pat T. Epstein)- 4/24/07, Antonovich, $1,000.00, David Levine (Real Estate Management, Del Rey Shores)-4/24/07, Antonovich, $1,000.00 and David O. Levine (Real Estate Consultant, Office of Jerry B. Epstein)-4/4/07, Knabe, $1,000.00. The contributions were made within six weeks prior to the vote of approval of the EIR for the Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North Project. 2007 (Jun 14) - On June 14, 2007, Richard Fine filed a petition for writ of mandate in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS 109420 (hereinafter referred to as the Marina Strand case) as the attorney for the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association. The petition sought to overturn the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors' approval of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in favor of the redevelopment of the Del Rey Shores apartment complex in Marina del Rey, California. The petition alleged that the EIR violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Amongst the numerous other complaints alleged was the allegation that Los Angeles County did not receive any positive financial benefit from the project as required by CEQA. Los Angeles County was the Respondent in the case. Its co-applicant, Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North [Jerry B. Epstein, the Epstein Family Trust, Pat T. Epstein and David O. Levine], were the "Real Parties in Interest". David P. Yaffe was the judge. Previously, Mr. Fine had represented the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association in the proceedings before the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in opposing the approval of the EIR. The lease documents with Los Angeles County show that one of the managers of the "general partner" of Marina Pacific Associates (a developer) is the Epstein Family Trust, of which Jerry B. Epstein and Pat T. Epstein are the "Trustees" executing documents on behalf of Marina Pacific Associates. One of the lawyers in the case for Marina Pacific Associates, Sheldon H. Sloan, was also a member of the Board of Governors and then President of the State Bar of California at the time the State Bar initiated and pursued its suit to disbar Mr. Fine and stop him from practicing law. Marina Pacific Associates, the Epstein Family Trust, Jerry B. Epstein, Pat T. Epstein, Sheldon H. Sloan and Los Angeles County each had an interest in removing Mr. Fine from the Marina Pacific case through State Bar action. Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, the Epstein Family Trust, Jerry B. Epstein, Pat T. Epstein, David O. Levine (the "Chief of Staff" to Jerry B. Epstein according to court documents) and Los Angeles County, each had an interest in removing Richard Fine from the case. During this same period of time, Jerry B. Epstein, the Epstein Family Trust, Pat T. Epstein and David O. Levine had a relationship with the California State Bar through Sheldon H. Sloan, a Member of the Board of Governors and then President of the California State Bar, who was their attorney in another case where they and Los Angeles County were opposing Richard Fine's clients over Los Angeles County "lease" issues in Marina del Rey. 2007 (Oct 12) - Mr. Fine left the Marina Strand case on October 12, 2007, as s result of the actions of California State Bar Court Hearing Department Judge Honn, who ordered Mr. Fine's Bar membership into "inactive" status, meaning he could no longer practice law. Judge Yaffe's violations against Richard I. Fine are especially egregious as he not only violated the "implied right to honest services", but further violated Mr. Fine's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by issuing an order to pay sanctions, attorney's fees and costs without notice or hearing, and without jurisdiction over the person, then violated state law by refusing to remove himself from the case after being disqualified under law, and again violated Mr. Fine's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by acting as the judge in a contempt proceeding to enforce his unconstitutional order and judge the person who criticized his actions. 2001 (June 5) – News article: "[Judge David P.] Yaffe Fails to List Receipt of Free Legal Services on Form Filed With [Fair Political Practices Committee]" http://www.metnews.com/articles/perspectives0605.htm A California State Bar case entitled In the Matter of Richard Isaac Fine, State Bar Court Case No. 04-O-14366, was opened on February 6, 2006, while Mr. Fine was opposing Los Angeles County and developers Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, the Epstein Family Trust, Jerry B. Epstein, Pat T. Epstein, David O. Levine before the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission. At that time, and during Richard Fine's participation in the Marina Strand case, Los Angeles County had a "financial relationship" with California State Bar Hearing Court Department Judge Richard A. Honn to influence the removal of Mr. Fine from the Marina Strand case through $30,000.00 of payments to the Special Olympics Southern California, a charity where Judge Honn sat on the Board of Governors with Gerald Hime, a representative of Los Angeles County. Mr. Fine was forced to leave the Marina Pacific case prior to trial because Judge Honn ordered Mr. Fine inactive on October 12, 2007. Richard Fine did not return to the Marina Pacific case after the California Supreme Court did not affirm Judge Honn's October 12, 2007, order. 2007 (Oct 17) - In Re Richard Isaac Fine: Fine's bar status ruled "involuntary inactive" as of Oct. 17, 2007 by State Bar Court hearing judge Richard Honn. Per Richard Fine: “The State Bar prosecuted me for bringing the LACAOEHS and Silva cases at the behest of the LA Superior Court. The ‘complaining party’ in the State Bar case was LA Superior Court Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell, who was a defendant’s class reperesentative defendant in the Silva case and who had received ‘local judicial benefits’ and not disclosed such while acting as a ‘temporary judge’ in eminent domain cases involving Los Angeles County.”
Los Angeles County Counsel’s “Annual Litigation Cost Report”, Fiscal Year 2007-2008, begins with the statement that “attorney fees and costs reached a five-year low … and were down 13 percent as compared to last year. … Meanwhile, the County was sued with increasing frequency – up 10 percent over last year.” The County reports that it prevailed in nearly two-thirds of its trials, and received favorable decisions in over 90 percent of its appellate cases. Actual statistics were: 25 total cases tried, of which there were 16 wins, 7 losses, and 2 resulting in hung juries. (Link)
“The statistics showed that 670 new cases were filed in fiscal year 2007 and 261 dismissals occurred based upon favorable rulings for the County. This is approximately 39%. The October 3, 2007, letter did not state the ratio of filed cases to dismissals for non-LA County cases. Los Angeles County took 24 cases to trial and prevailed in 15. Five were defense [jury] verdicts. This shows that 10 defense decisions were done by the LA Superior Court judges. This is over 41%.These are more cases decided by judges against the plaintiffs, than the 9 cases the plaintiffs won at trial before a jury. It appears the plaintiffs did not win any cases before a judge.” (Fine's statement, supra.) It appears that winning a bench trial in Los Angeles County is impossible. 2007 (Nov 19) – Mr. Fine filed a petition for writ of review with the California Supreme Court in the case of Fine v. State Bar of California, Supreme Court Case No. S158326, asking it to review and overturn the State Bar's decision. On November 19, 2007, the California Supreme Court denied Mr. Fine's petition, but did not enter an order affirming Judge Honn's order, or enter its own order, making Mr. Fine officially inactive, as it was required to do under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6084(a) when a timely petition for writ of review was filed. Fine’s conflict with the bench, Honn recounted, stemmed initially from his involvement in the case of DiFlores v. EHG National Health Services, a class action emanating from the disclosure that a phony doctor had performed about 1,000 medical examinations on behalf of an insurance company. Fine filed the case on behalf of 19 named plaintiffs, and he and other counsel stipulated that Mitchell could hear the case as a temporary judge. Mitchell later certified a class with respect to liability issues only and designated Mitchell as class counsel. Eventually, a settlement was reached, and Mitchell gave preliminary approval to an agreement in which the defendants would pay about $7.868 million, of which one-third would go to attorney fees, with as much as $1.9 million going to Fine and the rest to lawyers retained by individual class members. Following a “fairness” hearing, Mitchell gave final approval of the settlement, ordered an initial distribution of $2,000 to each of the 19 named plaintiffs as an incentive award, and ordered that payment of fees to the attorneys be delayed “until the final amounts can be computed.” On Fine’s motion, however, Mitchell later ordered a partial distribution to Fine of $450,000, which Fine said was inadequate. In subsequent proceedings, Mitchell granted an additional distribution of less than $170,000, but also ordered Fine not to file any further motions for partial distribution for at least four months. Counsel for other plaintiffs, in the meantime, moved for
sanctions against Fine for repeatedly filing motions for partial distribution
of attorney fees and ex parte applications for expedited hearings on those
motions. Fine objected to Mitchell hearing those motions, claiming they were not covered by the stipulation allowing Mitchell to hear the case as judge pro tem, but Mitchell struck the objection and ordered Fine to show cause why he should not be removed as class counsel. Fine, the hearing judge explained, responded with what
turned out to be the first of at least 12 motions to disqualify the
commissioner. All of the motions were either stricken by Mitchell or denied by
an assigned judge. After striking the ninth challenge, Mitchell issued an OSC and eventually held Fine in contempt, ordering that he serve five days in jail. The contempt order recited that Fine had made false, insulting, and scandalous charges against the commissioner. The Court of Appeal affirmed in a published opinion which reviewed all nine of the challenges filed to that point and found all of them to be without merit. After Fine filed his 10th challenge, Mitchell ordered him to show cause why he should not be removed from the case completely, precipitating an 11th challenge. Mitchell then ordered Fine out of the case, saying he “cannot be trusted as a fiduciary” and that more than $40,000 in sanctions, a jail sentence, “and the denial of every petition and appeal Fine has filed in the appellate courts in this case” had failed to result in compliance with the rules and requirements of the court. Fine, he said, “will not follow the law, he will not tell the truth, and he will not obey court orders.” Honn, writing for the State Bar Court, said that counsel had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Fine had “embarked on a litigation rampage” against Mitchell in retaliation for the commissioner’s fee rulings in the DiFlores case, in violation of his duties to his clients and the court; that he had pursued a frivolous theory—which Fine had advanced, unsuccessfully, in other cases—that judicial officers of the Los Angeles Superior Court have a conflict of interest because they receive county-paid benefits in addition to their salaries; and that he filed a frivolous appeal from an order that Mitchell never made. Honn also found that Fine had filed meritless proceedings out of pique with Mitchell or other judicial officers, including a baseless lawsuit accusing Mitchell, Superior Court Judge James Chalfant, and Court of Appeal Justice Kathryn Doi Todd of having violated his civil rights in a state court case that none of them had anything to do with. Honn acknowledged that Fine had practiced for many years without discipline prior to the DiFlores case. But neither that fact, nor his longtime involvement in civic activities, is sufficiently mitigating to outweigh the fact that Fine “continues to blame everyone but himself for his outrageous and extensive misconduct,” making it “extremely likely” that he would continue to engage in such misbehavior if allowed to remain in practice, Honn said. Fine told the MetNews he believes he is being targeted because he and former State Bar President Sheldon Sloan have been on opposite sides of litigation concerning the Playa Vista development on the Westside. Sloan scoffed at that suggestion, saying that he never involved himself in Fine’s or any other State Bar disciplinary case, and that no State Bar prosecutor would have allowed him to become involved. Prior to the issuance of Honn’s opinion, Sloan elaborated, the only knowledge he had of the proceedings came when he received a complaint—he said he could not recall who from—as to the length of time the case was taking. As with all similar complaints he received during his tenure as president, and on the Board of Governors before that, he merely passed the communication on to the State Bar’s executive director or the chief trial counsel, he said. Sloan added that he was not involved in, and knew nothing about, DeFlores or any of the cases cited by Honn. 2008 (Jan 8) - On January 8, 2008, Judge Yaffe ordered that Mr. Fine, who at that time was no longer the attorney for the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association, pay sanctions of $1,000.00 and attorney's fees and costs to Los Angeles County and "Real Parties in Interest", without having given Mr. Fine notice of the hearing and without Mr. Fine being present at the hearing. Mr. Fine was sent notice by mail on January, 23, 2008. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Fine made a "Special Appearance" in the Marina Strand case and moved to dismiss the January 8, 2008, order. Judge Yaffe took the motion "off calendar". On March 25, 2008, Mr. Fine served Judge Yaffe with a CCP § 170.3 "Objection" based upon Judge Yaffe's admitting in a hearing on March 20, 2008, that he received payments from Los Angeles County. Judge Yaffe did not make any "response" to the "Objection" and was "disqualified" on April 8, 2008, by operation of law under CCP § 170.3(c)(4). Judge Yaffe refused to leave that part of the case relating to Mr. Fine in violation of Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 170.3(c)(4). California State Bar Court Hearing Department Judge Richard A. Honn was the hearing judge in the case of In the Matter of Richard Isaac Fine, State Bar Case No. 04-O-14366 RAH. Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell was the "Complaining Party". The charges included, amongst others, Mr. Fine's filing of the cases of LACAOEHS v County of Los Angeles and Lewin, and John Silva v. County of Los Angeles, James C. Chalfant, Kathryn Doi Todd, Bruce E. Mitchell, Roger W. Boren, and Michael G. Nott. The remainder of the charges related to actions of Commissioner Bruce E. Mitchell and included the filing of one Federal civil rights suit also related to the "unconstitutional" Los Angeles County payments, one appeal, one petition for writ of mandate, one petition for writ of supersedeas, and "disqualifications" against Commissioner Mitchell, which he unlawfully "struck" under CCP § 170.3(c)(5) and unlawfully simultaneously "answered". (Insert Link) Judge Honn did not disclose that he was a member of the Board of Governors of Special Olympics Southern California with Gerald Hime of Los Angeles County, and that Special Olympics Southern California received payments of $30,000 from Los Angeles County from July 1, 2005, to January 18, 2008, while he was the trial judge on, and decided the case of, In the Matter of Richard Isaac Fine in which Judge Honn found Mr. Fine guilty of "moral turpitude" for filing the LACAOEHS and Silva cases. As shown above, the Sturgeon decision upheld Mr. Fine's allegations in cases where the Los Angeles County payments to the LA Superior Court judges violated Article VI, § 19 of the California Constitution. Judge Honn did not disclose that he was a member of the Board of Governors of Special Olympics Southern California with Gerald Hime of Los Angeles County, and that Special Olympics Southern California received payments of $30,000 from Los Angeles County from July 1, 2005, to January 18, 2008, while he was the trial judge on, and decided the case of, In the Matter of Richard Isaac Fine in which Judge Honn found Mr. Fine guilty of "moral turpitude" for filing the LACAOEHS and Silva cases. As shown above, the Sturgeon decision upheld Mr. Fine's allegations in cases where the Los Angeles County payments to the LA Superior Court judges violated Article VI, § 19 of the California Constitution. Additionally, California State Bar Court Judge Patrice E. McElroy, who refused to disqualify Judge Honn, was a member of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center. Another member of the Board was Jerry Roth, a Partner of Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, whose partner Jeffrey Bleich was a member of the Board of Governors of the California State Bar and President of the California State Bar, succeeding Sheldon H. Sloan. Munger, Tolles & Olson represented Los Angeles County in the negotiations and drafting of the "Option to Extend Lease" and the "Restated and Amended Lease" with Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, as shown by the signature page of the "Draft" documents. Campaign contribution reports show that the attorneys and partners of Munger, Tolles & Olson contributed over $14,000 to the campaign coffers of Los Angeles County Supervisors. The combination of Judges Honn and McElroy on Mr. Fine's State Bar case demonstrated an inordinate "unity" of Los Angeles County interest in Mr. Fine's disbarment The San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center did not release or post the contributions from its donors. The acts of being on the Board of Governors of Special Olympics Southern California with a person from Los Angeles County, and Special Olympics Southern California receiving $30,000 from Los Angeles County while Judge Honn was hearing and deciding a case involving Los Angeles County and not disclosing the same was biased and violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 6085(e). 2008 (June) - Additionally, in the underlying Marina Strand case, in June, 2008, Judge Yaffe ruled against the Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association on the issue of whether the new lease with Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, which was part of the project, would be of a financial benefit to Los Angeles County. At the contempt trial, it was shown that no evidence was presented in the "record" that a positive financial benefit to Los Angeles County would occur. R. J. Comer, counsel for Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, testified that he did not review the new lease and could not cite to any evidence showing a benefit to the county. The "Draft Amended and Restated Lease Agreement" showed at section 4.4.1 that Los Angeles County was giving Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North an Eleven Million Fifty Thousand Dollar ($11,050,000) Lessee Credit plus accrued interest for the dedication of fifty-four (54) low- and moderate-income apartments in the project. Under the Mello Act, Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North were required to dedicate these apartments without any lessee credit. 2008 (May 2) Fine files action in Richard I. Fine v. State Bar of California, Case No. CV 08-02906, seeking to have the disbarment overturned. 2008 (Nov 3) - Subsequently, in the Marina Strand case, Judge Yaffe both presided as the judge and appeared as an adverse witness in the "contempt" proceedings against Mr. Fine beginning November 3, 2008, with an order to show cause containing sixteen (16) counts. The "contempt" proceeding was based upon allegations of actions occurring after Judge Yaffe entered the January 8, 2008, order in the Marina Strand case. The charges included, but were not limited to, refusing to respond to questions at a judgment enforcement hearing, making false statements in pleadings, making motions for reconsideration of the court's January 8, 2008, order, directly and indirectly attacking the integrity of the LA Superior Court and the court [Judge Yaffe], attacking the integrity of the State Bar Court, attacking the integrity of the Real Parties in Interest's counsel and holding himself out to practice law in violation of B&P Code §§ 6126 and 6127, despite the fact he had been placed on involuntary inactive status by the State Bar of California. On the first day of trial, Judge Yaffe testified, as an adverse witness called by Mr. Fine, that he had received the Los Angeles County payments, that he knew that Los Angeles County had cases before him, that he did not disclose the payments on his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests required to be filed with the State of California under the Political Reform Act, that he was a State of California employee and an elected state judge under the California Constitution, that he did not have any employment contract with Los Angeles County or agreement or arrangement to provide services to Los Angeles County, that he reported the Los Angeles County payments as "income" on his tax returns, that he did not put the Los Angeles County payments into his "campaign contributions account" for his judicial elections, and that other than making a decision regarding the recirculation of the EIR in the Marina Strand case, he could not name any case in the last three (3) years where he decided the case against Los Angeles County. The contempt trial concluded after seven (7) days of trial. Judge Yaffe held Richard Fine "not guilty" on fourteen (14) counts and "guilty" on two (2) counts, one of which was refusing to answer questions at a judgment enforcement examination regarding the unlawful order to pay attorney's fees, and the second of holding himself out to practice law. Judge Yaffe made these rulings despite the unconstitutionality and illegality of the January 8, 2008, order, the testimony at trial of counsel for Real Parties in Interest Joshua L. Rosen, that they were not relying on the January 8, 2008, order to enforce the judgment, that there was no other order in evidence for Mr. Fine to pay fees or costs, and the fact that the California Supreme Court had not ordered Mr. Fine "inactive" and neither statute relied upon "State Bar orders". A motion to set aside the judgment and enter a judgment of "not guilty" was subsequently filed and is set for hearing on February 24, 2009. Judge Yaffe and Commissioner Mitchell are both members of the Provisional & Post-Judgment Remedies Section. 2008 (Nov 11) "Richard I. Fine Files Complaint With FBI To Investigate Retaliation Against Him For Exposing And Prosecuting Unconstitutional Payments By L.A. County To L.A. County Judges" (Link) Sturgeon v. County of Los AngelesSenate Bill SBx2-112008 (Oct 10) – Decision rendered in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, et al., 167 Cal.App.4, 630 (2008), holding that payments to judges were, in fact, unconstitutional, 2008 (Dec 16) - On December 16, 2008, Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe voted for the approval of the recirculated EIR for the Del Rey Shores Project, after having accepted campaign contributions from its proponents Marina del Rey "developers" Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North through Jerry B. Epstein-8/14/08, Antonovich, $1,000.00, David O. Levine-8/15/08, Antonovich, $1,000.00 and Marina Properties, LLC-3/18/08 (an entity controlled by Jerry Epstein), Knabe, $1000.00, within one year of the vote On December 16, 2008, Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina voted for the approval of the recirculated EIR for the Del Rey Shores Project, doing so after having accepted campaign contributions to the "Gloria Molina 'Yes' on Measure U etc." fund from Jerry B. Epstein (Real Estate, Jerry B. Epstein Mgmt. Co)-$1,250.00 on 10/8/08 and David Levine (Real Estate, Jerry B. Epstein Management)-$1,250.00 on 10/8/08 within six weeks of the vote. Supervisor Gloria Molina did not disclose those contributions prior to, or at the time of the hearing, and did not recuse herself. 2009 (Feb 1) - Richard Fine sends letter to Eric Holder, AG, DOJ, requesting investigation. 2009 (Feb 2) - On February 2, 2009, Richard Fine’s “Criminal Complaint” was filed via email with a “hard copy” and supporting documents sent by overnight mail. On February 2, 2009, a “Notice of Filing Criminal Complaint” was filed in the California Supreme Court case of Fine v. State Bar of California, Supreme Court Case No. S168418. On February 11, 2009, nine days later, the lobbyists of the Judicial Council of California, the Los Angeles Superior Court and the California Judges Association, introduced Senate Bill SBX 2 11 through Senate President Pro Tem Darryl Steinberg. According to the Senate Committee Report attached hereto, the “source” of the bill was the “Administrative Office of the Courts”, which is part of the Judicial Council of California. The bill passed the California State Senate on February 14, 2009, passed the California Assembly on February 15, 2009 and was signed into law on February 20, 2009 by Governor Schwarzenegger as part of the “Budget Package”. Senate Bill SBX 2 11 admitted that the entire California Judicial System was “corrupt” due to the “unconstitutional” payments and then gave the “corrupt” judges, the State, counties, officers and employees of the State and counties “immunity” from state liability, prosecution and disciplinary action. The people of California received nothing in exchange for this grant of immunity. Senate Bill SBX 2 11 did not fire, or require any of the judges, state or county employees to resign and did not stop the “unconstitutional” payments. In contrast they are keeping their jobs and the judges are still receiving the “unconstitutional” payments. 2009 (Feb 18) - Fine v State Bar: APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Richard I. Fine filed by plaintiff Richard I Fine.2009 (Feb 20) - Senate Bill SBx2-11 enacted. Steinberg. Judges: employment benefits. The California Constitution requires the Legislature to prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record. Existing law authorizes any county to deem judges and court employees as county employees for purposes of providing employment benefits. These provisions were held unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of the obligation of the Legislature to prescribe the compensation of judges of courts of record. This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of the bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law. MORE AT LINK. 2009 (Mar 4) - Fine v State Bar: Contempt Hearing. ESCORTED AWAY BY THREE UNIFORMED AND SIX
PLAINCLOTHES SHERIFF'S OFFICIALS, later determined to be members of the Warrant
service department. US District Court Judge John F. WalterUS District Court Magistrate Carla Woehrle2009 (Mar 20) - Fine v Sheriff: Richard Fine files PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; case assigned to Judge Pregerson.2009 (Mar 26) - Fine v State Bar: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. DENYING APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order, and GRANTING MOTION to Dismiss Case. RE-NOTICED. 2009 (Apr 7) - Fine v Sheriff: ORDER by Judge Woehrle requiring Sheriff Baca to file answer to petition by 4/21/09. Motions to Dismiss also due by then. 2009 (Apr 9 ) - Fine v Sheriff: Richard Fine files EX PARTE APPLICATION for immediate release 2009 (Apr 9 ) - Fine v Sheriff: ORDER by Judge Woehrle requiring Sheriff Baca to file response to ex parte application by 4/17/09. 2009 (Apr 10) - Fine v State Bar: ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE due to self-recusal pursuant to General Order 08-05 by Judge George H Wu. 2009 (Apr 10) - Fine v Sheriff: Judge Wu self-recuses, case transferred to Judge John F. Walter 2009 (Apr 16) - Fine v State Bar: OBJECTION to Memorandum to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed by plaintiff Richard I. Fine. 2009 (Apr 17) - Fine v State Bar: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge John F. Walter: IT IS ORDERED (1) that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge be ACCEPTED; (2) that Defendants' motion to dismiss (docket no. 17 , filed June 4, 2008) be GRANTED; (3) that Plaintiff's application for temporary restraining order and order to show cause (docket no. 35 , filed February 18, 2009) be DENIED; (4) that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and (5) that judgment be ENTERED dismissing this action without prejudice. 2009 (Apr 17) - Fine v State Bar: JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter: IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). Summary of incarceration events, as reported on Richard Fine’s 9th Circuit appeal form: Ground one: Violation of 5th amendment and 14th amendment (denial of due process) by having violated 28 USC Sec 2243Supporting FACTS (tell
your story BRIEFLY without citing cases or law): A petition for writ of Habeas Corpus
was filed on March 20, 2009 (Case # CV-09-1914-JFW(CW)) Magistrate Woehrle
violated 28 USC Sec 2243 by not ordering a response “forthwith” and instead
waiting 18 days until April 7 to order respondent, Sheriff of Los Angeles
County to respond to the petition. The Sheriff did not identify any “interested
party” other than the Sheriff and Petitioner on his notice of interested
parties. He responded by claiming he did not have sufficient information to
respond. His attorney claimed contact with the attorney for the Superior Court
of the County of Los Angeles and Judge Yaffe who indicated that
they would respond if “directed” to do so by the court. On April 23, Magistrate
Woehrle directed the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles and Judge Yaffe to respond to the
Petitioner by May 1, 2009.
Such date of May 1, 2009 was greater than the 20 days
allowed for a response to the petition under 28 USC Sec 2243. Further, the
Superior Court and Judge Yaffe were not within the Jurisdiction of the Federal
Court as they had never appeared in the case. The Superior Court and Judge
Yaffe filed a response on May 1, 2009 and did not file a notice of
interested parties or a notice of intervention. The response did not address
the substance of the petition. Neither the response of the Sheriff nor the
response of the Superior Court and Judge Yaffe addressed the petitioner’s Ex
Parte application for immediate relief filed April 9,
2009 to
which Magistrate Woehrle order a response by both of them. As of May
25th, 2009,
Magistrate Woehrle has not issued the writ of Habeas Corpus despite the fact
that no opposition has been filed to the petition by the Sheriff, the Superior
Court or Judge Yaffe. In
summary, under the requirements of 28 USC Section 2243 the court should have
either awarded the writ on March 20th or March 21st or “issued an order
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted” on
such days. The writ or order to show cause should have been directed to the
Sheriff of Los Angeles County as the person who had custody of Petitioner Fine.
The Sheriff “shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention”
within three days unless for good cause additional time not exceeding twenty
days is allowed.” This means that the sheriff had to respond by April 11th at
the latest under the statute, and that the superior court and Judge Yaffe would
also have had to respond by such days. The statute further provides “when the
writ or order is returned, a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five
days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.” This
means that the hearing date should have been set for April 16th , at the
latest. Petitioner is still incarcerated and has now been incarcerated for
approximately 85 days without any substantive opposition to the petition and
without any certification of the true cause of detention and without any
hearing date being set. By these actions Magistrate Judge Woehrle and Judge
Walter have violated the 5th and 14th amendment and 28 USC section 2243. The petition must be immediately granted and
petitioner set free. COST TO TAXPAYERSFrom the time the Los Angeles County payments to LA Superior Court judges began in the late 1980s through the present, Los Angeles County has paid $300 million dollars, as shown by Los Angeles County Annual Budget documents. Los Angeles County has been paying LA Superior Court judges these judicial benefits" in addition to their State compensation since the late 1980s.
Decisions of LA Superior Court judges in a few cases affecting income from Los Angeles County leased "public land" to "developers" in Marina del Rey show that taxpayers have "lost" at least $700 million dollars in income from the value of Los Angeles County leased land in Marina del Rey as of 2005, and at least $70 million dollars in fees for "lease renewals". Four taxpayer class action lawsuits filed were filed in 2004-2005. The lawsuits alleged a gift of public funds to private individuals in violation of Article XVI, § 6 of the California Constitution by the Los Angeles County Supervisors' leases to "developers" in Marina del Rey. The lawsuits were filed against Los Angeles County, Archstone Smith Operating Trust, Kingswood Village-Marina, Villa Venetia, Neptune Marina and the Oakwood, and consolidated under Coalition to Save the Marina and Marina Tenants Association, et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al., LASC Case No. BS 085898. Taxpayers lost approximately $700 million dollars of income from the developers in Marina del Rey, when LA Superior Court Judge Soussan G. Bruguera dismissed the consolidated cases before trial. Judge Bruguera at first did not disclose that she was receiving Los Angeles County payments, but admitted in response to a "disqualification" which she unlawfully "struck", that she was receiving payments from Los Angeles County, who was the lead defendant in the cases. This particular loss to taxpayers is continuing at approximately $70 million dollars per year. At the present time, the loss over the past thirteen (13) years is approximately $910 million dollars and growing. .
|