Once again, Mr. Green has either made knowingly false statements or has not read the record of which he speaks. The transcript of the March 4, 2009 hearing, at page 9, lines 12-26, shows Judge Yaffe admitting that there was "no court order that Fine [had] violated with respect to the charge of practicing law while inactive." He was compelled to make this admission after I had shown that, under the State Bar Act and the case of In Re Rose, only the California Supreme Court could order an attorney "inactive", and that the California Supreme Court had not ordered me "inactive", nor had it "affirmed" the State Bar's action.
Further, I was found "not guilty" of "lying" about my status with the State Bar in pleadings filed in his court and in oral arguments made before this court. (See Judgment and Order of Contempt, page 4, lines 13-44 and page 12, lines 22-23.)
III. U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES SUPPORT MY LEGAL POSITION ON DUE PROCESS.
Mr. Green failed to address the long-standing U.S. Supreme Court cases that support my position, to wit:
The case of In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), recited the general rule that "no man can be a judge in his own case", ordering that "no man is permitted to try a case where he has an interest in the outcome", cited in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. 556 U.S. __ (2009), Slip Opinion, page 10. Under Murchison, supra, Judge Yaffe was prohibited from presiding over the contempt proceedings and "judging his own actions."
Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 489, 501 (1974), holds that a judge who has "become embroiled in a running controversy" with a defendant could not subsequently preside over the defendant's criminal contempt trial. The "Mayberry" case cited by Mr. Green and Magistrate Judge Woehrle has the same basis holding, but the actions were oral. In the Marina Strand case, Judge Yaffe's actions consisted of a series of illegal acts commencing with "fraud upon the court" through illegal charges in the Order to Show Cause Re Contempt which violated CCP 1211(a)(11).
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), states that "a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice." The L.A.County payments were "bribes" as Judge Yaffe made orders in favor of L.A.County. Further, Judge Yaffe, and all other judges who received "judicial benefits" from counties were given retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution effective May 21, 2009 under California Senate Bill SBx2-11.
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927), and its progeny through Caperton, supra, have held it to be a denial of due process for a judge to accept money from a party before him, under the following test:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
