In response to Michael Green's OpEdNews article of June 1, 2010, Dr. Richard I. Fine, jailed for a year-and-a-half on a phony contempt charge which is actually retaliation for exposing Los Angeles County's corrupt judicial system, replies with a thorough analysis of the falsity of Mr. Green's conclusions as follows:
Mr. Green claims that I am "wrong on the facts and by [my] own choice wrong on the law". Mr. Green's claim is based upon two documents which misstate the facts in the case, as would immediately be shown by a review of the actual documents on file in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS 109420 (hereinafter referred to as the "Marina Strand" case).
Mr. Green claims that Full Disclosure Network (FullDisclosure.net) has not provided a "clear statement of precisely why he [Richard Fine] is in jail, i.e., the contempt charge." This is wrong, as evidenced by the fact that the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt states that I was ordered to "be confined in the county jail until he answers the questions asked of him in the Debtors Examination by the Commissioner assigned to Department 1A of the Superior Court." This Judgment and Order is attached to documents referenced by Mr. Green in his letter. It is also attached to the Declaration of Kevin McCormick filed with the Response of the Superior Court of Los Angeles and Judge Yaffe to my Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Not only did Full Disclosure supply a "clear statement," I also explained the circumstances in interviews with Full Disclosure and in court-filed documents which are cited and available on Full Disclosure for the public's review.
It therefore seems that Mr. Green did not bother or take the time to watch the programs or read the documents, including those upon which the claims in his letter rely.
Mr. Green next engaged in a confusing mixture of misstatements of the facts in the Marina Strand case, and as to federal constitutional law precedent as exhibited by U.S. Supreme Court cases, to formulate his own conclusion that "most charges [by Fine] of gross abuse and distortion of the legal system diminish, if not disappear."
Examining each one of Mr. Green's arguments, it becomes clear that he either did not fully disclose all of the facts and legal cases or did not investigate such. As shown below, had he done so, he would have been bound to conclude that I was correct as to the facts and the law.
I. FROM THE OUTSET OF THE MARINA STRAND CASE, ALL OF JUDGE YAFFE'S ORDERS AND DECISIONS WERE VOID.
Judge Yaffe was taking illegal payments from Los Angeles County. This act violated Canon 4D(1) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics. Judge Yaffe violated Canon 3E(2) by not disclosing the payments on the record at the outset of the Marina Strand case (in which Los Angeles County was a defendant). Judge Yaffe violated Canon 3E(1) and California Code of Civil Procedure 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) by not disqualifying himself at the commencement of the case.
Judge Yaffe committed extrinsic "fraud upon the court", along with L.A.County and its lawyers, by not disclosing his receipt of the payments and not disqualifying himself from hearing the case. The doctrine of "fraud upon the court" invalidates the entire case and voids all orders and judgments inasmuch as Judge Yaffe was never the judge in the case due to the fraud upon the court, and the superior court and any successor court did not have subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction in the case. See U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878); Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920).
All of the arguments by Mr. Green, such as that I missed a deadline or that I should have sought Judge Yaffe's dismissal earlier, are irrelevant in light of the fact that Judge Yaffe, Los Angeles County and its lawyers had committed "fraud upon the court", which nullified the entire case and made all of Judge Yaffe's orders void, invalid and unenforceable.
Further, even if Judge Yaffe had not committed "fraud upon the court", he was bound to not take the payments under Canon 4D(1); bound to disclose the payments on the record at the beginning of the case under Canon 3E(2) and to disqualify himself at the beginning of the case under Canons 3(E)1 and CCP 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii). His failure to do so also voided all of his orders from the beginning. In effect, Judge Yaffe was not the judge in the case and had no legal authority over it whatsoever.
Judge Yaffe was precluded from making any orders against me (or anyone else) or from entering any orders in the Marina Strand case.