Corruption is rampant in California due to illegal bribes being paid to superior court judges by counties (especially Los Angeles County) seeking to curb losses with respect to bona fide lawsuits filed against them.

::::::::

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.

Even if Judge Yaffe were the legitimate judge, his January 8, 2008 Order to have me pay attorney's fees and sanctions for missing a filing deadline by one day was illegal under the California Public Resources Code, and also unconstitutional for Judge's Yaffe's failure to give me notice of the hearing, resulting in me not being present at the hearing. (These arguments are set forth in my February 19, 2008 Motion to Dismiss the January 8, 2008 Order, which Mr. Green will find as part of the Los Angeles Superior Court's Request for Judicial Notice attached to its Responsive Brief in the Ninth Circuit.) Neither L.A. County nor the real party in interest in the Marina Strand case (i.e., Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North, whose General Partner was Jerry B. Epstein) filed any Opposition to my February 19, 2008 Motion to Dismiss the January 8, 2008 Order to Pay Attorney's Fees and Sanctions. Neither Judge Yaffe nor the superior court ever contested the facts set forth in such motion and set forth herein.

Mr. Green was terribly wrong in concluding that I was personally responsible for attorneys' fees and costs to the opposing party, or in claiming that I "had no standing" to demand Judge Yaffe's recusal, even if he had taken illegal payments. Further, as of my February 19, 2008 Motion to Dismiss the January 8, 2008 Order for Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions, Judge Yaffe and L.A. County were still committing "fraud upon the court" and not disclosing the L.A. County payments made to Judge Yaffe. My Declaration of February 14, 2008 in support of such Motion, at paragraph 12, states: "In the instant case, L.A.County is a party. The court has not discussed if it is presently receiving money from L.A.County or has received monies during the time of this case."

Judge Yaffe did not admit to the payments until March 20, 2008 when, in open court, he responded to questions by me.

Mr. Green was also wrong in his statement that Judge Yaffe rejected the February 19, 2008 Motion. The record shows that Judge Yaffe combined the motion with a later motion to be heard on April 10, 2008.

On March 20, 2008, when Judge Yaffe moved the February 19, 2008 motion to April 10, 2008, he attempted to strike part of the motion, stating that it was a personal CCP 170.3 Objection to him. He was wrong, as Judge Yaffe had never disclosed that he was receiving L.A.County payments. However, even if it were a personal CCP 170.3 Objection to him, Judge Yaffe was too late in striking it as the deadline for doing so was March 1, 2008 under the precedent cases of Lewis v. Superior Court, 198 Cal.App.3d 1101 (1988) and PBA LLP v. KPOD, Ltd., 112 Cal. App.4^th 965 (2003).

Judge Yaffe's argument that I had to respond to his false striking by filing for a writ of mandate was fallacious because Judge Yaffe's attempted striking was void. This was shown in a Notice of Disqualification filed March 25, 2008. Judge Yaffe then struck the March 25, 2008 Notice in a March 27, 2008 Order which referred to a non-existent March 18, 2008 Order in which Judge Yaffe claimed to have "struck" the part of the February 19, 2008 Motion which he assumed was a personal CCP 170.3 Objection.

On March 25, 2008, I also filed and served upon Judge Yaffe a CCP 170.3 Objection based on Judge Yaffe's March 20, 2008 admission that he was receiving L.A.County payments. Judge Yaffe did not respond. He was subsequently automatically disqualified on April 8, 2008 under CCP 170.3(c)(4), which states that a judge must respond to a CCP 170.3 Objection within ten days and, if he does not respond, he is deemed to have consented to the Objection and is disqualified from being the judge in the case.

On April 8, 2008, I filed by fax a Notice of Disqualification based upon Judge Yaffe's failure to respond to the March 25, 2008 CCP 170.3 Objection. This Notice of Disqualification was personally handed to Judge Yaffe at the April 10, 2008 hearing. It was entered into the file by the Clerk on April 11, 2008. Judge Yaffe violated CCP 170.3(c)(4) by not sending the file to the presiding judge for assignment, as required.

All of the documents supporting these facts are in the court file. The superior court, Judge Yaffe and their attorney, Kevin McCormick, did not refer to these facts in their response filed with to the U.S. District Court. Even worse, they concealed the existence of the February 19, 2008 Motion, the March 25, 2008 CCP 170.3 Objection and the April 11, 2008 Notice of Disqualification from the District Court.

They also concealed from the District Court the March 25, 2008 Notice of Disqualification. The clerk's handwriting on it stated: "Notice ordered stricken through Order dated 3/27, 08, By: Connie L. Hudson, Deputy Clerk, John A. Clarke, Executive Clerk." This handwritten note shows that Judge Yaffe only struck the March 25, 2008 Notice of Disqualification and did not strike the March 25, 2008 CCP 170.3 Objection, as he falsely claimed to have done in the March 27, 2008 Order.

In contrast, the superior court, Judge Yaffe and Kevin McCormick submitted the February 19, 2008 Motion, the March 25, 2008 Notice of Disqualification, and the March 25, 2008 CCP 170.3 Objection to the Ninth Circuit. However, they did not submit the April 11, 2008 Notice of Disqualification to the Ninth Circuit.

The superior court, Judge Yaffe and Kevin McCormick did not submit any order of Judge Yaffe rejecting that part of the February 19, 2008 Motion Disqualifying any L.A. Superior court judge who had taken money from L.A. County from deciding the February 19, 2008 Motion, as there was no such written order.

As I said above, Mr. Green has either read the documents and knows that the statements he made are false, or he has made his statements without having read the documents.

II. AT THE MARCH 4, 2009 HEARING, JUDGE YAFFE ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NOT ANY ORDER "ORDERING FINE INACTIVE".

Mr. Green falsely states "that by the time Fine demanded a recusal of Judge Yaffe, he had been ordered inactive by the California Bar but represented himself to the court as still licensed to practice law."

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:

"Every proceeding which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the state and the accused, denies the latter due process of law."

Throughout the years, the test was adopted to civil cases and expanded beyond just the payment of monies.

Most relevant to the Los Angeles County payments to the Los Angeles Superior Court judges, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Caperton, stated at Slip Opinion page 16 that:

"Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own case, similar fears of bias can arise when without the consent of the other parties a man chooses the judge in his own case. . ."

By paying all of the judges of the L.A. Superior Court, L.A. County "bought the court". No other party consented to the judge in their case. In fact, due to the "fraud upon the court", no other party knew that the court was "bought."

Mr. Green has studiously avoided mention of all these precedents other than "Mayberry", which he tries to distinguish.

He even concedes that the L.A. Superior Court was "bribed." He alluded to the "bribes" now being legal under state legislation, assumedly Senate Bill SBx2-11. This part of Senate Bill SBx2-11 is under appeal, with its constitutionality being questioned.

If the Court of Appeal adopts the same position in this appeal as it took regarding the 1997 Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), in which it held that the L.A. County payments to the L.A. Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, and that Lockyer-Isenberg did not "prescribe" such payments as the payments were "voluntary" on behalf of the counties and the counties could continue to pay the benefits to their own employees and stop paying the benefits to the judges.

Nothing in Senate Bill SBx2-11 cures this problem. In fact, Senate Bill SBx2-11 reinstates the county benefits effective May 21, 2009 "on the same terms and conditions as existed on July 1, 2008." It further states that the counties may stop the payments upon 180-days notice, which might be less than the "same terms and conditions".

Additionally, the L.A. County's proposed budget for fiscal year 2010-2011, in the section entitled "Trial Court Operations", shows that the L.A. County payments of judicial benefits to judges are based upon the 1997 Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act. This reference demonstrates that the payments are illegal, irrespective of Senate Bill SBx2-11, which is not cited in the budget. The 1997 Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act was held to not "prescribe" compensation for judges and was held to be in violation of Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution in Sturgeon, supra. (See the last four paragraphs of the Sturgeon case.)

In conclusion, it appears that Mr. Green's final words of "charges of gross abuse and distortion of the legal system" aptly apply to his letter and the misconceived charges, alleged wrongful facts and deviation from long-established legal precedent contained therein.

Unfortunately, Mr. Green, a Professor of Philosophy and a clinical psychologist for the L.A. Superior Courts, became "confused" as he attempted to apply these disciplines to the hard facts of the L.A. Superior Court judges', particularly Judge Yaffe, taking bribes from L.A. County and committing "fraud upon the court" by not disclosing such and not disqualifying himself from presiding over cases in which L.A. County was a party before him.

Mr. Green's sense of morality and ethics, being a Professor of Philosophy, may also be disrupted by Judge Yaffe's conduct of protecting his illegal actions by throwing me in jail in violation of every law, and moral and ethical principal.

Mr. Green may also be aggravated by the "cronyism" of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court in protecting Judge Yaffe's illegal conduct and violating the constitutional right to due process of a fair trial by an impartial judge.

It is understandable that Mr. Green is aggravated; however, his anger should be directed at Judge Yaffe and the L.A. Superior Court judges who took the bribes, the L.A. County Supervisors who gave the bribes, and the federal judges who protected them.

Sincerely,

Richard I. Fine

Authors Website: http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine

Authors Bio:
Richard I. Fine has been referred to as a "crusader", the "taxpayer advocate attorney" and the "peoples' lawyer" for his work in challenging and correcting the abuses and corruption in government. The breadth of his experience encompasses antitrust cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, federal and state courts, requiring United Way to allow donors to designate the beneficiary of their contributions, the lawsuit against OPEC, class action cases, complex litigation, constitutional cases, criminal cases, environmental cases, international cases including those involving diplomatic immunity, public corruption and abuse of power cases, securities cases, and helping homeowners, amongst others.


A. Approximately $1 Billion Dollars Has Been Returned To California Taxpayers, And Been Protected From Future Unlawful Expenditure, As A Result Of Lawsuits Filed by Richard I. Fine On Behalf Of California Taxpayers.

From 1993 through the present, Richard I. Fine has returned approximately $350 million dollars to California taxpayers which state, county and municipal governments have unlawfully taken from "special funds" and "trust funds" in a series of taxpayer cases filed in federal court and the California state courts, commencing with the taxpayer case of Malibu Video, et al. v. Wilson, et al., and returned $6 million to the Tidelands Trust Fund and prevented approximately $350 million from being unlawfully expended from the Tidelands Trust Fund in a series of cases against California cities and ports commencing with the taxpayer case of Veltman v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Additionally, Richard I. Fine also returned money to small and minority businesses who were not paid during California's "budget crises" in the class action case of Lido v. State of California.

In 1996, Richard I. Fine required the City of Los Angeles to change its method of calculating "sewer service charges," saving residents tens of millions of dollars per year from the previous system, from 1996 onwards for each successive year through the present, in the taxpayer class action case of Shinkle, et al. v. City of Los Angeles.

In May, 1999, Richard I. Fine required Los Angeles County to create a special environmental inspection fee fund from monies that had wrongfully been deposited in the Los Angeles County General Fund with an initial deposit of $11 million dollars, and 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. The income to taxpayers in the "special fund" since 1999 is over $400 million dollars, and is growing by over $40 million dollars each year.


B. Twenty-Six Years Of California's "Annual Budget Crisis" Were Stopped By A Taxpayer Case Won By Richard I. Fine

On July 21, 1998, Richard I. Fine won a preliminary injunction in the taxpayer case of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. & Steven White v. Connell, which closed the California State government and stopped all payments other than pre-authorized payments during the 1998 budget crisis. This also stopped salary payments to judges. Within a few days, a $19 billion dollar "emergency bill" was passed to relieve the "budget crisis". The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, but held that judges' salaries were pre-authorized by legislation setting their salaries and compensation under the Government Code. The Court of Appeal's decision was affirmed in the California Supreme Court in 2003, in the case of White v. Davis; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. & Steven White v. Wesly.


View the rest of Fine's biography / resume at http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine