RICHARD I.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

RICHARD I. FINE, Case No. CV-09-01914 JFW (CW)

Petitioner,
PETITIONER’S REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
vs.
VACATE

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES DATE: Vacated

COUNTY, TIME: Vacated
Respondent. PLACE: Courtroom 640
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2

3 I. PREFATORY STATEMENT …….…………………………………….1

4
II. SHERIFF BACA, THE L.A. SUPERIOR COURT AND JUDGE YAFFE
5 DO NOT CONTEST THAT L.A. COUNTY AND JUDGE YAFFE
6
COMMITTED “FRAUD UPON THE COURT” IN THE MARINA
STRAND CASE……………….…………………………………….….4
7

8 III. THE JULY 13, 2010 MINUTE ORDER DEMONSTRATES THAT L.A.
COUNTY AND JUDGE YAFFE COMMITTED “FRAUD UPON THE
9
COURT” IN THE MARINA STRAND CASE ………………8
10
IV. THE L.A. SUPERIOR COURT, JUDGE YAFFE AND MR.
11
McCORMICK DELIBERATELY MISLED THIS COURT ………...11
12

13 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………..…..6
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

--
ii
 1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Cases
3
In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974) ……………………………….4
4

5 Los Angeles County Ass’n of Environmental Health Specialists v.

6
Lewin et al., 215 F Supp. 2d 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ………………….13, 14

7 Silva v. County of Los Angeles, et al., 215 F. Supp. 2d 1079

8 (C.D. Cal. 2002)……………………………………………………… 13, 14
9
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. __ (2010)……………………………...16
10 Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th, 630 (2008)…9, 13, 14
11
Statutes
12

13 Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3 ……………..…1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18

14 Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3(c)(4) ……………………………….2, 11
15 Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) …………………..…….…7
16 California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canons 4D(1) ………….………….…7
17 California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2) ………….…………..…7
18 California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(1) ………….………….…..7
19 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ………………………………………….………….…..4
20
18 U.S.C. § 1346 - Intangible Right to Honest Services ….………….… 15
21

22 Other Authorities
23
Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution ……………12, 13, 16
24
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ……………………………….13
25
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ……………………………….13
26
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ……………………… 13
27
Senate Bill SBx2-11 ……………………………………………..………16
28

--
iii
 1
REPLY
2 I. PREFATORY STATEMENT.
3
The Case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County
4

5 of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS 109420 (hereinafter referred to as the

6
“Marina Strand” case) was filed on June 14, 2007. Three years and one month
7

8 later, on July 13, 2010, after petitioner (“Fine”) has been unlawfully imprisoned
9
in “coercive confinement” for nearly seventeen months, Judge Yaffe has
10
admitted that he made a false order in the Marina Strand case.
11

12 This admission of the false order of March 18, 2008 demonstrated that
13
Judge Yaffe and Los Angeles County had committed “fraud upon the court” in
14

15 the Marina Strand case by not disclosing the L.A. County payments to Judge
16
Yaffe at the outset of such case and by Judge Yaffe not disqualifying himself.
17

18
Judge Yaffe and L.A. County had concealed the L.A. County payments

19 until a March 20, 2008 hearing, ten months after commencement of the case. At
20
such hearing, Fine elicited the information about the L.A. County payments
21

22 from Judge Yaffe for the first time in the case. (See CCP § 170.3 Objection,
23
(SER 0090-0167).) At the same hearing, Judge Yaffe “struck” Fine’s February
24

25 19, 2008 Motion to Disqualify L.A. Superior Court Judges Receiving Money
26
from L.A. County “pursuant to CCP § 170.3”. (SER 0087.)
27

28

--
1
 1
On March 25, 2008, Fine filed two documents: (1) Notice of
2 Disqualification of Judge David P. Yaffe for Failure to Strike “CCP § 170.3
3
Objection” set forth in March 21, 2008 Notice of Ruling within ten days of filing
4

5 (SER 0083-0089); and (2) Objection and Verified Statement to Disqualify Judge
6
David P. Yaffe and all L.A. Superior Court Judges who are Presently Receiving
7

8 Monies or Contributions from L.A. County, etc. (SER 0090-0167.)

9
On March 27, 2008 Judge Yaffe filed an Order striking only the March 25,
10
2008 Notice of Disqualification (Docket No. 16-3) based solely upon a
11

12 purported March 18, 2008 Strike Order allegedly striking the February 19, 2008
13
Motion and quoted extensively in the March 27, 2008 Strike Order.
14

15 Judge Yaffe never responded to the March 25, 2008 CCP § 170.3
16
Objection and Verified Statement and was thereby disqualified pursuant to CCP
17

18
§ 170.3(c)(4) after ten days. A Notice of Disqualification was filed on April 11,

19 2008. The Notice was not required to be served on Judge Yaffe, but was
20
personally handed to him at an April 10, 2008 hearing.
21

22 On July 13, 2010, Judge Yaffe entered a Minute Order in response to the
23
instant Motion to Vacate. In such Minute Order, he admitted that the March 18,
24

25 2008 Strike Order was a draft and had not been filed. This removed Judge
26
Yaffe’s action against the February 19, 2008 Motion until March 20, 2008,
27
which was the same day that Judge Yaffe admitted, first the first time, that he
28

--
2
 1
was taking payments from L.A. County. This admission occurred at the same
2 hearing in which he “struck” the February 19, 2008 Motion.
3
The “simultaneous” admission to taking the payments from L.A. County
4

5 and striking the February 19, 2008 Motion made the striking of the February 19,
6
2008 Motion a sham. In the July 13, 2010 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe stated that
7

8 the March 27, 2008 Strike Order “refers to a March 18, 2008 draft Order that
9
was not filed, rather than as intended to the final Order that was filed March 20,
10
2008”.
11

12 This statement is incredulous as Judge Yaffe had admitted on March 20,

13
2008 that he was taking payments from L.A. County, a party to the Marina
14

15 Strand case. He also knew that the March 20, 2008 Minute Order was never
16
served. He knew this after March 25, 2008, two days before filing the March
17

18
27, 2008 Strike Order. Further, the March 27, 2008 Strike Order was never

19 served. It did not have any Certificate of Service. (See Docket No. 16-3.)
20
The effect of the admission in the July 13, 2010 Minute Order is that it
21

22 demonstrates that Judge Yaffe and L.A. County had committed a “fraud upon
23
the court” in the Marina Strand case in that the L.A. Superior Court, Judge
24

25 Yaffe and Mr. McCormick had been misleading and defrauding the U.S. District
26
Court, Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court in this case.
27

28

--
3
 1
At all times, all of them knew that Judge Yaffe and L.A. County had
2 concealed the L.A. County payments to Judge Yaffe in the Marina Strand case.
3
At all times all of them had “covered up” the concealment through false orders
4

5 and other artifices, including falsely imprisoning Fine in “coercive confinement”

6
through the present time.
7

8 On July 13, 2010, Judge Yaffe released a second Minute Order, which was
9
previously entered on June 18, 2010. (See Exhibit “1” attached hereto.) In such
10
Minute Order, Judge Yaffe falsely stated that he “struck” Fine’s CCP § 170.3
11

12 “Verified Statement of Disqualification”, at page 4 of the Minute Order. Judge

13
Yaffe also admitted at page 5 of the Minute Order that he refused to set a
14

15 hearing for Fine’s release from coercive confinement when Fine filed the May
16
17, 2010 Application for such release, citing the case of In Re Farr, 36
17

18
Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974). The L.A. Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and Mr.

19 McCormick concealed the June 18, 2010 Minute Order released with the July
20
13, 2010 Minute Order from this Court.
21

22 As shown by the later July 13, 2010 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe never
23
struck any “Verified Statement of Disqualification” and Judge Yaffe himself has
24

25 been disqualified by the March 25, 2008 CCP § 170.3 Objection to which he did
26
not respond, in addition to Judge Yaffe and L.A. County having committed
27
“fraud upon the court.”
28

--
4
 1
II. SHERIFF BACA, THE L.A. SUPERIOR COURT AND JUDGE
YAFFE DO NOT CONTEST THAT L.A. COUNTY AND JUDGE
2 YAFFE COMMITTED “FRAUD UPON THE COURT” IN THE
3 MARINA STRAND CASE.
4
The Response of Sheriff Baca did not contest any of the factual statements
5

6
or arguments in the Motion to Vacate. Sheriff Baca continued to maintain his

7 unlawful position of violating 28 U.S.C. § 2243 by refusing to state any reason

8
why the Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted.
9

10 The Response of the L.A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe also did not
11
contest any factual statement or arguments in the Motion to Vacate. Further, the
12

13 L. A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s response emphasized the newly created
14
July 13, 2010 L.A. Superior Court Minute Order by Judge Yaffe admittedly
15
made in response to the Motion to Vacate.
16

17 Such July 13, 2010 Minute Order admitted that the crucial March 18, 2008
18
Strike Order, upon which Judge Yaffe justified all of his actions in the Marina
19

20 Strand case, was a “draft order that was not filed.” In other words, the March
21
18, 2008 Strike Order was a false order and a sham.
22

23
This admission, when applied to the substance to the March 27, 2008

24 Strike Order, shows that the March 27, 2008 Strike Order is a nullity and also a
25
sham as it relied solely on the false March 18, 2008 Strike Order.
26

27

28

--
5
 1
Further, the March 27, 2008 Strike Order was never served on anyone, as
2 shown by the lack of a certificate of service or order for a party to serve.
3
(Docket No. 16-3.)
4

5 The March 27, 2008 Strike Order was directed only at Fine’s March 25,
6
2008 Notice of Disqualification. Fine’s March 25, 2008 Notice of
7

8 Disqualification refers to, and incorporated, a Notice of Ruling dated March 21,
9
2008 of Judge Yaffe’s March 20, 2008 hearing. Such March 21, 2008 Notice of
10
Ruling, sent by the attorneys for the Real Parties in Interest on March 21, 2008,
11

12 did not include a March 20, 2008 Minute Order or even refer to such. (See SER
13
0079-0082 – Notice of Ruling; SER 0083-0089 Notice of Disqualification.)
14

15 In the July 13, 2010 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe stated that the “intended
16
Order” to have been referenced in the March 27, 2008 Strike Order was the
17

18
March 20, 2008 Minute Order, which was never served. Judge Yaffe knew, as

19 of March 25, 2008, that the March 20, 2008 Minute Order was never served, as
20
both the Notice of Ruling and the Notice of Disqualification were filed on
21

22 March 25, 2008, two days before the March 27, 2008 Strike Order was filed.
23
Each of these documents show on their face that the March 20, 2008 Minute
24

25 Order had not been served.

26
Judge Yaffe is now deliberately misleading this Court through the July 13,
27
2010 Minute Order by referring to a March 20, 2008 Minute Order he knows
28

--
6
 1
was never served. The March 21, 2008 Notice of Ruling only stated: “The
2 court struck the challenge pursuant to CCP § 170.3 by Richard I. Fine to the
3
Judges of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles” (SER 0080). As of
4

5 March 27, 2008, based upon the documents, it was impossible for Judge Yaffe to
6
issue the March 27, 2008 Strike Order in good faith as the March 18, 2008
7

8 Strike Order was false and the March 20, 2008 Minute Order was unserved.
9
Judge Yaffe also could not issue the March 27, 2008 Strike Order based
10
upon the March 21, 2008 Notice of Ruling, as ten days had not passed to file a
11

12 writ challenging such action as of March 27, 2008.

13
More troubling, the L.A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s Response does
14

15 not contest that the Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and Mr. McCormick
16
deliberately withheld from this Court the February 19, 2008 Motion which was
17

18
part of the Judgment and Order of Contempt which they produced to this court

19 as Exhibit A to the McCormick Declaration, Docket No. 16-2. At page 8,

20
footnote 14, the L.A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s Response states that the
21

22 February 19, 2008 Motion was before this Court as Docket No. 1, Document 1-
23
2, pages 23-50. This was part of the Judgment and Order of Contempt and
24

25 should have been produced to this Court by Mr. McCormick when he also
26
produced the Judgment and Order of Contempt as part of his initial Declaration,
27

28

--
7
 1
Exhibit A, Docket No. 16-2. Mr. McCormick deliberately omitted the February
2 19, 2008 Motion.
3
The Declaration of Richard I. Fine in Support of the Motion (the “Fine
4

5 Declaration”) showed in paragraph 12 that Judge Yaffe did not disclose that he
6
was receiving money from L.A. County.
7

8 These facts have not been contested and establish a “fraud upon the court”,
9
in violation of Canons 4D(1), 3E(2) and 3E(1) of the California Code of Judicial
10
Ethics and a violation of CCP § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii), as set forth in the Motion to
11

12 Vacate.
13
The refusal of Sheriff Baca and the failure of the L.A. Superior Court and
14

15 Judge Yaffe to contest the facts and arguments in the Motion to Vacate mandate
16
the vacating of the Judgment and the granting of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
17

18

19 III. THE JULY 13, 2010 MINUTE ORDER DEMONSTRATES THAT

20 L.A. COUNTY AND JUDGE YAFFE COMMITTED “FRAUD UPON
THE COURT” IN THE MARINA STRAND CASE.
21

22 On July 13, 2010, in response to the Motion to Vacate, Judge Yaffe filed a
23
Minute Order admitting that the March 18, 2008 Order Striking Fine’s July 19,
24

25 2008 Motion to Disqualify L.A. Superior Court Judges Receiving Money from
26
L.A. County was a draft that was never filed. The false March 18, 2008 Strike
27

28

--
8
 1
Order was Judge Yaffe’s justification for his later actions in the Marina Strand
2 case.
3
By admitting that the March 18, 2008 Strike Order did not exist, the
4

5 July.13, 2010 Minute Order vitiated the March 27, 2008 Strike Order which was
6
solely based on the false March 18, 2008 Strike Order.
7

8 The March 27, 2008 Strike Order stated at page 3, (SER 0170, lines 4-6):
9
“Accordingly, the court’s March 18, 2008 Order determining the question of
10
disqualification is final. Mr. Fine’s March 25, 2008 Notice of Disqualification is
11

12 incorrect and stricken. With cause appearing therefore, it is so ordered.”

13
The result of the July 13, 2010 Minute Order’s admission that the
14

15 March.18, 2008 Strike Order was a draft and not entered was that the
16
February.19, 2008 Motion was not stricken and that the March 25, 2008 Notice
17

18
of Disqualification also was not stricken.

19 Prior to the July 13, 2010 Minute Order’s admission, a handwritten note on
20
the March 25, 2008 Notice of Disqualification by Deputy Clerk Connie L.
21

22 Hudson stated that such was stricken by the March 27, 2008 Order. (SER 0083.)
23
However, such striking was vitiated by the July 13, 2010 Minute Order which
24

25 removed the March 18, 2008 false Strike Order as the sole reason for the
26
March.27, 2008 Strike Order.
27

28

--
9
 1
The July 13, 2010 Minute Order also stated that the “final order” striking
2 the February 19, 2008 Motion now was the March 20, 2008 Minute Order.
3
(Exhibit A to the McCormick Declaration (SER 0077-0078).
4

5 Such March 20, 2008 Minute Order had entirely different reasons than the
6
March 18, 2008 Strike Order. These reasons related to CCP § 170.3, which is a
7

8 disqualification of an individual judge, with the exception of the first reason.

9
The first reason wrongly stated that the February 19, 2008 Motion “is directed at
10
all of the judges of this court as a class, and not any particular judge”. The
11

12 February.19, 2008 Motion clearly stated that it was only “to Disqualify L.A.
13
Superior Court Judges Receiving Money from L.A. County.” The Motion
14

15 would not disqualify an L.A. Superior Court judge who was not receiving
16
money from L.A. County.
17

18
Paragraph 12 of the Fine Declaration in support of the Motion clearly

19 stated that Judge Yaffe had not disclosed whether he was receiving money from
20
L.A. County as follows: “In the instant case Los Angeles County is a party.
21

22 The court [Judge Yaffe] has not disclosed if it is presently receiving money from
23
Los Angeles County”.
24

25 Paragraph 13 of the Fine Declaration stated: “In the case of Sturgeon v.

26
L.A. County, et al., Case No. BC 351286, in which plaintiff brought suit to
27
enjoin L.A. County from making payments to L.A. Superior Court judges, the
28

--
10
 1
case was transferred out of the jurisdiction of the L.A. Court.” (See February
2 19, 2008 Motion, Docket No 1, documents 1-2, pages 23-50; paragraphs 12-13;
3
see SER 0062.)
4

5 At the time of the March 20, 2008 Minute Order, Judge Yaffe knew: (1)
6
that Judge Yaffe had concealed L.A. County payments to him from the outset of
7

8 the case and committed “fraud upon the court”; (2) the February 19, 2008
9
Motion was not addressed to the L.A. Superior Court judges as a class; and (3)
10
the February 19, 2008 Motion would only encompass Judge Yaffe if he had
11

12 disclosed receiving L.A. County payments as he was interpreting such motion as

13
a personal CCP § 170.3 Objection to him personally.
14

15 The March 27, 2008 Strike Order did not independently refer to a ten-day
16
time period to challenge a Strike Order distinct and separate from the
17

18
“advisement” in the false March 18, 2008 Strike Order as alleged in the July 13,

19 2010 Minute Order. Nor did the March 27, 2008 Strike Order mention or refer
20
to the March 20, 2008 Minute Order as a basis to strike the March 25, 2008
21

22 Notice of Disqualification. As stated above, the March 25, 2008 Notice of

23
Disqualification only referenced the March 20, 2008 Notice of Ruling, which
24

25 did not include the March 20, 2008 Minute Order. (SER 0083-0089.) Further,
26
as shown above, the March 20, 2008 Minute Order was never served. (SER
27
0083-0089.)
28

--
11
 1
The July 13, 2010 Minute Order placed Judge Yaffe in a position that he
2 could not have entered any Strike Order on March 27, 2008 striking the
3
February.19, 2008 Motion and striking the March 25, 2008 Notice of
4

5 Disqualification. Further, the July 13, 2010 Minute Order did not address the
6
March 25, 2008 CCP § 170.3 Objection served and filed on Judge Yaffe on
7

8 March 26, 2008. (SER 0090-0167.) Such “Objection” was served and filed
9
after Judge Yaffe admitted to receiving L.A. County payments at the March 20,
10
2008 hearing. Judge Yaffe did not respond to the Objection and was
11

12 disqualified under CCP § 170.3(c)(4). The Notice of Disqualification was given

13
to Judge Yaffe at the April 10, 2008 hearing and filed on April 11, 2008.
14

15 Additionally, the July 13, 2010 Minute Order did not contest the fact that
16
the March 27, 2008 Strike Order did not have a clerk’s certificate of service nor
17

18
instruction for service by a party and was not served on anyone. (See original

19 Order, Docket No. 16-3, SER 0168-0170.)

20
On its face, the July 13, 2010 Minute Order demonstrates that L.A. County
21

22 and Judge Yaffe committed “fraud upon the court” in the Marina Strand case.
23

24 IV. THE L.A. SUPERIOR COURT, JUDGE YAFFE AND MR.

25 McCORMICK DELIBERATELY MISLED THIS COURT.
26
The L.A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s Response does not deny that
27
the L.A. Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and Mr. McCormick deliberately withheld
28

--
12
 1
documents from the U.S. District Court which they later produced to the Ninth
2 Circuit. This deliberate withholding violated this Court’s original Order to
3
Sheriff Baca to respond to the Petition and produce all pertinent documents.
4

5 The L.A. Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and Mr. McCormick continue this
6
unlawful conduct at page 3, footnote 4 of the current Response where they
7

8 contend that a copy of the March 27, 2008 Strike Order was faxed by Fine on
9
April 8, 2008 as shown by Exhibit B of their original Response to the Petition,
10
(Docket 16-3). A review of such document does not show any evidence of Fine
11

12 faxing the document. Nor does it show Fine being served. More interesting, the
13
document, which is stamped “Original”, shows a date stamp on the left margin
14

15 of April 11, 2008, the same day that the second Notice of Disqualification of
16
Judge Yaffe was filed.
17

18
The second Notice of Disqualification related to Judge Yaffe’s failure to

19 respond to the March 25, 2008 CCP § 170.3 Objection.

20
At page 5, line 16, page 6, line 7, the L.A. Superior Court and Judge
21

22 Yaffe’s Response mischaracterizes the July 13, 2010 Minute Order as

23
“verifying” the March 27, 2008 Strike Order, when such Minute Order was an
24

25 admission of a false March 18, 2008 Strike Order.

26
At page 6, lines 22-24, the L.A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s
27
Response falsely argued that Fine did not have standing to disqualify Judge
28

--
13
 1
Yaffe. The truth was that Judge Yaffe had rejected such argument in the July
2 13, 2010 Minute Order. Further, such argument was not part of the case and
3
cannot now be raised.
4

5 The L.A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s Response also argued that
6
“Fine’s claimed ignorance of Judge Yaffe’s receipt of local judicial benefits is a
7

8 blatant misrepresentation”. (Id.) The truth was that Judge Yaffe did not disclose
9
such payments until March 20, 2008, ten months after the June 14, 2007 filing of
10
the Marina Strand case, and had not disclosed such as of February 19, 2008
11

12 when the February 19, 2008 Motion was filed.

13
The reference to the case Silva v. County of Los Angeles, et al., 215 F.
14

15 Supp. 2d 1079 (C.D. Cal. 2002) and Los Angeles County Ass’n of
16
Environmental Health Specialists v. Lewin, et al., 215 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (C.D.
17

18
Cal. 2002) at page 7, footnote 11, of the L.A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s

19 Response did not disclose that in each of those cases documents showing the
20
monies received from L.A. County by the defendant judicial officers were
21

22 attached to the respective complaints, that the respective complaints alleged

23
violations of Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution and various
24

25 Canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics (all of which were not
26
contested), and violations of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
27

28

--
14
 1
None of the judicial officer defendants had disclosed the L.A. County
2 payments to them during the underlying cases.
3
The case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th, 630
4

5 (2008), review denied 12/23/08, held that the L.A. County payments to the L.A.
6
Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California
7

8 Constitution.
9
Given the Sturgeon decision, the comments of U.S. District Court Judge
10
Matz (who was the judge in the Silva and Lewin cases) quoted in footnote 11 of
11

12 the L.A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s Response, were biased, ill-tempered,
13
legally wrong and reeked of “cronyism”.
14

15 Such comments were clearly intended to intimidate Fine from pursuing a

16
valid course of litigation which was proven to be correct in the later Sturgeon
17

18
case.

19 Mr. McCormick was the attorney for the defendant judicial officers in the
20
Silva and Lewin cases. In such cases, Mr. McCormick did not produce to the
21

22 U.S. District Court the November 10, 1988 letter of Roger M. Whitby, Senior
23
L.A. County Counsel, approved by De Witt W. Clinton, L. A. County Counsel
24

25 to Frank Zolin, County Clerk/Executive Officer Superior Court, which was later
26
produced by L.A. County in the Sturgeon case.
27

28

--
15
 1
Such letter showed that only the State Legislature could “prescribe”
2 compensation for judges under Article VI, Section 19, of the California
3
Constitution, that such duty could not be delegated, that the L.A. County
4

5 payments were “compensation” according to an Opinion issued by the California

6
Attorney General, and that the judges were state constitutional officers. The
7

8 L.A. Superior Courts had possession of this letter at the time of the Silva and
9
Lewin cases. The court in the Silva and Lewin cases did not address the issue of
10
“fraud upon the court” by the judges in the underlying cases.
11

12 At page 8, lines 15-18, the L.A. Superior Court and Judge Yaffe’s
13
Response falsely claimed that Fine did not apprise the U.S. District Court of the
14

15 March 20, 2008 Minute Order. As shown above, such March 20, 2008 Minute
16
Order was never served on Fine, or anyone. Further, the Superior Court, Judge
17

18
Yaffe and Mr. McCormick knew this as they produced the March 21, 2008

19 Notice of Ruling (SER 0079-0082) which showed on its face that the March 20,
20
2008 Minute Order was not served.
21

22 Due to the concealments and misrepresentation of the L.A. Superior Court,

23
Judge Yaffe and Mr. McCormick, the U.S. District Court was misled and
24

25 prevented from being presented with the true facts in this case. Judge Yaffe’s
26
sudden review of his actions, in response to the Motion to Vacate, two and one-
27
quarter years after the non-existent March 18, 2008 Strike Order to now reverse
28

--
16
 1
his course of action and admit that the March 18, 2008 Strike Order did not
2 exist, to remove his arguments about Fine not being able to challenge Judge
3
Yaffe and to not impose any new striking of the February 19, 2008 Motion or
4

5 the March 25, 2008 Notice of Disqualification, demonstrates the truth of the
6
“fraud upon the court.”
7

8 These actions, combined with Judge Yaffe’s testimony that he took

9
payments from L.A. County at the March 20, 2008 hearing, and later in his
10
December 22, 2008 testimony during the contempt proceeding, in which he
11

12 “judged his own actions”, further demonstrate “fraud upon the court”.
13
In particular, in his December 22, 2008 testimony, Judge Yaffe testified
14

15 that he received payments from L.A. County, that he did not disclose such in his
16
Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest, and that he could not remember
17

18
deciding any case against L.A. County within the previous three years other than

19 that part of the Marina Strand case suggested by Mr. Fine. (See Transcript of
20
December 22, 2008 testimony attached hereto as Exhibit “2”.)
21

22 This testimony indicates “bribery” and a violation of the intangible right to

23
honest services, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, as recently set forth in Skilling v. United
24

25 States, 561 U.S. __ (2010).

26

27

28

--
17
 1
CONCLUSION
2 The facts are now clear that Judge Yaffe and L.A. County defrauded the
3
Court. The L.A. Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and Mr. McCormick misled and
4

5 withheld documents from this Court. Sheriff Baca and his attorneys have
6
violated the law by refusing to respond to the Petition for Writ of Habeas
7

8 Corpus.
9
The payments from L.A. County to L.A. Superior Court judges have been
10
held to be illegal as a violation of Article VI, Section 19, of the California
11

12 Constitution. These were the payments that Judge Yaffe received from L.A.
13
County and did not disclose in the Marina Strand case. Any later payments
14

15 commencing after May 21, 2009 were after the Marina Strand case and not at
16
issue in this case. The legality of those later payments is currently before the
17

18
California Court of Appeals.

19 Senate Bill SBx2-11, enacted February 20, 2009, gave retroactive

20
immunity to “governmental entities, officials and employees of governmental
21

22 entities” including judges, effective May 21, 2009 from criminal prosecution,
23
civil liability and disciplinary action because of the payments to judges from
24

25 counties. However, such immunity did not extend to the acts of judges presiding
26
over cases in which the county who made payments to the judge was a party
27

28

--
18
 1
before the judge who received the payments. The immunity also did not extend
2 to the judges and the counties having committed “fraud upon the court”.
3
Due process mandates that this Court vacate its judgment and grant the
4

5 Writ of Habeas Corpus based upon the “fraud upon the court” committed by
6
L.A. County and Judge Yaffe.
7

8 Further based upon (1) the admission in the July 13, 2010 Minute Order
9
that the March 18, 2008 Strike Order was false; (2) that the March 20, 2008
10
Minute Order was not served; (3) that Judge Yaffe concealed his taking of the
11

12 L.A. County payments until March 20, 2008, when he admitted such at the
13
March 20, 2008 hearing, and later reconfirmed such on December 22, 2008 at
14

15 the contempt proceeding over which he presided and “judged his own actions,”
16
the judgment must be vacated based upon the fraud upon the L.A. Superior
17

18
Court and the U.S. District Court in this case.

19 The actions of concealment of the L.A. Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and
20
Mr. McCormick were deliberate. At all times the L.A. Superior Court, Judge
21

22 Yaffe and Mr. McCormick knew (1) that there was not any March 18, 2008
23
Strike Order; (2) that Judge Yaffe had not effectively stricken the February 19,
24

25 2008 Motion; (3) that Fine had standing to disqualify Judge Yaffe; (4) that the
26
March 20, 2008 Minute Order was not served; (5) that Judge Yaffe had not
27
stricken the March 25, 2008 Notice of Disqualification; (6) that Judge Yaffe
28

--
19
 1
was disqualified for not having responded to the March 25, 2008 CCP § 170.3
2 Objection; and (7) that Judge Yaffe and L.A. County had committed “fraud upon
3
the court” by having concealed the L.A. County payments to Judge Yaffe from
4

5 the commencement of the Marina Strand case on June 14, 2007 until March 20,
6
2008, when Fine elicited the payment information from Judge Yaffe at the
7

8 March.20, 2008 court hearing and later elicited such information at the
9
December.22, 2008 contempt proceeding.
10
The L.A. Superior Court, Judge Yaffe and Mr. McCormick concealed such
11

12 facts from this Court, the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. These
13
actions mandate the vacating of the judgment, the granting of the Writ of Habeas
14

15 Corpus and the disbarment of Mr. McCormick from all of these courts.
16

17

18 Dated this 20th day of July, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

19

20 BY: ____________________________
21
RICHARD I. FINE,
In Pro Per
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

--
20
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4

5
I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho
6 Dominguez, CA 90220. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party
7
to the above-entitled action.
8

9 On July 20, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as

10 PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE on
11 interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was
12
enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States
13
Mail, addressed as follows:
14

15 Aaron Mitchell Fontana Kevin M. McCormick

Paul B. Beach BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM
16 LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 39 N. California Street
17
100 West Broadway, Ste. 1200 P.O. Box 1178
Glendale, CA 91210-1219 Ventura, CA 93002
18

19
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
20

21 States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
22
correct.
23

24 Executed on this 20th day of July, 2009, at Rancho Dominguez, California.

25

26
_____________________________
27 FRED SOTTILE
28

--
21