RICHARD I.

FINE
ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
RichardIFine@gmail.com

August 24, 2010

Presiding Judge McCoy

Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon
Supervising Judge Berle
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
111 North Hill Street, Dept. I
Los Angeles, CA 90012

RE: Response to August 12, 2010 Letter of Frederick R. Bennett

Dear Judges:

On August 20, 2010, I received the August 12, 2010 response of Frederick R. Bennett to
my August 9, 2010 letter hand delivered to you on August 10, 2010. Mr. Bennett’s letter does
not show copies to you, thus I am responding to you directly to avoid any confusion as Mr.
Bennett’s letter contains misstatements regarding the facts and Judge Yaffe’s actions in the case
of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS
109420 (hereinafter the “Marina Strand” case).

At the outset, Mr. Bennett recommends that I file a motion to void and annul the orders
and judgments of Judge Yaffe in the Marina Strand case. He states at page 1, paragraph 2:
“Judge Yaffe is available to consider such a motion.”

Mr. Bennett has obviously not studied the conduct of Judge Yaffe. In January 2010, I
made a demand to be released based upon the case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584
(1974). Judge Yaffe refused to set a hearing. In March 2010, a second demand was made with a
Declaration. Judge Yaffe refused to set a hearing. On May 21, 2010, a motion was filed and the
fees were paid, setting the hearing. Judge Yaffe refused to hold the hearing and never placed the
motion on the Court’s calendar. To this day, a Farr hearing has never occurred.

Further, even if a hearing were set, the Sheriff has refused to transfer me to the Stanley
Mosk Courthouse. On June 14, 2010, a hearing was set in the Marina Strand case in Department
1A. I called Department 1A to arrange for transportation. The clerk refused to accept my pre-
paid call. Jeanette Isaacs, one of the volunteers who helps me, called the clerk. She was
transferred to the Deputy Sheriff in the courtroom, who informed her that transportation would
not be provided. She then called Commander Lopez on Sheriff Baca’s staff, who confirmed that
transportation would not be provided.
Presiding Judge McCoy
Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon
Supervising Judge Berle
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
August 24, 2010
Page 2

Although, on the surface, Mr. Bennett may have thought he solved the problem, history
has shown that Judge Yaffe will not hear any motion and, even if a hearing were set, the Sheriff
would not transport me.

An alternative solution is for Judge Yaffe to immediately void and annul all of his orders
and judgments in the Marina Strand case without a hearing or a motion, if you insist that Judge
Yaffe be the person to void and annul his orders and judgments.

Due to the fraud upon the Court of Los Angeles County and its counsel in not disclosing
the illegal payments to Judge Yaffe, and the fraud upon the Court of LA County and its counsel,
Real Parties in Interest Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North,
their managing partner – the Epstein Family Trust and its Trustees, Jerry B. Epstein and Pat
Epstein, and their counsel, R. J. Comer of Armbruster & Goldsmith, LP, and Joshua L. Rosen of
the Law Offices of Joshua L. Rosen, in not disclosing that the LA County Board of Supervisors’
vote approving the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the redevelopment of the Del Rey
Shores apartment complex in Marina del Rey, California, was illegal, as a violation of the
Political Reform Act and the case of BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal.App.4th
1205 (2000), the Marina Strand case was vitiated and all orders and judgments of Judge Yaffe
were void and regarded as nullities.

In U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 64 (1878), the Court stated in relevant part:

There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the

most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.

The Court continued at page 66:

Fraud vitiates everything, and a judgment equally with a

contract . . . . (citing Wells, Res Adjudicata, Section 499).

In Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353-354 (1920), the U.S.
Supreme Court stated:

Courts are constituted by authority, and they cannot [act] beyond

the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and
certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are
regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and
this even prior to reversal. Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. (1
Pet.) 328, 340; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8,
27 S.Ct. 236.
Presiding Judge McCoy
Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon
Supervising Judge Berle
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
August 24, 2010
Page 3

The LA Superior Court is bound by these U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Judge Yaffe,
or any judge who receives the Marina Strand case, is bound to void and annul all orders and
judgments in the case based upon fraud upon the court.

Mr. Bennett misconstrued my August 9, 2010 letter. I did not request that you
“administratively void or annul” Judge Yaffe’s orders and judgments. I requested that you
perform your duties under Cannon 3C(3) of the Code of Judicial Ethics. This would require you
to take the file of the Marina Strand case from Judge Yaffe as his clerk did not transmit such to
you on April 11, 2008 after Judge Yaffe did not respond to the 3/25/08 CCP Section 170.3
Verified Statement of Disqualification. The file would then be assigned to a new judge, who
would void and annul Judge Yaffe’s orders and judgments.

This should have occurred in April 2008.

Mr. Bennett was incorrect when he stated that Judge Yaffe “struck” the CCP Section
170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification. Only one CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement
of Disqualification was filed. This occurred on 3/25/08 after Judge Yaffe admitted on 3/20/08 in
response to my questions at a hearing that he was receiving payments from LA County. This
was the first time that any evidence was given that Judge Yaffe, himself, was receiving the LA
County payments. This information has been concealed by LA County and Judge Yaffe from the
start of the case on 6/14/07 until 3/20/08. Judge Yaffe did not respond to the 3/25/08 CCP
Section 170.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification and was disqualified under CCP Section
170.3(c)(4) after 10 days.

Previously, on 2/19/08, I filed a Motion to Disqualify all LA Superior Court judges who
were receiving money from LA County. This Motion was based upon the transfer of the case of
Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC351286, out of LA County, as shown in
paragraph 13 of my Declaration in Support of the Motion. My Declaration specifically stated at
paragraph 12:

In the instant case Los Angeles County is a party. The Court [Judge Yaffe]
has not disclosed if it is presently receiving money from L.A. County.

Judge Yaffe claimed to have “struck” this Motion in his false 3/18/08 Order. At the
3/20/08 hearing, he “struck” the Motion, falsely claiming it was a CCP Section 170.3 Verified
Statement of Disqualification, which as shown above it was not. If it were, he would had to have
“stricken” the Motion within 10 days of 2/19/08, which he did not do. Thus, any purported
“striking” was a nullity.
Presiding Judge McCoy
Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon
Supervising Judge Berle
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
August 24, 2010
Page 4

Finally, Mr. Bennett falsely stated that because I knew that LA County was making
payments to LA Superior Court judges, the specific LA County payments to Judge Yaffe were
not concealed from me. His support for this statement was the citation to cases in which I
showed specific LA County payments to specific judges by either attaching LA County payment
records of the payments to the specific judges or in which the judge admitted to having received
the LA County payments. In the Marina Strand case, neither LA County nor Judge Yaffe
disclosed the LA County payments to Judge Yaffe from 6/14/07 when the case was filed, until
3/20/08, when I elicited the payment information from Judge Yaffe at the first court hearing
which I attended in the case.

As stated above, on 3/25/08, I filed and served a CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement
of Disqualification against Judge Yaffe. He did not respond to such. He was disqualified under
CCP Section 170.3(c)(4). He was handed a copy of the Notice of Disqualification at the 4/10/08
hearing. The clerk filed the Notice of Disqualification on 4/11/08. As stated above, and shown
in the record, Judge Yaffe never “struck” the 3/25/08 CCP Section 170.3 Verified Statement of
Disqualification.

The cases cited by Mr. Bennett show that as early as 2002, I showed that the LA County
payments to LA Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California
Constitution. This position was upheld in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167
Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied 12/23/08, brought in April 2006 by Judicial Watch. As
stated above, the Sturgeon case was transferred out of the LA Superior Court’s jurisdiction
because LA County was a party in the case; it had made payments to State LA Superior Court
judges.

The Sturgeon case showed that the payments began in the late 1980s. A November 10,
1988 letter from Roger W. Whitby, Senior Assistant, LA County Counsel, approved by DeWitt
W. Clinton, to Frank S. Zolin, County Clerk/Executive Officer, Superior Court, showed that: (1)
only the State Legislative could “prescribe” judicial compensation under Article VI, Section 19,
of the California Constitution; (2) “compensation” included fringe benefits as set forth in two
California Attorney General opinions; (3) the State Legislature’s duty to “prescribe” the
compensation of the judges was not delegable as set forth in California case law; (4) Superior
Court judges are State Constitutional Officers; and (5) “The Board of Supervisors has evidently
found that in order to attract and retain qualified judges to serve in this [LA] County it is
necessary and appropriate to provide them with benefits such as the flexible benefit plan
contribution and the 401(k) match . . . .” This letter was part of the documents provided by LA
County in the Sturgeon appeal.
Presiding Judge McCoy
Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon
Supervising Judge Berle
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
August 24, 2010
Page 5

The November 10, 1988 letter showed that at all times both LA County and the LA
Superior Court judges who accepted the payments knew that the LA County’s practices were
illegal. They further knew that the payments could not “attract” a judge who was already in
office and could not “retain” a judge who could only remain in office by winning an election.
The payments’ sole purpose was to influence the Judges and “buy the Court.” Mr. Bennett was a
LA County Counsel in 1988.

In an analogous situation, in which the Chief Executive of A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.,
contributed $3 million to the campaign committee of a Mr. Benjamin who was seeking a
judgeship on the West Virginia High Court, before whom Massey Coal had a $50 million case
which would be pending, the U.S. Supreme Court held the contribution to deny due process and
required Benjamin recuse himself from the case.

In Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., the Court stated at 556 U.S. ___ (2009), Slip
Opinion page 16, in relevant part:

Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar

fears of bias can arise when—without the consent of the other
parties—a man chooses the judge in his own cause.

From the late 1980s through the present, LA County has paid over $300 million to LA
Superior Court judges without the consent of the other parties to the cases.

Judge Yaffe has been a LA Superior Court judge since 1987. It is estimated that LA
County has paid him approximately $500,000.00 without the consent of the other parties to the
cases.

In his 12/22/08 testimony in the contempt proceedings, Judge Yaffe testified that he
could not remember any case in the last three years that he decided against LA County.

The annual LA County Counsel Litigation Cost Management Reports for the fiscal years
2005-2006 to 2008-2009 show only three cases decided against LA County when a LA Superior
Court judge made the decision.
Presiding Judge McCoy
Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon
Supervising Judge Berle
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
August 24, 2010
Page 6

From these facts, one may conclude that the LA County payments to LA Superior Court
judges were “bribes.” This conclusion was made in Senate Bill SBx2-11, which gave
“governmental entities, officers and employees of governmental entities,” which included
judges, retroactive immunity effective 5/21/09 from criminal prosecution for “judicial benefits”
paid to them by counties. The immunity did not extend to county payments after 5/21/09, nor
did it extend to the obstruction of justice caused by a judge presiding over a case in which the
county who paid him was a party. Further, the immunity was limited to California laws. The
judges are still subject to Federal prosecution, including “bribery” under the intangible right to
honest services, 18 U.S.C. Section 1346, recently held to encompass bribery and kickbacks in
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. ____, Slip Opinion pages 48-49 (decided 6/24/2010).

From the outset in the late 1980s, the LA Superior Court judges who received LA County
payments and presided over LA County cases violated due process and were biased. The U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the
appearance of justice,” Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 616, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). Therefore, a judge receiving a
bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) mandated such judge’s disqualification. Such Section

states:

A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is

true: [] A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a
doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

Such judges violated the Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 4D(1), which prohibits the judges
from entering into financial dealings that:

(a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial

position, or

(b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing

business relationships with . . . persons likely to appear before the
court on which the judge serves.

Canon 3E(2) requires judges to:

disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the

question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section
170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for
disqualification.
Presiding Judge McCoy
Assistant Presiding Judge Edmon
Supervising Judge Berle
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
August 24, 2010
Page 7

Canon 3E(1) requires a judge to “disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which
disqualification is required by law.”

Judge Yaffe has not disputed that he has violated the U.S. Supreme Court precedents, the
CCP, and the Code of Judicial Ethics. Nor has he disputed that LA County, Del Rey Shores, and
he have committed fraud upon the Court, obstruction of justice, and denial of due process. To
the contrary, Judge Yaffe has admitted to fraud upon the Court, obstruction of justice, and denial
of due process by admitting in his 7/13/10 Minute Order that the 3/18/08 Order was a “draft
order that was not filed” and that “ the Court did not intend to make any finding as to whether
Mr. Fine had standing to file a Verified Statement of Disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 170.3.”

Pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent of Throckmorton, supra, and Vallely, supra,
the Marina Strand case is vitiated, all orders and judgments are regarded as nullities and are
void. The Superior Court is bound to immediately enter an order voiding and annulling all
orders and judgments in the Marina Strand case and the contempt proceeding, forthwith.

Please perform your duty under the Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3C(3) and ensure that
this Order is immediately entered in the Marina Strand case and contempt proceedings.

Sincerely,

RICHARD I. FINE
RIF/sa/mlm
 PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho Dominguez,

CA 90220. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above-entitled
action.
On August 24, 2010, I served the foregoing Letter to Judges McCoy, Edmon and
Berle on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed
in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

Kevin M. McCormick Elaine M. Lemke

Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham Principal Deputy County Counsel
39 N. California Street LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OFF.
P.O. Box 1178 500 West Temple Street
Ventura, CA 93002 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713

Joshua Lee Rosen R.J. Comer

Joshua L Rosen Law Offices Armbruster & Goldsmith, LLP
5905 Sherbourne Drive 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2100
Los Angeles , CA 90056 Los Angeles, CA 90024

Rose M. Zoia Frederick Bennett

50 Old Courthouse Square, Ste.401 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR CT
Santa Rosa, CA 95404 111 North Hill Street, Room 546
Los Angeles, CA 90012

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 24th day of August, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez, California.

____________________________________
FRED SOTTILE