09-56073 Richard Fine 9th Circuit Court of Appeal All Orders

Selected docket entries for case 09−56073
Generated: 05/20/2011 06:22:31
Filed Document Description Page Docket Text

08/12/2009 12 Filed order (ANDREW J. KLEINFELD) Appellant is
12 Main Document 6 granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether
the trial judge should have recused himself. A review of
12 CJA Form 23 8
this courtĂ¢Â€Â™s docket reflects that the filing and
docketing fees for this appeal remain due. Within 14 days
of the filing date of this order, appellant shall (1) pay to the
district court the $455.00 filing and docketing fees for this
appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or (2)
file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
accompanied by a completed CJA Form 23. Failure to pay
the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall
result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk
for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall serve a copy of
CJA Form 23 on appellant. If appellant pays the fees, the
following briefing schedule shall apply: The opening brief
is due September 9, 2009; the answering brief is due
October 9, 2008; the optional reply brief is due within 14
days after service of the answering brief. If appellant files a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the briefing schedule
will be set upon disposition of the motion.
AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s remaining motions and requests will
be addressed by separate order. [7024494]
08/12/2009 13 Main Document 9 Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER and ANDREW J.
KLEINFELD) Appellant's motions and submissions to this
court, received on July 20, 23, 29 and 30 and August 6,
2009, are ordered filed. Appellant's request for a certificate
of appealability is addressed by separate order. Appellant's
remaining motions and requests Ă¢Â€Â“ including his
request for immediate release pending appeal Ă¢Â€Â“ are
hereby denied. [7024515]
08/26/2009 16 Main Document 10 Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER and ANDREW J.
KLEINFELD) AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s motion for
reconsideration of this courtĂ¢Â€Â™s order denying his
request for immediate release pending appeal is denied.
[7040857]
09/15/2009 21 Main Document 11 Filed order (A. WALLACE TASHIMA and N. RANDY
SMITH) Appellant's second motion for immediate release
is denied. No further motions for immediate release
pending appeal shall be filed or entertained. No motions for
reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order
shall be filed or entertained. The opening brief has been
filed; the answering brief is due October 9, 2009; and the
optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of
the answering brief. [7061608]
1
09/23/2009 23 Main Document 12 ENTRY UPDATED. Filed order MOATT: (SNR)
AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s Ă¢Â€Âœemergency motion to
immediately grant writ of habeas corpus based upon
opening brief,Ă¢Â€Â filed September 17, 2009, is denied
to the extent appellant seeks immediate release from
custody, because on September 15, 2009, the court denied
appellantĂ¢Â€Â™s second motion for immediate release
and stated that no further motions for immediate release
pending appeal shall be filed or entertained. To the extent
appellant seeks expedited consideration of this appeal, that
request is granted. The answering brief is due October 9,
2009. The reply brief is due within 14 days after service of
the answering brief. Because this appeal is being expedited,
the Clerk shall not grant any extension of time to file the
briefs under 9th Cir. R. 31−2.2. The Clerk shall calendar
this case during the week of December 7−11, 2009, in
Pasadena, California. [7071916]−−[Edited 09/23/2009 by
KD] [7071916]
10/13/2009 27 ECF Brief Filed 14 Filed clerk order: Answering Brief [26] filed by Sheriff of
Los Angeles County. Within 5 working days of the filing
of this order, filer is ordered to file 10 copies of the brief in
paper format, with a Red cover, accompanied by
certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief,
that the brief is identical to the version submitted
electronically. [7091929]
10/14/2009 30 Main Document 15 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner)
AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s September 17, 2009 and October 6,
2009 motions seeking summary reversal of the district
courtĂ¢Â€Â™s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus are denied. AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s reply brief is due
October 23, 2009. (MOATT) [7095250]
10/15/2009 31 ECF Brief Filed 16 Filed clerk order: Answering Brief [25] filed by Superior
Court of California County of Los Angeles and Judge
David P. Yafee. Within 5 working days of the filing of this
order, filer is ordered to file 10 copies of the brief in paper
format, with a Red cover, accompanied by certification,
attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief
is identical to the version submitted electronically.
[7095757]
10/16/2009 35 Main Document 17 Filed order MOATT: (SNR) AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s motion
to strike the answering briefs and request for judicial notice
are referred to the panel assigned to hear the merits of this
appeal. All further filings shall be referred to the merits
panel. The reply brief remains due October 23, 2009.
[7098468]
11/03/2009 38 Main Document 18 Notice of Oral Argument on DECEMBER Calendar. Please
return ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE
form to: PASADENA Office. Attention: The Notice of
Docket Activity may not list your case number. Please
open attached documents to view details about your case.
[7117864]
2
11/12/2009 39 Main Document 26 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:SC): AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s
motion to strike RespondentsĂ¢Â€Â™ answering brief is
DENIED. AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s request for judicial notice
of California Government Code Ă‚Â§Ă‚Â§ 68220 et. seq.
is DENIED. AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s oversized reply brief,
which was filed on October 22, 2009, is deemed filed. The
panel unanimously finds that the facts and legal arguments
in this case are adequately presented in the briefs and
record and that the decisional process would not be
significantly aided by oral argument. Pursuant to Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2), it is therefore ordered that the case be
submitted on the briefs, without oral argument on
December 10, 2009, in Pasadena, California. IT IS SO
ORDERED. [7127470]
12/04/2009 50 Main Document 28 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:SC): AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s
Ă¢Â€ÂœRequest for Judicial Notice of Entire Appellate
DistrictĂ¢Â€Â™s Self− Recusals in the
Ă¢Â€Â˜SturgeonĂ¢Â€Â™ AppealsĂ¢Â€Â is DENIED.
[7151665]
12/08/2009 52 Main Document 29 Filed Daniel Henry Gottlieb's motion to to become amicus
curiae, served on 12/07/2009. (Panel) [7155956]
12/08/2009 53 Main Document 30 Received original and 0 copies of Amicus Curiae −
Pending Daniel Henry Gottlieb amicus brief in 18 pages.
Major deficiencies: motion to become amicus pending,
untimely, brief is oversized. Served on 12/07/2009. (Panel)
[7155999]
12/09/2009 54 Main Document 54 Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, STEPHEN S.
TROTT and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW):
AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s Ă¢Â€ÂœMotion for Reconsideration
of Denial of Emergency Petition for Writ of
MandateĂ¢Â€Â is DENIED. [7156559]
12/10/2009 SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS TO STEPHEN R.
REINHARDT, STEPHEN S. TROTT and KIM MCLANE
WARDLAW [7159651]
TROTT and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW): Dr. Daniel
GottliebĂ¢Â€Â™s motion for amicus curiae status and
submission of an amicus curiae brief is DENIED.
[7160428]
TROTT and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW)
AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s Ă¢Â€ÂœMotion to Reconsider
ClerkĂ¢Â€Â™s Denial of Requests for Judicial
NoticeĂ¢Â€Â is DENIED. As to the request for judicial
notice of California Government Code Ă‚Â§Ă‚Â§ 68220
Ă¢Â€Â“ 68222, however, we note that the request is
denied only because it is unnecessary to request judicial
notice of a statute. The panel will consult the
partiesĂ¢Â€Â™ cited legal authorities in its consideration
of this appeal. [7164720]
3
12/16/2009 59 FILED MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION (STEPHEN R.
59 Main Document 57 REINHARDT, STEPHEN S. TROTT and KIM MCLANE
WARDLAW) AFFIRMED. FILED AND ENTERED
59 Post Judgment Form 60
JUDGMENT. [7165909]
12/17/2009 60 Main Document 65 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine's motion to take judicial
notice of Monterey County Judges ... . Served on
12/15/2009. [7171018]
AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s Ă¢Â€ÂœRequest for Judicial Notice
of Monterey County JudgesĂ¢Â€Â™ Public
StatementsĂ¢Â€Â is DENIED. [7175290]
TROTT and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW) The panel has
voted to deny AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s petition for panel
rehearing. Judge Reinhardt and Judge Wardlaw have voted
to deny AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s petitions for rehearing en
banc, and Judge Trott so recommends. The full court has
been advised of the suggestions for rehearing en banc and
no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear
the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions for
rehearing en banc are denied. No further motions shall be
entertained in this appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. [7226626]
PetitionerĂ¢Â€Â™s Motion to Disqualify Judges and to
Void the Memorandum Disposition and Other Orders is
DENIED. [7231563]
02/18/2010 69 Mandate Order 74 MANDATE ISSUED.(SR, SST and KMW) [7235709]
04/19/2010 71 Main Document 75 Received notice from the Supreme Court: petition for
certiorari filed on 03/23/2010. Supreme Court Number
09−1250. [7309221]
05/27/2010 72 Main Document 76 The petition for writ of certiorari was denied on
05/24/2010. Supreme Court number 09−1250. Panel is: SR,
SST and KMW. [7352928]
08/04/2010 73 Main Document 77 Received Supreme Court order dated 07/26/2010. The
petition for rehearing is denied. [7428156]. [7428156]
TROTT and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW) Richard Fine
requests that this panel vacate its December 16, 2009,
decision affirming the district courtĂ¢Â€Â™s denial of his
petition for habeas corpus. Fine asserts that new
information undermines our prior decision. We affirmed
the district courtĂ¢Â€Â™s conclusion that the state
courtĂ¢Â€Â™s contempt finding was not
Ă¢Â€Âœcontrary to,Ă¢Â€Â and did not
Ă¢Â€Âœinvolve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law,Ă¢Â€Â 28 U.S.C. Ă‚Â§
2254(d)(1), because Judge YaffeĂ¢Â€Â™s refusal to
recuse himself did not present a Ă¢Â€Âœprobability of
4
actual bias . . . too high to be constitutionally
tolerable,Ă¢Â€Â Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.,
Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252, 2257 (2009) (quoting Withrow v.
Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)). Nothing alleged in
FineĂ¢Â€Â™s current petition demonstrates that a
constitutionally intolerable probability of actual bias
existed. Therefore, the petition to vacate the
panelĂ¢Â€Â™s December 16, 2009, decision is
DENIED.[7445650]
TROTT and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW) Judge
Reinhardt and Judge Wardlaw have voted to deny
AppellantĂ¢Â€Â™s petition for rehearing en banc, and
Judge Trott so recommends. The full court has been
advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no
active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the
matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for
rehearing en banc is DENIED. [7477834]
5
Case: 09-56073 08/12/2009 Page: 1 of 2 ID: 7024494 DktEntry: 12-1
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 12 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW

Central District of California,
v. Los Angeles
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

et al., ORDER
Respondents - Appellees.
Before: KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge.
Under Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), appellant need not show
that he is probably correct or that there is a substantial likelihood that he is correct
in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is
required if he demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the district court's
assessment of his constitutional claims “debatable.” (Id. at 338.) Accordingly,
appellant is granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the trial
judge should have recused himself. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); see also 9th
Cir.R.22-1(e).
dk/COA
6
A review of this court’s docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for
this appeal remain due. Within 14 days of the filing date of this order, appellant
shall (1) pay to the district court the $455.00 filing and docketing fees for this
appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or (2) file in this court a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a completed CJA Form 23. Failure
to pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall result in the
automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir.
R. 42-1.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of CJA Form 23 on appellant.
If appellant pays the fees, the following briefing schedule shall apply: The
opening brief is due September 9, 2009; the answering brief is due October 9,
2008; the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering
brief. If appellant files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the briefing schedule
will be set upon disposition of the motion.
Appellant’s remaining motions and requests will be addressed by separate
order.
dk/COA 2 09-56073
7
OCJA 23 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT
Rev. 5/98 IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY, EXPERT OR OTHER COURT SERVICES WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE
IN UNITED STATES G MAGISTRATE G DISTRICT G APPEALS COURT or G OTHER PANEL (Specify below)
IN THE CASE OF LOCATION NUMBER
FOR
V.S.
AT
*
PERSON REPRESENTED (Show your full name) 1 G Defendant—Adult DOCKET NUMBERS
* 2
3
G
G
Defendant - Juvenile
Appellant
Magistrate
CHARGE/OFFENSE (describe if applicable & check box ÿ) G Felony

4
5
6
G
G
G
Probation Violator
Parole Violator
Habeas Petitioner
* District Court
Court of Appeals
G Misdemeanor 7 G 2255 Petitioner
8 G Material Witness
9 G Other
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING ABILITY TO PAY

Are you now employed? G Yes G No G Am Self-Employed
Name and address of employer:
IF YES, how much do you IF NO, give month and year of last employment
EMPLOY-
MENT earn per month? $ How much did you earn per month? $
If married is your Spouse employed? G Yes G No
IF YES, how much does your If a minor under age 21, what is your Parents or
Spouse earn per month? $ Guardian’s approximate monthly income? $
Have you received within the past 12 months any income from a business, profession or other form of self-employment, or in the form of
rent payments, interest, dividends, retirement or annuity payments, or other sources? G Yes G No
OTHER RECEIVED SOURCES
ASSETS INCOME IF YES, GIVE THE AMOUNT
9
RECEIVED & IDENTIFY $
THE SOURCES
CASH Have you any cash on hand or money in savings or checking accounts? G Yes G No IF YES, state total amount $
Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property (excluding ordinary household furnishings and
clothing)? G
Yes G No
VALUE DESCRIPTION
PROP-
ERTY IF YES, GIVE THE VALUE AND $
DESCRIBE IT
MARITAL STATUS Total List persons you actually support and your relationship to them
No. of
SINGLE Dependents
DEPENDENTS MARRIED
9 9
WIDOWED
SEPARATED OR
DIVORCED
OBLIGATIONS &
9
APARTMENT Creditors Total Debt Monthly Paymt.
DEBTS DEBTS & OR HOME:
MONTHLY $ $
BILLS $ $
(LIST ALL CREDITORS,
9
INCLUDING BANKS, $ $
LOAN COMPANIES,
$ $
CHARGE ACCOUNTS,
ETC.)
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date)
SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT
(OR PERSON REPRESENTED) *
8
Case: 09-56073 08/12/2009 Page: 1 of 1 ID: 7024515 DktEntry: 13
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
Appellant's motions and submissions to this court, received on July 20, 23,
29 and 30 and August 6, 2009, are ordered filed.
Appellant's request for a certificate of appealability is addressed by separate
order.
Appellant's remaining motions and requests – including his request for
immediate release pending appeal – are hereby denied.
dk/COA
9
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order denying his
request for immediate release pending appeal is denied.
dk/COA
10
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 15 2009

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW

v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: TASHIMA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant's second motion for immediate release is denied. No further
motions for immediate release pending appeal shall be filed or entertained.
No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order
shall be filed or entertained.
The opening brief has been filed; the answering brief is due October 9, 2009;
and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering
brief.
ec/MOATT
11
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s “emergency motion to immediately grant writ of habeas corpus
based upon opening brief,” filed September 17, 2009, is denied to the extent
appellant seeks immediate release from custody, because on September 15, 2009,
the court denied appellant’s second motion for immediate release and stated that no
further motions for immediate release pending appeal shall be filed or entertained.
To the extent appellant seeks expedited consideration of this appeal, that
request is granted. The answering brief is due October 9, 2009. The reply brief is
due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Because this appeal is
being expedited, the Clerk shall not grant any extension of time to file the briefs
under 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2.
SNR/MOATT
12
The Clerk shall calendar this case during the week of December 7-11, 2009,
in Pasadena, California.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly Dwyer
Clerk of Court
By: Sunil N. Rao

Motions Attorney/Deputy Clerk
9th Cir. R. 27-7
General Orders/Appendix A
SNR/MOATT 2 09-56073
13
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED
OCT 13 2009
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
M O LLY C . D W YER , C LER K O F C OU R T
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-
Petitioner - Appellant, CW
Central District of California, Los
v. Angeles

et al., ORDER
The Answering Brief submitted by Appellee Sheriff of Los Angeles County

(“Sheriff Baca”) on October 9, 2009 is filed.
Within five (5) working days of the filing of this order, Appellee is ordered to file
ten (10) copies of the brief in paper format, with a Red cover, accompanied by
certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical
to the version submitted electronically. A sample certificate is available on the
Court’s website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov, at the CM/ECF button.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly C. Dwyer
Clerk of Court
By: Liora Anis

Deputy Clerk
14
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2009


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner.
Appellant’s September 17, 2009 and October 6, 2009 motions seeking
summary reversal of the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus are denied.
Appellant’s reply brief is due October 23, 2009.
SNR/MOATT
15

FILED
OCT 15 2009
M O LLY C . D W YER , C LER K O F C OU R T
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-
Petitioner - Appellant, CW
Central District of California, Los
v. Angeles

et al., ORDER
The Answering Brief submitted by Appellees Superior Court of California, County

of Los Angeles and Judge David P. Yafee on October 9, 2009 is filed.
Within five (5) working days of the filing of this order, Appellees are ordered to
file ten (10) copies of the brief in paper format, with a Red cover, accompanied by
certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical
to the version submitted electronically. A sample certificate is available on the
Court’s website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov, at the CM/ECF button.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly C. Dwyer
Clerk of Court
By: Liora Anis

Deputy Clerk
16
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 16 2009


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s motion to strike the answering briefs and request for judicial
notice are referred to the panel assigned to hear the merits of this appeal.
All further filings shall be referred to the merits panel.
The reply brief remains due October 23, 2009.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly Dwyer
Clerk of Court
By: Sunil N. Rao

Motions Attorney/Deputy Clerk
9th Cir. R. 27-7
General Orders/Appendix A
SNR/MOATT
17
OFFICE OF THE CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
95 SEVENTH STREET, P.O. BOX 193939
SAN FRANCISCO
NOTICE OF CASES SET FOR HEARING
Your case has been set for hearing as indicated on the attached calendar. Please take special note of the
time and place of hearing. In order that the court may make proper arrangements for oral argument, it is essential
that you immediately complete the attached acknowledgment of hearing notice and return it to the Clerk's Office
email OR street address provided. The acknowledgment of hearing notice may not be filed electronically via the
ECF system.
In preparing for oral argument, the parties should be guided by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. The following information is provided to ensure the effectiveness of the hearing process:
Possibility of Mootness or Settlement - If your case has become moot or a settlement is imminent,
immediately advise the Clerk's office in writing and BY TELEPHONE. For ECF-registered parties, this
must be filed electronically as "Correspondence to Court."
Notification of Related Cases - If you are aware of other cases pending in this court which are related to
and which should be calendared with your case(s) on the attached calendar, please notify this office.
Admission for Oral Argument - Any attorney who will be presenting oral argument
must have been admitted to the bar of this court. The forms necessary for admission may be obtained
through the court's website [ www.ca9.uscourts.gov ] under Forms. If you have not been
admitted, or need to verify you have applied, please call the Attorney Admissions Inquiry line at
(415) 355-7800 and leave the requested information. While admission in open court on the day of
hearing is discouraged, you may elect such an admission procedure. Candidates for admission in open
court must appear in the Clerk's Office with a sponsor who has already been admitted to the bar of the
circuit, and who can orally move the admission before the calendar is called.
Submission Without Oral Argument - A party who feels that oral argument would not be of
assistance to the court may present a written motion asking the court to submit the case on the briefs for
decision without oral argument. Such a motion must be served on all parties. For ECF-registered parties,
this motion must be filed electronically. The court may, on its own motion, determine that oral argument
would not be of assistance. In such cases, all parties will be advised by separate notice pursuant to Fed.
R. App. P. 34(a).
[email: pas_ca09calendar@ca9.uscourts.gov Subject: PAS Hearing Notice]

12/01/09 www.ca9.uscourts.gov
18
Appearing for Argument - If oral argument is to be presented, please register with the courtroom
deputy in the courtroom posted for your case 30 minutes before the time of the hearing. All parties
for all cases must be registered and present at the time the session is convened.
Hearing Order of Cases - Cases are generally heard in the order in which they
appear on the calendar. On the other hand, a panel may elect to poll the calendar prior to the
commencement of argument and to rearrange the order of cases based on the projected length of the
argument. Nevertheless, parties in the first case should be prepared to begin argument immediately after
the court is convened in the event that the entire calendar is not polled.
Limitation of Argument Time - Argument time in cases on the calendar which are
identified with an asterisk (*) is limited to 10 minutes per side. In all other cases, oral argument time is
limited to 20 minutes per side. The limitations may be modified by the panel at the time of hearing.
Subject of Oral Argument - At the time of hearing, the judges of the panel will have studied the briefs and
the excerpts of record and will be familiar with the facts and issues of the case. Argument should be
devoted to clarifying issues as needed and to responding to questions raised by the judges of the panel.
Presenting Additional Citations - Additional citations of relevant decisions rendered since the filing
of the party's last brief -or after oral argument but before decision- may be submitted by letter, showing
proof of service on all counsel and parties not represented by counsel. For ECF-registered parties, this
letter must be filed electronically, but if filed by paper, only the original must be submitted to the court.
The letter must state the reasons for the citations, referring to either the page of the brief or to a point
argued orally. The body of the letter must not exceed 350 words. Any response must be made
promptly and similarly limited. [FRAP 28j, Cir. R. 28-6]
Identity of Panel Members - Not earlier than the week before the court week in which your case will be
heard, the names of judges hearing the currently calendared cases will be announced. The names will
be posted on the public bulletin board of the Clerk's Office of your local U.S. District Court and on this
Court’s web page. You may also determine the names of the judges by submitting with the enclosed
acknowledgment form, a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope and a card listing the case number, date
and time of hearing. We will write the names of the judges hearing your case on this card and mail it
to you at the same time that the official calendars are mailed to the District Court Clerk's Offices for
posting. [ www.ca9.uscourts.gov ]
Continuances - After a case has been calendared, continuances are not granted except for a showing of
extraordinarily good cause. If oral argument is essential but you find it impossible to be present, you
must, immediately after receipt of this hearing notice, submit a formal motion and supporting affidavit
for continuance. For ECF-registered parties, this motion must be filed electronically. Presentation of
the motion does not ensure that the continuance is granted. The court will not consider the motion for
continuance after the identity of the panel of judges has been divulged.

12/01/09 www.ca9.uscourts.gov 19
DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO COURTHOUSE
The Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals Building is located at 125 South Grand
Avenue, in Pasadena, California.
From downtown Los Angeles, take the Pasadena Freeway (110) to the Orange Grove Blvd.
exit. Go north on Orange Grove approximately two miles and turn left on Maylin Street or
Del Rosa Drive one block to Grand Avenue.
From the west via the Ventura Freeway (134), exit Colorado/Orange Grove Blvd. exit.
Go south (right) on Orange Grove to Green Street. Turn right one block to Grand Avenue.
From the east via the Foothill Freeway (210) exit at Orange Grove Blvd., go south (left) on
Orange Grove to Green Street. Turn right one block to Grand Avenue.
Park in the lot across from the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals Building.

12/01/09 www.ca9.uscourts.gov 20
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Location of Hearing for the December Calendar: Corrected Notice:
Richard H. Chambers US Court of Appeals Bldg.

125 South Grand Avenue
Pasadena, California 91105 October 30, 2009
LL Picture ID required to enter Courthouse 77

COUNSEL WILL PLEASE CHECK-IN WITH THE DEPUTY IN THE COURTROOM
All CJA Counsel call (415) 355-7993 for travel authorization
Monday, December 7, 2009 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 1
( ) * 08-50527 United States v. Kohler

( ) ~ 08-50031) United States v. Corona
08-50032) United States v. Corona
( ) 06-50607 United States v. Evans
( ) 06-50456) United States v. Kloehn
07-50274)
( )* 07-55825 Clardy v. Castellaw

( )* 07-55838 Small v. Horel
( )* 07-56794 Torlucci v. Evans
( )~ 06-56093 Maxwell v. Roe
( )~ 09-55699 Pacific Sunwear v. Kira Plastinina
( )~ 09-55937 E! Entertainment TV v. Entm't One GP
( )* 04-71791 Aivazova v. Holder

( )* 05-75584 Garcilazo-Cupa v. Holder
( )* 07-55522 Park v. Chertoff
( )* 08-56655 Jevne v. Lund
( )~ 07-56630 Holcomb v. New Castle Financial
( ) 08-56320 Association of Christian Schools v. Stearns
* MAX ARGUMENT TIME 10 MINS/SIDE ~ MAX ARGUMENT TIME 15 MINS/SIDE

OTHER CASES 20 MINUTES PER SIDE
[email: pas_ca09calendar@ca9.uscourts.gov subject: PAS Hearing Notice]

PLEASE RETURN ENCLOSED ACKNOWLEDGMENT NOTICE to CLERK’S OFFICE
www.ca9.uscourts.gov
21
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 1
( ) * 05-73068 Chen v. Holder

( ) * 05-73200) Bennani v. Holder
05-75097)
( ) * 09-50324 United States v. Vasallo-Martinez
( ) ~ 09-50059 United States v. Ramos
( ) ~ 09-50151 United States v. Hernandez-Rivera
( ) ~ 09-50020 United States v. Ochoa-Ramirez
( )* 07-74946 Gonzalez-Leyton v. Holder

( )* 08-50554 United States v. Kelly-Palmer
( )* 08-56056 Schulte v. City of Los Angeles
( )~ 06-56703) Lee v. TRW, Inc.
06-56704)
( ) 06-50717) United States v. Garrido

06-50718) United States v. Robles
( ) * 07-74899) Singh v. Holder

08-74195)
( ) * 08-56258 Puente v. County of Los Angeles
( ) * 08-56303 Agadzhanyan v. Astrue
( ) ~ 08-55861 Quiksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta Corp.
( ) ~ 08-56307 Shaffy v. United Airlines, Inc.
( ) ~ 08-56314) Allied Orthopedic v. Tyco Health Care
08-56315)
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 1
( )* 06-56352 Cervantez v. Pliler

( )* 08-56357 Couch v. Telescope Inc.
( )* 08-56360 Herbert v. Endemol USA Inc.
( )~ 08-56423 Khatib v. County of Orange
( ) 09-55673) MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.
09-55812)

OTHER CASES 20 MINUTES PER SIDE

PLEASE RETURN ENCLOSED ACKNOWLEDGMENT NOTICE to CLERK’S OFFICE
22
Location of Hearing for the December Calendar: Date of Notice:

Richard H. Chambers US Court of Appeals Bldg.
125 South Grand Avenue
Pasadena, California 91105
LL Picture ID required to enter Courthouse 77

COUNSEL WILL PLEASE CHECK-IN WITH THE DEPUTY IN THE COURTROOM
All CJA Counsel call (415) 355-7993 for travel authorization
( ) * 05-72524 Poulis v. Holder

( ) * 05-72692 Sulaiman v. Holder
( ) * 05-73483) Baban v. Holder
05-76270)
( ) * 05-74111 Shaba v. Holder
( ) ~ 08-55625) Larin Corp. v. Mueller
08-55790) 08-56191)
( ) 08-56415) Jewish War Veterans v. City of San Diego

08-56436)
( )* 05-72595 Gonzalez v. Holder

( )* 07-70640 Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder
( )* 08-56332 Madani v. Shell Oil Co.
( )* 09-50197 United States v. Felix-Olivas
( )~ 09-50180 United States v. Dierking
( ) 08-55838 FTC v. MacGregor
Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 1
( )* 08-50182 United States v. Collins

( )* 09-50259 United States v. Hernandez-Ortega
( )* 09-50333 United States v. Magana-Colin
( )* 09-56073 Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
( )~ 09-55791) Jamison v. City of Los Angeles
09-55792)
( ) 08-56454) World Wide Rush v. City of Los Angeles

08-56523) 09-55494)

+ MAX ARGUMENT TIME 30 MINS/SIDE OTHER CASES 20 MINUTES PER SIDE
[em ail: pas_ca09calendar@ca9.uscourts.gov subject: PAS Hearing Notice]
PLEASE RETURN ENCLOSED ACKNOW LEDGMENT NOTICE to CLERK’S OFFICE
23
( )* 05-70513 Mishustina v. Holder

( )* 05-72970 Kanhukamwe v. Holder
( )* 08-55534 Maxwell v. Roe
( )~ 05-56795) United States v. Withers
08-55096)
( ) ~ 08-50423 United States v. Isaacs
( ) ~ 08-56378 Kennedy v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc.
( )* 08-50538 United States v. Juarez-Mendez

( )* 08-56374 Antoniewicz v. Astrue
( )* 09-50171 United States v. Geiger
( )~ 08-50534 United States v. Deshotels
( )~ 08-55249 Emery v. Clark
( )~ 08-50547) United States v. Pereda-Rebollo
08-50552) United States v. Preciado
Friday, December 11, 2009 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 1
( )* 04-73040 Chong v. Holder

( )* 07-74624 Alvarez-Enriquez v. Holder
( )* 05-72685 Dabo v. Holder
( )* 08-50088) United States v. Hall
08-50226)
( ) * 09-50403 United States v. Casillas
( ) * 07-56455 Rawls v. Hunter
( ) ~ 08-55277) Mitchell v. MetLife
08-55686)
Friday, December 11, 2009 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 3
( )* 04-50266 United States v. Carey

( )* 07-50571 United States v. Stolte
( )* 07-50227 United States v. Shirazi
( )~ 07-50094 United States v. Johansen
07-50095) United States v. Standby Parts
( ) ~ 07-50576 United States v. Rodriguez
( ) ~ 08-50062 United States v. Mausali
24
OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Return Notice To: OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals Building
125 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
PASADENA, CA 91105
Phone: (626) 229-7250
Fax (626) 229-7462 [Cir R 25-3.1]
OR % [email: pas_ca09calendar@ca9.uscourts.gov Subject: PAS Hearing Notice]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE
ATTENTION: Calendar Clerk Date:
I acknowledge receipt of notice of assignment showing my case:
No.
Title:
assigned for hearing:
Date: Time: Courtroom:
Location:
Counsel to Argue: Name:
Address:
Phone: Fax:
Email:
Party(s) Represented:
Please indicate any special needs you may require in the courtroom:
NOTE: In the event that argument is to be presented "in pro per", please place party's name,
address and telephone number in the space provided for counsel.
KPlease submit a separate Notice of Appearance to the Clerk’s Office for all counsel
who have not entered an appearance in the above referenced case(s).
ADMISSION STATUS
(To Be Completed by Attorneys Only)
( ) I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court
( ) I certify that I am generally qualified for admission to practice before the bar of the
Ninth Circuit and that I will immediately apply for admission. ( forms available online )
Date: Signature:
25
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2009


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s motion to strike Respondents’ answering brief is DENIED.
Appellant’s request for judicial notice of California Government Code §§
68220 et. seq. is DENIED.
Appellant’s oversized reply brief, which was filed on October 22, 2009, is
deemed filed.
The panel unanimously finds that the facts and legal arguments in this case
are adequately presented in the briefs and record and that the decisional process
would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Pursuant to Fed. R. App.
P. 34(a)(2), it is therefore ordered that the case be submitted on the briefs, without
oral argument on December 10, 2009, in Pasadena, California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
FOR THE COURT:
MOLLY C. DWYER
Clerk of Court
By: Shane Colegrove

Deputy Clerk
27
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 04 2009


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s “Request for Judicial Notice of Entire Appellate District’s Self-
Recusals in the ‘Sturgeon’ Appeals” is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
MOLLY C. DWYER
CLERK OF COURT
By: Shane Colegrove

Deputy Clerk
28
ProfessorEmeri
Mathematics
tusDani
elH.Gottl
ieb R E C E 1V E D
MO1 -LY().DWYEF),CLERK
3516vi
Mari
aDolce
nadelRey
IJ.S.coun'fOFAPPEALS '
v.
o'
')
rw
.
1
.:
y.
'
)
y
.
z
':
t..
;
k
p.
4
J.,'<
%.;j
>j
:h.
y
. .r>
.
(
CA90292
dhg7@macxcom 4 v'
.
f
.
1
,)(
.
'
t
-/
'
.
,.
.'
,
.
j
'
.
y
:
'
k
.
2
.
j
s
.
j
,
,
t
,
4
.
r
y
,
-
)
.
-
w
)
.
,
$
(
,
-
t
)
3.
h
.
j
z
j
.
1
.
y
x
?
y
,
&
'
)
$
-
>
w
-
;
y
,
r
j
:
)
.
%
'
j
.
'
a
)
,
ç
j
.,.
-..
p.
y
rr
j
.y
.
l )
à,
:
t.
.(
j:
.
. .
.
http'
.//hor
mepagexmac.com -ILi
-D
c &'
h
'
qo
.
k.î
)
.
s
u
j
.
f
x.
j
:
.)
;
,
?
.
à
;
.
.
;
h
!
)
:
$
.
-
;
k
4
,
.
j
.
,
k
s
i
.
,:
.
,.4
sy.ù.
;,
ï.
s
,
. ?
'(
.
,
j
.
,
r
p
y
z
.
yj
;
:
.
;
r
,
.
'
-
-
,
:
t.
;
,
j
j
.
,
s
ë
,
,
..
.
'
/1t / Mathenlati
t
)sConsul
tant
DATE
-
. INI
TI
AL
ATTN:PanelJusticesAssignedtoCase#09-56873,SetforHearing12/10/2009
U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit
95SeventhStreet
SanFrancisco,CA94103
Date12/7/2009
RE: AmicusCuriaeBriefSubmissionforConsideration' ,
NinthCircuitCgseNo.09-56073.DistrictCourtCaseNo,CV-09-1914JFW (CW)
DearPanel:
lam aretiredmathematicsprofessor.Myinterestintheabovematterstemsfrom myformerroleasan
educatorandpresentactivitiesasaconsultantastheyrelatetotheperceivedhonesty(orlackthereotlof
thejudicialsystem,combinedwithmyuniqueperspectivefrombeingamemberoftheMarinaStrand
Colony11Homeownersassociation.NotethatMarinaStrandColony11vsLosAnglelesCountyandDel
ReyShoresistheoriginatingcasefortheDecember10Hearing.
lam awareoftherequirementthatamicusbriefsbesubmittedbyattorneyslicensedtopracticebeftxe
yourCourt.However,1havebeenunabletoretainonewillingtorisktheircareers,giventhèissues,
ghd
circumstances.
lhavenonethelesspreparedtheenclosedamicuscuri
aeintheinterestsofjusticeandrespectfullyre-
questthatyougivetheseissuesdueconsideration.
Sincerely,
:
,:z
, wkt*
4#.Z/
J''
-
>-e
.
,
t
''
-
DANIELH.GOTTLIEB
DHG/mlm
Enclosure
Richard1.Fine
AaronMitchellFontana,Esq.
PaulB.Beach'Esq.
KevinM.Mccormick,Esq.
29
Ami
cuàCuriaeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,September19,2009
UNITED STATESCOURTOFAPPEALS F'1MOELLYCC.DL- 1 V'E(t'
WYEFI,CLERK
.
)'
U.S.COt)fq7'OFAPPEALS
FORTHENINTH CIRCUIT
DEC()22œq
.
RICHARD1.FINE,
AppellantandPetitioner,
CaseNo.09-56073
D.C.No.2:09-cv-01914JFW (CW)
SHERIFFOFLOSANGELES
COUNTX etal,
AppelleesandRespondents
AMICUSCURIAEBRIEF
DANIELHENRYGOTTLIEB
ProfessorEmeritusinMathematics
PurdueUniversity
Visitor,UCLA
3516V1ADOLCE
MARINADELREY
CA 90292
1/24
30
AmicusCuriaeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,September19,2009
TableofContents
ReasonforAmicusCuriaeBrief 3
CollateralEstoppel 3
SignsofSophistry 4
Honn'sDecision 5
Fine'sBlogonautComment 5
Honn'sOpinion 7
MitchellstrainstostayontheDiFlorescase. 9
Mathematician'scommentonMitchell'sStrainedArgument 10
ThreeParagraphWaldo 11
AggravatedAmbiguity 11
Count17 12
HarshandSevere 12
Abilitytobelmpartial 13
MarinaStrandColony11vsLA Countyetal 14
Conclusion 19
PROOFOFSERVICE 21
2/24
31
Ami
cusCuri
aeBri
efCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,September19,2009
ReasonforAmicusCuriae Brief
ReRichard1.FinevsCaliforniaStateBaqLosAngelesCounty/DelReyShoresJoint
Venture,andJudgeDavidYaffe.
HonorableJudges,
Pleaseforgi
vemyuseofthefirstpefson.lam apropertyownefinlheMarinaStrand
Colony11HomeownersAssociation,MSCII.ItwasMSCIIvsCountyofLosAngelesand
thepartyofinterest,DeIReyShoresJointVenture/DelReyShoresJointVenture
North, whi
chI edtothecontemptcitati
onagainstourcounsel,Richard1.Fine,byjudge
D av
id Faf
fe (Superi
orCourtC as
e n umberBS 1094203.Al
s o i
tw asMSCIIaswellasthe
CoalitiontoSavetheMarinawhosecauseswereharmedbythedisbarmentoftheir
counsel,Ri chard1.Fi
ne,(SlaleBarCstl?
-
lHearingDepartmentLosAngeles,case
number04-0-143663.
Iam alsoaretiredmathematicsprofessor.Ihavebeendoingresearchandteachingin
mathematicssince1962.Ihavepublishedover60papersinvariousareasof
mathematics:Pointsetandalgebraictopology,combinatorics,robotics,mathhistory,
andmathematicalphysics.Youcanfindasummaryofmyworkatmywebsite.
CollateralEstoppel
Thereasonwhylmentionmymathematicalexpertise,isthatIwanttocritiquethe
doctrineofcollateralestoppel,whichItaketomeanthatonecannotreIitigatealready
decidedcases.Thi sdoctri
neplaysamajorroleintheFinedi sbarmenttri
al
.l
ti
san
importantdoctrineneededtopreventendlessIitigation,butitrestsonaveryunstable
foundation.
Inmathematics,itisknownthati fyouhaveafalseproposition,youcanprove
anythingyouwantwithit,bothstatementsthataretrueandstatementsthatarefalse.
Thisisanabstractresult,butweseeitarisinginthepracticeofmathematicswhereyou
usearesultyouthinkistrueandsuddenlytherearemanyniceinteresting
consequences.Thisoccurswitharushofexcitement,thenaslowsuspicionthatitistoo
goodtobetrue,thenthepainfulsearchfortheerroritselforforafalseimplication.
Finallyacarefulstudyofthefalseargumentsothatyounevermakethaterroragain.
Ithi
nkthedoctri
neofcollateralestoppelcanI
eadtoburstofunjustresul
tswhenthere
isanorigi
nati
ngincorrectjudgementandthati
swhathappenedintheStateBar
disbarmentofFineandalsointhesubsequentpartoftheMSCIIvsLosAngelesCounty
etaI.Iwilltellthestoryinahistoricalmannerfrom myperspective.
TheMSCIIi
swestoftheShoresProject,proposedbyDelReyShores.Unknownto
MSCII,theShoreshadsignedaIeasewiththeCountyandplannedtoput5story
32
AmicusCuriaeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,Septemberl9,2009
apartmentsontheedgeofDellAlleylessthan75feetfrom myfrontdoor.Their
buildingswouldbeupto100feettall.TheShoresgainedapprovalfromtheDesign
ControlBoard,withoutanyoneofusknowingabouttheproject.Theni nDecember
2005,theypublishedtheDraftEnvironmentallmpactReport,DEIR,andnoticedusthat
theyweregoingtoasktheRegi onalPlanningCommissionforapprovalearlyin2006.
WewerereferredtoAttorneyRichard1.Fine,whosaidhecotlldgetusthroughthe
permitprocessinfrontoftheregulatoryboardsandtheBoardofSupervisors,BOS,and
thatwewouldI
ose.Thenhewoul
dsetupanappealforus,aIfor$25,
000,Thegoi
ng
ratewas$250,
000andwewouldsti
lll
ose.Mr.Fi
nesai
dheneededhel p,theBOScoul
d
dowhatitwanted,buti thadtohaveaccurateinformationfortheirdecision.Thuswe
shouldIookforflawsintheEIR.WeshouldI earnaboutsewersandshadowsandtraffi c
studies.Wecouldn'traiseanyissueinanappealunlessitwasmentionedinour
commentstotheEIR.WeengagedFineasourcounselinIateJanuary.2006.Two
weeksIater,unbeknownsttous,theStateBarissuedi tsNoticeofDisciplinary
Complaint,NDC,againstFineinearlyFebruary2006.
IstartedgoingtothepublicIibrarywheretheShoresDEIRwaskeptandbeganby
readingthetrafficstudybecauseithadaIargemathematicalcontenttoit.IIearnedthe
subjectandfounderrors.Fi nesuggestedIIookattheshadowstudy;Ifounderrorsi n
that.Meanwhile,technologywaschangingrapidly,Googlesearchbecamebetterand
better.Googlesatellitemapsbecameavailabletothepublic,andlwasabletomeasure
distancesveryaccurately.Iwasabletosearchthecounty'sordinancesandtheLocal
CoastalPlanfortherelevantIaws.IfoundthecounseltotheDCBfailedtomentionthe
ordinancethatgavetheDCBthedutytoconsi derimpactsofprojectsonsceni cvi
ews
andtrafficandmassing.WhentheDCBIearnedfromthepublictheirpowers,they
threatenedtoactuall yturndownprojects.I
nresponse,CountySta#foundan
Sinconsistency',whichtheywereunabletoexplainclearly,andtheygottheBOSto
remove mostoftheDCBYpowers.
SignsofSophistry
Ibegantorecognizesophistrybyceftainsigns.IIookedinotherEIR' sforexamples.I
begannamingthesigns.Forexample,a34storycondobuildingwasproposedon
LincolnBl vd.justeastofMari
nadeIRey.I ti
sonthemostcongestedroadstretchi nLos
Angeles.Twentyfivepercentoftheexitingtrafficwasestimatedgoingnorth,Butthe
onlyexitfromthecondosforcedtraffictomovesouthonLincoln.IIookedfora
descriptionofhow thenorthgoingtrafficwouldeventuallystartgoingnorth.FinallyI
foundanarrowonakeymapwhichI ookedIikeafishhook.Itwasatanintersectionon
Lincoln.AftersometimeIguessedi tmeantU-turns.ThewordU-turnwasnever
mentionedintheElRasfarasIcouldsee.Certainlynotinthetrafficstudy.Noneofthe
thousandsofarrowsinthetrafficstudy,exceptone,IookedIikeafishhook.Thename
Waldocametomind.HowevertheWaldo'sofsophistryarenotalwaysdressedinthe
sameoutfitasoccursinthechildren'spuzzle,FindWaldo.
SuchanexampleofaWaldoisathreeparagraphwordqueeringWaldo.Word
queeringistakingtwowordswithoverlappingmeaningsinonecontextandquite
4/24
33
AmicusCuri
aeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,September19,2009
di#erentmeaninginanothercontext.Thearementionedassynonymsinone
paragraph,andthenusedtogetherinaparagraphwithaquitedifferentcontextwhere
theresultisamisleadingassedion.Forexample,thenoticeofthemeetingoftheDCB
statedinoneparagraphthatthewallwouldbereplac- andinthethirdparagraphthat
sothedimensionsofthebuildingwillremainthesameimplythewallremainsinthe
sameplacewhi l
ethephrasefitsintheexistingfootprintwi llbeusedtojusti
fywhat
actuallyhappened;thewallwasmovefivefeetintotherightofwayofDeIAlley.
AnotherSignofSophistryIcallCoconutRoading,whichissurreptitiouslychangingthe
wordingofpublicdocuments.Thi sisnamedafterthetypeofthissophistryonthe
highestIevelofFederalIaws.SeethearticlebyGeorgeWiII:http://
www.washingtpnpost.com/wp-dyn/content/articIe/2O08/02/08/AR2008020802557.htmI
Honn'sDecision
WhentheStateBarCourtpublishedtheirdecisioninOctober2007,lreadthedecision
writtenoverJudgeHonn'sname.Now Honn'sopinionhassignsofsophistry.Hefound
hedidn' tbelieveFineonanything,andyethedidn'tseemtoo#eraspecificuntruth.At
thistime,therewereblogsontheinternet,andIfoundonewhichagreedwi thmytake
andwhichnotedthatusuallyintheopinionthereisaclearstatementoftheparties
positions.IwasunabletofindacleardescriptionofFine'sposition.Below isa
paragraphofHonn'
sthatIregardedasasi
gnofsophi
stry.(myemphasi
s)
page4/76 MatterofFine StateBar04-0-14366JudgeHonn
B.CredibilityDetermination
Thiscourthasseriousdifflcultybelievingrespondent.Aftercarefully
considering,amongotherthings,respondent'sdemeanorwhiletestifying;themalmerin
whichhetestified;thecharacterofhistestimony;hisinterestintheoutcomeinthis
proceeding;andhiscapacitytoperceive,recollect,andcommunicatethematterson
whichhetestified,thecourtfindsthatrespondent'stestimonyinthisproceeding
repeatedlylackedcrcdibility,ifnotcandor.
Fine'sBlogonautComment
Onebl ogwhichIfoundisBl
ogonaut.Thi si
saIegalblogwhi chwroteanarti cl
e
implyingFinewasaBullywhiledescribingHonn'sdecision.thereare14
commentsonthearticle.ThefirstcommentisFine's.Itdescribesquicklywhathe
thoughtwastheproperevidencenotincludedinthearticle.Youcanfinditinthe
Iinkbelow.
br //bl ogcaut-blogorl
acblogs
-pot,com/zovrlz*mr lLY- Om-
t
rl-
e.
au.
s.
n
diît
leflllent-fo-
l
Ov
ThepartthatIfocusedonwasFine'sfi
tthandsixthpointswhichlinsertbelow.
5/24
34
AmicusCuriaeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Sattlrday,September19,2009
Fifth,itomittedtotellthereaderthatCommissionerMitchellordered
theremovalofapproximately$1.6millionfrom theDiFloresClass
SettlementFundinviolationoftheSection5,Paragraph5.2ofthe
StipulationofSettlementandFinalJudgment(SeeJointTrialEx.180),
throughapprovingthepurchaseofa1IclaimsheldbyFineagainst
'sBruceE,Mitchell,theSuperiorCourtandotherjudicialofficers''in
thenameoftheclassmembersfor$40,000,00withanother$40,000.00
tobepaidtodefendthepurchaseinviolationofSection5,Paragraph
5.2(b),approving$300,000.00tobepaidtospeciallyappointedlsclass
bankruptcycounsel''todefendthepurchaseinviolationofSection5,
Paragraph5. 2(b)approving$1.6millioninattorneysfeesto''plaintiffs
counsel'ontheconditionthattheywouldwithhold35% (or
approximately$566,464.65)tofundthedefenseoftheS 'purchase''in
violationofSection5,Paragraph5.2(b),(ofthe$1.6millionof
attorneysfees,theadditionalviolationsoftheStipulationof
SettlementSection5,Paragraph5.2(a)(i)-(iv)wereapproximately
$1,075,000.00inSflndividualFeesandCostsinviolationofParagraph
5.
2(a)(i)-(iv)andapproximately$301,342,22inAttorneyFeeReserve
FundinviolationofParagraph5.2(a)(1)-(iv));
SixthitomittedtotellthereaderthatCommissionerMitchell,based
upontheaccountingpresentedbytheDisbursingAgentfortheMarch
13,2006hearingintheDiFlorescase,illegallypaid,ByronMoldowho
isalsothetdreceiver'and'dnoticegiver'',anestimated$510,172.00for
pedormingattorneyswork,actingasa'sreceiver''1andaSdnotice
giver''inviolationofSection5,Paragraph5.2(b)oftheStipulationof
Settlement,illegallypaid,DianeKarpman,ofKarpman&Associates,
anestimated$55,980.00asandlethicsexped'
'toassistSsplainti
ffs'
6/24
35
AmicusCuri
aeBri
efCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,Septemberl9,2009
attorneys''inviolationofSection5,Paragraph5.2(b)oftheStipulation
ofSettlement,illegallypaid,BernardGeorgelnvestigationsan
estimated$10,146.00asanfsinvestigator'toinvestigateFinein
violationofSection5,Paragraph5.2(b)oftheStipulationof
Settlement,illegall
ypaid,JoelRudofanestimated$7,939.00to
contactRichard1.Fine'sclientsinviolationofSection5,Paragraph
5.2(b)oftheStipulationofSettlement,illegallypaid,Tovar&Cohen
$800.00toretainamedicalexpedfortheCouftinviolationofSection
5,Paragraph5.2(b)oftheStipulationofSettlement,andillegallypaid,
$768,00topurchaseaSsscanner''foranunstatedpurposeinviolation
ofSection5,Paragraph5.2(b)oftheStipulationofSettlement(See
JointTrialEx.180);
Honn'sOpinion
ItwasobvioustomethatFinewasmakingdetailedaccusationsinplain
Ianguagewhichcouldeitherberightorwrongandthatitshouldn'tbehardto
determinewhich.SoIdecidedtogototheStateBarinLosAngelesandreadthe
transcriptsofthetrialMatterofFine StateBar04-0-14366JudgeHonn.There
weresevenvolumes.Intheend,IIookedovertheIastfiveandIboughtthefi ve
CD'sandIistenedtotheIastfivedaysofthetrial.
IwantedtoconcentrateontheCountswhichHonnfoundinfavorofFine.The
mostobviousoneswereCounts2and4.whichchargeFineofaccusingMitchell
ofmisappropriationoftheDiFloressettlementmonieswithoutsupplying
evi
dencetcount2)andthattheaccusati
onsofmi
sappropri
ati
onswerefalse
(Count4).ThejudgecombinedthetwoCountsandfoundthattheStateBar
prosecutorshadnotprovedtheircase.Nonetheless,Honnstatedhereallydidn't
believeFineatall.IincludetheCounts2&4belowwithboldfaceemphasismine
MatterofFine StateBar04-0-14366JudgeHonn
Counts2A4-falseaccusationofmisappropriation.
lncounts2and4,theStateBarchargesrespondentwi thengaginginactsofmoral
turpi
tudebyfal
sel
ystati
ng,inhi
sseventhsecti
on170.
3chall
enge(exhi
bit45),that
7/24
36
AmicusCuri
aeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,Septemberl9,2009
CommissionerMitchellx'misappropriatedSettlementfundmonies''intheDiFlores
case.
JtRulesofprofessionalconductSthatprohibitfalsestatementsimpugningthe
integri
tyofjudges...arenotdesignedtoshi el
djudgesfromunpleasantoroff
ensi
ve
criti
ci
sm....''(lntheMatterofAnderson(ReviewDept.1997)3Cal.StateBarCt.
Rptr.775,782,quotingStandingCommi tt
eev.Yajman(9thCir.1995)55F.3d1430,
1437.)Thus,theStateBarCouftcannotdiscipllneanattorneyfotmakinga
statementthatattacksorimpugnsthehonesty,motivation,integrity,or
competenceofajudici alofficer(orothercourtoffi
cial)unl
ess(1)thestatementis
a falsestateme ntoff
act (a
s oppose
falsestatementknowingitwasfalseor
d toop i
ni
o n)and (2)t
heattorneymadethe
wi
threcklessdisregardforthetruth.(IntheMatterofAnderson,sujra,3Cal
.State
Ba
cl
rCt.Rptr
.atjp.781-7
earandconvlncingevi
83.
) Moreover,the St
ate Bar mu st
dence,thestatement'sfalsity.(I
aff
ir
m atl
vel
d.atp.785.)
ypr
ove,by
Opensi veandimpugning'dstatementsthatarqnotcapableofbeingprovedtrueor
false(e.g.,rhetori
calhyperbol
e)cannotsupporttheimpositi
onofdiscipl
ine.Likewi
se,
statementsofopinionarenotdisciplinableunlesstheyimplyorarebaseduponafalse
asserti
onoffact.'(lntheMatterofAnderson,supra,3Cal
.StateBarCt.Rptr.atp.786.
)
Whenanindividualstatesanopinionorconclusionanddisclosesthefactualbasis
forthatopinionorconclusion,thenthestatedopinionorconclusionççfcanonlyberead
astheauthor'spersonalconclusionabouttheinformationpresented,notasastatement
offacts''(Frankli
nv.DynamicDetail
s,Inc.(2004)116CaI.
App.4th375,387.)Thati
s
becauseanyunfounded,unjusti
fi
ed,orunreasonabl eopi
nionorconclusi
onwilreveal
itsownIackofmeritwhentheauthordisclosesthefactualbasisfortheopinionor
conclusi
on.Thus,anattorneycannotbedi sciqf
statementsofopinionsorconclusions(evenI
linedforoffensiveandimqugning
theyaccuseajudicialofflcerof
criminalactivity)i
ftheunderlyingfactsaredi sclosedandafetrue.(Standing
Committeev.Yagman,supra,55F.3datpp.1439-1430' ,Franklinv.DynamicDetails,
lnc,,supra,116CaI.App.
4thatp.388.)Thisistrueregardlessofhowreckl
outrageoustheopinionorconclusionmightbe.
essor
Admi ttedly,respondent'sstatementthatCommissionerMitchell
mi
ints
eagprj
ltr
yo
.p
lr
ni
aate
dds
tie
di ot
nt
l
eime
, tapn
pt
ef
u
an
rsdtm
hao
tn
ri
ees
spi
snddeero
o gma
ntatodry
eanedi
th smp ug
tate nsnt
me th
etc
wihor
mmis
es
ecklsi
oner'
s s
disregardforthetruth.TheStateBar,however,failedtocarryitsburdento
affirmativelyprove,byclearandconvincingevidence,thatthestatementisfalse.
Moreover,the
StateBarfailedtoestablishthatthestatementisanopinionorconclusionthatisbased
uponafal seassedionoffact.Accordingly,eventhoughthiscourtisconfidentthat
CommissionerMitchelldidnotmisappropriateanysettlementmoniesinthese
cases,thi
scourtmustdismisscounts2and4wi
thprejudiceforwantofproof.
8/24
37
Ami
cusCuriaeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,September19,2009
15Thetermmisappropriationcoversawiderangeofconduct.Atleastinthecontextofattorney
discipline,notal
1misappropriationsinvolvemoralturpi
tt
zde,dishonesty,orcorruption.(
1nthe
MatterofHagan(ReviewDept.1992)2Cal.StateBar
161tisnotsufficientthattheStateBarestablishthatrespondent'saccusationof
misappropriationisunsupportedbyanyfactsorthatrespondentmischaracterizedhis
inflammatoryaccusationsatthehearinginthisproceeding.TheStateBarmustprovethe
accusationfalse.
ThisendsHonn'sdescriptionofhisdecisionsonCounts2&4.lnthetrialitwas
hardforFinetogethisevidencetobeconsidered.DuringthetrialFinedid
mentionsomeoftheitemsinhisBlogonautComment.Hewasnotcross-
examinedonthem,nordi
dthejudgeexpl
ainwhyhethoughtthesespecifi
c
assertionswereuntrueeventhoughtheStateBardidn'tdisputethem,
Mitchellstrainsto stay onthe DiFlorescase.

FineFsMitchellAppeal8153382Apage7/30JudgesBoren,NottandDoi
AstoCommi ssionerMitchel'sauthori tytoadjudi
catethecontempt,theorder
notedthatpursuanttothefirststipulationexecutedbythepartiesCommissioner
Mitchellwasappoi
ntedandempoweredtoactasatemporaryjudgeï '
foraIIpretrial
proceedings.
'Thecourtconcl udedthatJt lhisIiti
gat
ioni
ssti lli
npretrial
proceedings.TheCourt'sfilesreflectthefollowing:Notrialshaveyetbeenheld.
Thedefendantsenteredi ntoagl obalsettlement,pai dapproxi matel
y$9mi ll
i
oni nto
Courtsimilartoaninterpleader,andweredismissed.Nowthereare494plaintiffswho
aIIhaveclaimstothatfund.Noneofthoseclaimshasreceivedanindividualfinalvalue,
andifclaimscannotberesolvedbyfudhersettlementproceduresthentheywillhaveto
()()ttltriéll.-..'' '
FineMsMitchellAppeal8153382A page13/30JudgesBorenNotlandDoi
Therecordreflectsthatthestipulationexecutedbythepartieswhenthecase
wasfirstfiledempoweredCommissionerMitchelltoconduct'$ alIpretrial
proceedings.''Accordingtotheorderofcontempt,CommissionerMitchellviewsthe
proceedingsoccurringsubsequenttoenlryofjudgmentinJune1999asd l
pretri
al
proceedings''becausenodeterminationhasyetbeenmadeconcerningtheamountof
moneyeachclassmemberwillreceive,andthusalltrial''mayberequiredinorderto
determinewhatallocationistobemade.Suchaninterpretation,weconclude,is
strained.WhattheIanguageofthestipulationexecutedbythepadieswhenthecase
commencedmakesclearisthatwhentheclassactionIawsuitwasinitiated,thepadies
contemplatedthatunlesssettled,thecasewouldproceedtotrial,andCommissioner
Mi tchellcoul
dactasatemporaryjudgeinconnecti
onwithd'
allpretri
alproceedings.
''
Whenthecasesettl ed,andanorderofjudgmentwasentered,thedfpretri al'phase
oftheactionended,asdidCommissionerMitchell'sauthoritytoactasatemporary
judgepursuanttothefirststi
pulati
on.
38
Mathematician'scommenton Mitchell'sStrained
Argument
ThisstrainedargumentofMitchell'sshoulddisqualifyhimfrom hearinganycase
asajudge,ever.I famathematicianmadeastatementIi kethat,evenwhil e
Sproving'atrueproposition,itwouldendhiscareer.Considerthis,ifatrialhad
beenhel dandresultedinthesamejudgement,asthesettl ement,woul dthe
possibili
tyofatrialbetweenthedifferentpartiesstillbeareasonforMitchellto
hangontothecase?Mitchell'sstrainedkindofreasoningisusedwholesaleby
theIawyersandconsultantsinEIR'sinCalifornia,andinregulatoryhearings.
HopefullyithasnotspreadtotheFederalCourts.
ReviewDeptStateBarMatterofFineJudgesRemke,Epstein,Stovitzpage
17/36
Counts2and4:Counts2and4arebasedontheseventhsection170.3challenge,
whereinrespondentallegedthatCommissionerMitchellmisappropriatedsettlement
fundsintheDiFloresmatter.Specifically,count2allegesthattheseventhchallenge
wasfrivolousbecauseitwasbroughtwithoutanyfactualbasistosupportthe
allegationoftheftanditwasfiledforthepurposeofharassment.Althoughthat
challengewasmeritless,asdiscussedabove,i tispartrespondent'soverallmisconduct
ofrepeatedlyfilingfrivoloussection170.3challengesforimproperpurposes.Thefacts
i ncount2arenotseparateandajartfromthosetu
undercount1,andthus,wedismlsscount2wi
sedtoscu
hprejudi
pportafi
easdupli
ncdai
njofcul pabili
tlveofcount1.
ty
Incount4,theStateBarallegedthatrespondentviolatedsection6106byfilingthe
seventhchallengefalselyallegingthatCommissionerMitchellmisappropriated
settlementfundswhenrespondentkneworwasgrosslynegligentinnotknowingthat
thestatementwasfalse.
Contrarytothehearingjudge'sconclusion,wefi ndthattherecordamply
establishesthefalsityofrespondent'sallegationofmisappropriation.
RespondentallegedthatinaminuteorderCommissionerMitchellsolicitsothercounsel
toadvocateCommissionerMi tchell'spositionintheappeal..,byo#eringthem
compensationfrom theSettlementFund.,''..Basedonhisclearlyerroneous
interpretationoftheorderrespondentcontendedinhisseventhchallengethat
'Commissi onerMitchelhasmi s-appropriated(sic)theSettlementFundmoni estopay
forhisdefenseintheappeal.''
BecauseCommissionerMitchellmerelysuggestedthataresponsetotheappealwas
appropriateandthattherespondingpartymaybeentitledtoattorneyfees,theCourt
ofAppealconcludedthathisallegationsregardingCommissionerMitchell' shandlingof
thesettl ementfundwerefalse.(Fi nevkSuperiorCou?' l,st
ppra,97CaI. App.4thatp.
670. )Basedonourindependentrevi ewoftherecord,weagreewi ththi sfinding,andwe
10/24
39
AmicusCuri
aeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,September19,2009
concludethatrespondentcommi ttedanacti
nvolvi
njmoralturqi
tudeinviol
ati
onof
secti
o n 61
0 6ascharj edinco u n
t 4byknowi
Mitchellmisapproprlatedsettlementfunds.ng
ly ml
sr
epresentlngth
at Commissi
oner
Three ParagraphWaldo
HerewefindthereviewjudgesusingtheSignofSophistryofanirrel
evant
paragraph(Count3)insertedbetweencl
osel
yrel
atedparagraphs(Counts2&4)
tochangeHonn'srulingonCount2byrelatingittoCount1.Count4isreversed
byexaminingtherecordbyfindingtheStateBardidactuall yprovethatFine
madeafalseaccusation.Apparently,Fine'suseofthewordmisappropriated
shouldhavebeenreplacedby'ismisappropriating',sinceFinemakesstatements
Iater,easilydeterminedtobetrueorfalse,astohowexactlythefundsmonies
wereusedforpurposesotherthanpayingtheclassmembersortheirIawyers.
AggravatedAmbiguity
CommissionerMitchellmadeacameoappearanceinJudgeHonn'scourtroom
onorabout11:11:30on1/25/2007andannouncedthathewasthecomplaining
witness.HejustwalkedintotheCourtroomjustbeforeaI
unchbreakandwas
askedwhohewasbyHonn,Thusinformationcontradictingsworntestimonywas
putontherecordinani nformalmanner,notunderoath,andnotsubjecttocross
examination.
ThecameoassertionthatMitchellwasthecomplainingwi tnesscontradicts
testimonygiventhattheStateBarInitiatedtheinvestigation.From myreadingof
thetrialtherewasevidenceonbothsides.Thenthereweretwohighofficials
from theStateBarinthecourtroom atabout10:21:25on1/26/2007andFine
said,Iet'saskthem underoathtoresolvethisissueonceandforall.JudgeHonn
refusedtocallthewitnesses,sayinghewasrelyingonthepatternofFine's
actionsandtheissueofstatuteofIimitationswasnotgoingswayhim.Sothe
principlethateveryaccusedhastherighttofacehisaccusersbitesthedust.
Also,thefactthatFine'sclientsmightwanttoknowthecircumstancesofwhy
theirIawyerwasstrippedfrom them wasneverconsidered.
Thesophistrydescribedhereneedsaname.IwillchristenitAggravated
Ambiguity.Iwilldefineitbyanambiguityintroducedbyacameoappearance
whichiseasilyresolved,butisconsciouslyleftunresolvedinspiteofprotests
from aninterestedparty.lusethephasecameoappearancetoreferto
informationenteringaprocessinawaysothatitcanbeusedtoJprove'apoint
expadetosomeofficialorinterestedparty.AnexampleofwhatImeanoccursin
theStateBar'sNoticeofDisciplinaryComplaints,NDC.Count3makesacameo
11/24
40
appearancebetweenCount2andCount4.JudgeHonnsaysCount2andCount
4arethesame,whereastheStateBarReview CourtsaysthatCount2isthe
similartoCount1,andsoitisafrivolousi
nsteadofafil
ingnotprovidi
nj
evidence.ThischangesFine'sstatusonCount2from notguiltytogullty.
AnotherexampleofAggravatedAmbiguityiswhatthestipulationactuallysaid.
WasMitchellreallyviolatingtheagreementornot?Well,where' sthecopyofthe
stipulation?It'sinexhibit45.Butexhibit45onlycontainssomerelevantparts,so
thejudgewon'
treadi
t,becausei
t'
snotthewhol
edocument.ThenFinesayshe
hasacopy,butit'snotcerti
fied.ThenHonnasks,whydidn' tyouputinacertified
copyintherecordsinceititisthefoundationofyourcase?SoFinereplies,well
theBarhasacertifiedcopy,whyisn'titintherecord?Theanswercomesback:
Youexpecttheprosecutiontoproveyourcaseforyou?(About11:
48:
00on
1/26/200/)
Count17
That'sAggravatedAmbiguity,butwithanironicchaser.Count17concerns
Misrepresentationtoacourt.Apparentl
yFinedidn'
tI
istaI
lthegroundsajudge
usedforfindingagainstFineinapetitiontoahighercourt.HonnruledFinenot
guiltyonCount17,sayingFine' sbehaviorismisconduct,butitdoesn'trisetothe
levelofmoralturpitude.Butlthinkitsuredoesrisetomoralturpitudefora
prosecutortoIeaveoutexculpatoryevidence,limagine,basedontheStateBar
notprovingFine'
scaseandI
eavi
ngouti
nformationi
ntheirdocument,thatjudge
HonnhadtoIettheStateBarandhisstatementbemisconductbelowtheIevelof
moralturpitude.AndconsistencyrequiredthatFine'sconducthadtobebelow
theIevelofmorelturpitude.TheStateBardidnotappealCount19,butthe
ReviewCourtreversedFine'sconvictiononCount17,probablynotawareofthe
exposureofHonnandtheprosecutorsonthispoint.
lnanyevent,lthoughttheReviewCourtofRemkeetalneededtoreverseat
IeastonecountinFine'sfavortoshowtheywereimpartial,soIIookedfor
Count'swhereHonnconvictedandtheyreversed.andIfoundsome.So
comparingtheStateBarCoud'sdecisionwiththeReviewCourtsdecision,Ithink
wecanseetheunderlyingmathematicalresultthatafalsepropositioncanprove
anythingreflectedintherealIifeworldoftheLaw.
Harsh and Severe
WhenIfirstreadJudgeHonn'sopinion,lthoughtitwasfullofsophistrywith
regardtoFine's credibility.Then,asIreadthethetrialtranscript,Honn
12/24
41
comportedhimselfsowell,strugglingtounderstandFine'smotivation,thatI
foundlcouldn'tbelievethatHonnwrotethatopinion.Inthetrial,Honnsaidthat
Finehadabusedtheprocess,butthathiscredentialsandcareerand
comportmentinhiscourtroom Ieadshim totheconclusionthatFineshouldnot
bedisbarred.Hisbehaviorwithfrivolousfilingsshouldbesanctioned.Honn
beggedtheprosecutionandFinetocometoanagreement.Itneverhappened.
TheonlypointinthetrialthatlfoundwhereJudgeHonnopenlyexpressedhis
skeptici
smaboutFine' struthfulnesswaswhenFinewasreadi
ngsomejudge's
opinion.HonninterruptedFineandaccusedFineofreadingapadoftheopinion
wherethejudgewasquotingFine'sownarguments.Thatreadingmayhave
beenJudgeChristianson'sopinion,towhichHonnreferredtoinhisopinion
below.
page13/72 MatterofFine StateBar04-0-14366JudgeHonn
TheJudicialCouncilassignedJudgeRonaldChristiansonoftheSanBernardino
SuperiorCourttodecidethequestionofCommissionerMitchell'sdisqualificationunder
respondent'sfirstchallenge.lnarulingfiledonJanuary7,2000,JudgeChristianson
heldthatCommissionerMitchellwasnotdisqualiftedf' rompresidingovertheDiFlores
casc.(Exhibit21.
)lnhisl
'
uli
ng,JudgeChristiansonfoundthat,eventhough
CommissionerMitchell'scritiqueofrespondent'slegalservicesasliabilityclasscounsel
inDiFloreshadttbeenharshandthemeasurestakensevere,ithasnotbeenestablished
thathisactionswcrebasedonanyi
mpropermotive.Certainlyatsomepointajudge's
fl-ustrationwiththeconductofanattorncymightrisetothelevelofpersonal
embroilment.However,takingtheactionsinthiscasewithintheirappropriatecontext,
neitherpersonalbiasnorembroilmenthavebeenestablished.''Flzrthermore,Judge
ChristiansonfoundthatCW personawareofthefactswouldnotreasonablyentertaina
doubtastoCommissionerMitchell'sabilitytobeimpartial.''
Abilityto be Impartial
TheIastquotedsentenceintheaboveparagraphhastoomanywordsinit,asignof
sophistry.Supposethesentencemeant:Areasonablepersonawareofthefactswould
notdoubtCommissioner'sMitchell'simpartiality.Thenitisfalseifonlyonereasonable
awarepersondiddoubtMi tchell'simpartiality.IguessFineisruledoutbecauseheis
impliedtobenotreasonable.ButIalsodoubtMitchell'simpartiali ty.
Somaybethoseextrawordschangethemeaningofthesentence.Nowthequestionis:
DoesMitchellhavetheabilitytobeimpartial?WhichItaketomean:Ifhereallywants
to,hecanbeimpadial.HereagainIdoubthehastheabilitytobeimpadial.Myreason
is,becauseheadvancedthestrainedargumentqueeringthecontextualmeaningof
pretrial,herevealshimselfasnotintellectuallyhonest,bothtomeandprobablytoany
othermathematician.Intellectualhonestyisaprerequisitetoclearingyourmindofpre
13/24
42
existingbeliefsandopinionswhenconfrontedwithopposingfacts.HenceIdon'tthink
hecansolvedifficultmathematicalproblemsorbeimpartialinacaseinwhichhehas
preformedopinions.ltispossiblethatbrainresearchcanexperimentallyprovemy
statement.SeethearticleintheNewYorkTimesbyJohnTierney,A-GI. aS.II-QLP.
QLq.
I
Fraudy-an.d'thosewhoBelieve .
MarinaStrandColony 11vs LA Countyetal
BelowisatimelineoftheactionagainstFineinthecaseMSCIIvsLACountyet
a
':
'
,r
'
I.Mostofi
twasexcerptedfrom thetimelineonthewebsi teFreeI-IL
CMf.d.I
Ik
.,i
;1ne ItdetailstheprosecutionofFinebytheShoresCounselafterhewas
'
droppedfrom thecaseMSCIIvsCountyetaI,anditsintimidatingeffectonhis
clientsandShoresopponents.ThisaddscredencetothetheorythattheShores
wasbehindtheStateBarComplaintagainstFine.Itshowshowdifficultitisfor
theordinarycitizentofightthecombinationofrichdevelopersalliedwiththeIocal
governmentandhiredunethicalconsultants.WeneedadvocatessuchasFineto
defendourhomesandtokeepourIegalprocessfairandopentoall,
Iaddedmorematerialontheoutlineconcerningthoseeventsforwhichlhave
personalknowledge:TheBOShearingonDecember16,2009andtheeffectof
Fine'sdisbarmentandcontemptconvictiononMSCII.
01/2006
FinerepresentsMSCII
02/06/06
ACaliforniaStateBarcaseagainstFine(StateBarCourtCaseNo.04-0-14366)
commencedonFebruary6,2006,whileFinewasopposingLACountyandDeIRey
ShoresandtheEpsteinsbeforetheLACountyRegionalPlanningCommissiononon
behalfofclientsMarinaStrandColony11Homeowners'Assoc.SheldonH.Sloan,a
IawyerforMarinaPacificAssociates,aIesseeofIandfrom LACountyinMarinadeIRey,
controlledbyjerryB.Epstein,andaco-defendantwithLACountyinthecaseof
CoalitiontoSavetheMarinaetalv.LACountyetaI,whoisalsoamemberoftheBoard
ofGovernorsoftheStateBarandincomingpresident,doesnotdisclosethathehasa
financialinterestinFinebeingremovedfrom thecaseascounselfortheplaintiffs.
January,2007
LASuperiorCourtJudgeSoussanG.Brugueraheldthemotionforreconsideration
beyondthetimeperiodtomaintaintherighttoreceiveadecisioninthetrialcourt
whilestillbeingabletotimelyfileanappealinthecaseofCoalitiontoSavetheMarina
andMarinaTenantsAssociationetaI.,v.CountyofLosAngeles.
Mathematicsoffersawaytogetoutofthistypeofproblem.Fineshould
havefiledatimelyappealbasedonthestatement,mathematically
14/24
43
Ami
correct,thateverystatementintheJudge'svacuousdecisionopposing
themotionisfalseandeverystatementsupportingthemotionistrue.
Thisisnotstrained,itismathematicallyconsistent.Anythingistrueof
anynonexistentthing.
05/15/07
SupervisorsvotetoapproveDeIReyShores'EIR,despitereceivingpolitical
contributionsfrom Epsteinsneartimeofvote.
06/14/07
On
ColJ
ou
nnye111H4o,me
200
o7,F
wnei
nseAfj
r sl
eodca
s iaq
tle
ot
ni
tvi
o.n
Cf
oo
ur
nwr
tyi
t
ofoL
foma
sAnndgae
te
lei
snst
eh
eekc
ina
gse
toofMeartri
ov un
ra
nS
tt
hr
and
e
Supervisors'approvalofanEIRinfavoroftheredevelopmentoftheDelReyShores
apartmentcomplex.ThepetitionallegedthattheEIRviolatedtheCalifornia
EnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andthatLACountydidnotreceiveanypositive
financialbenefitfromtheprojectasrequiredbyCEQA.
DavidP.Yaffewasthejudgeassignedtothecase.
10/10/07
FinesavesMSCII'SIaw suitaftermissingafilingdatebyonedaybyadmittingitwashis
fault-Finetoldmethathemiscalculatedbyoneday.AnfriendofFine'shelpedusget
ourcasereinstated.ThenwefinallyfoundaIawyerwillingtotakeourcase,RoseZoia
from SantaRosaCalifornia.Ms.Zoiaconcentratedherargumentsonthefour
inadequatelydonealternativeprojectsintheShoresEIR.
10/12/07
StateBarordersFineplacedon''involuntaryinactiveenrollment''.
FineIefttheMarinaStrandcaseonOetober12,2007,asaresultoftheactionsof
CaliforniaStateBarCourtHearingDepartmentJudgeHonn,whoorderedMr.Fine'sBar
membershipinto''inactive''status,meaninghecouldnoIongerpracticeIaw.
01/08/08
OnJanuary8,2008,JudgeYaffeorderedthatFine,whowasnoIongertheattorneyfor
MarinaStrand,paysanctionsof$1,000.00andattorney'sfeesandcoststoLACounty
andDeIReyShoreswithouthavinggivenFinenoticeofthehearingandwithoutFine
beingpresentatthehearing.FinewassentnoticebymailonJanuary,23,2008.
Shortlythereafter,Finemadea''specialappearance''intheMarinaStrandcaseand
movedtodismisstheJanuary8,2008,order.JudgeYaffetookthemotion'off
calendar'.OnMarch25,2008,FineservedJudgeYaffewithaCCPj170.3''Objection'
baseduponJudgeYaffe'sadmittinginahearingonMarch2O,2008,thathereceived
paymentsfrom LACounty.ludgeYaffedidnotmakeanyresponsetotheObjection,
whichfailuretorespondautomaticallydisqualifiedhim onApril8,2008,byoperation
ofIawunderCCPj170.3(c)(4).JudgeYaffe,however,refusedtoIeavethecase
relatingtoFine.
Finetoldmethatusually,adayIateforfilingaresponseisforgivenifitisasimple
typeofmistake.TheIawthattheIatefilermustpayattorney'sfeesexiststoprevent
44
Ami
purposefuldelayoftheprocess.Sotofollow theletteroftheIaw,harshandsevere,is
permissible,butthenitisnotmorelturpitudetoremindthejudgethathehimselfis
violatingamoreimportantIaw,byaskinghim torecusehimself.Inaddition,Yaffe
arguedthatFinewaiteduntilYaffehadmadeanadverserulingagainstFinebeforehe
mentionedrecusal.ButearlierFinehadtothinkoftheinterestsofhisclients,MSCII
whowouldnothavewantedtheirIawyertoirritatethejudge.
06/02/08
InJune,2008,JudgeYaf'feruledagainstMarinaStrandColonyontheissueofwhether
thenewleasewithDeIReyShores,whichwaspartoftheproject,wouldbeofa
financialbenefittoLACounty.Atthecontempttrial,itwasshownthatnoevidence
waspresentedinthe'recordHthatapositivefinancialbenefittoLACountywould
occur.R.J.Comer,counselforDeIReyShores,testifiedthathedidnotreview thenew
Ieaseandcouldnotcitetoanyevidenceshowingabenefittothetounty.
The''DraftAmendedandRestatedLeaseAgreement'showedatsection4.4.1thatLA
CountywasgivingDeIReyShoresan$11,050,000LesseeCreditplusaccruedinterest
forthededicationof54Iow-andmoderate-incomeapartmentsintheproject.Under
theMelloAct,DeIReyShoreswasrequiredtodedicatetheseapartmentswithoutany
Iesseecredit.
Alsoatthecontempttrial,FinequestionedJudgeYaffeandgothim toadmitthat
hedidnotconsiderthefactthattwoofthefourSupervisorswhovotedontheShores
projecton05/15/07hadacceptedcontributionsfromtheShorespeople,andsothe
votewasillegal.Yaffesaid,howwouldlknow?Noonebroughtitup.
However,JudgeYafferuledinfavorofrecirculatingtheShoresEIRtoanalyzethe
impactoftheadditional25.000cubicyardsofwastematerialremovalnotmentioned
intheDEIR.
10/10/08
TaxpayerswinappealinSturgeonv.CountyofLosAngeles.Caselaw now confirms
thatpaymentstojudgesbycountiesareillegalundertheCaliforniaConstitution.
12/16/08
OnDecember16,2008,SupervisorsAntonovichandKnabevotedfortheapprovalof
therecirculatedEIRfortheDeIReyShoresProject,afterhavingacceptedcampaign
contributionsfrom DeIReyShores'developers.
OnDecember16,2008,SupervisorGloriaMolinaalsovotedfortheapprovalofthe
recirculatedEIRfortheDelReyShoresProject,doingsoafterhavingaccepted
campaigncontributionstothe''GloriaMolina'Yes'onMeasureUetc-''fundfromJerry
B.Epstein-$1,250.00on10/8/08andDavidLevine-$1,250on10/8/08,withinsix
weeksofthevote.
SupervisorGloriaMolinadidnotdisclosethosecontributionspriorto,oratthetime
ofthehearing.
MaximumcontributionmadebylerryB.Epsteinon8/14/08toAntonovichfor$1,000.
ContributionbyDavid0.Levineon8/15/08toAntonovichfor$1,000.Contribution
byMarinaProperties,LLCon3/18/08(anentitycontrolledbylerryEpstein)toKnabe
16/24
45
for$1000.TheIawforbidscontributionsbeingmadewithinoneyearofavoteona
subjectinwhichthedonorhasaninterestintheoutcome.
Alsoatthathearing,ShoresCounselR.JComermisleadinglyimplied,under
oath,thattheexportedamountofmaterialfromtheShoresprojectwoul
dnot
exceedthe100.000cubicyardthresholdofexpodedmaterialwhichtriggersan
applicationforaconditionalUsePermit.Thus92,000cyoforiginallyexported
materialand25,000cyofnewexpodedmaterialwouldnotexceed100,000cyof
totalexportedmaterial.SomuchfortheintegrityoftheShoresIawyers
11/03/08to01/08/2009Fine'scontempttrial.
Meanwhile,intheMarinaStrandcase,JudgeYaffebothpresidedasthejudgeand
appearedasanadversewitnessinthe''contempt''proceedingsagainstFinewhich
beganNovember3,2008,withanordertoshowcausecontaining16counts.The
''contempt'proceedingwasbaseduponallegationsofactionsoccurringafterJudge
YaffeenteredtheJanuary8,2008,voidorderintheMarinaStrandcase.
Thechargesincluded,butwerenotIimitedto,refusingtorespondtoquestionsata
judgmentenforcementhearing,makingfalsestatementsinpleadings,makingmotions
forreconsiderationofthecourt'sJanuary8,2008,order,directlyandindirectly
attackingtheintegrityoftheLASuperiorCourtandthecourtEludgeYaffe),attacking
theintegrityoftheStateBarCourt,attackingtheintegrityofDeIReyShore'scounsel,
andholdinghimselfouttopracticeIawinviolationofB&PCodejj6126and6127,
despitethefacthehadbeenplacedoninvoluntaryinactivestatusbytheStateBarof
California.
Onthefirstdayoftrial,JudgeYaffetestified,asanadversewitnesscalledbyFine,
thathehadreceivedtheLACountypayments,thatheknewthatLACountyhadcases
beforehim,thathedidnotdisclosethepaymentsonhisForm 700Statementof
EconomicInterestsrequiredtobefiledwiththeStateofCaliforniaunderthePolitical
ReformAct,thathewasaStateofCaliforniaemployeeandanelectedstatejudge
undertheCaliforniaConstitution,thathedidnothaveanyemploymentcontractwith
LACountyoragreementorarrangementtoprovideservicestoLACounty,thathe
reportedtheLACountypaymentsas''income'onhistaxreturns,thathedidnotput
theLACountypaymentsintohis''campaigncontributionsaccount''forhisjudicial
elections,andthatotherthanmakingadecisionregardingtherecirculationoftheEIR
intheMarinaStrandcase,hecouldnotnameanycaseintheIastthree(3)yearswhere
hedecidedthecaseagainsttheinterestsofLACounty.
Aftersevendaysoftrial,JudgeYaffeheld Fine'notguilty'on14countsand'guilty''
on2counts,oneofwhichwasrefusingtoanswerquestionsatajudgment
enforcementexam regardingtheunlawfulordertopayattorney'sfees,andthesecond
ofholdinghimselfouttopracticeIaw.Yaffemadetheserulingsdespitetheillegality
oftheJanuary8,2008,order,andthetestimonyattrialofcounselJoshuaL.Rosenthat
theywerenotrelyingontheJanuary8,2008,ordertoenforcethejudgment,thatthere
wasnootherorderinevidenceforFinetopayfeesorcosts,thefactthatthe
CaliforniaSupremeCourthadnotorderedMr.Fine''inactivey''andneitherstatuterelied
upon''StateBarorders'
17/24
46
AmicusCuriaeBri
efCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,September19,2009
01/16/2009FromtheLosAngelesTimes
L.A.County'schieflanduseplannerisfired
BruceW.Mcctendonsayshethinkshewasterminatedinretatiationforbtowing
thewhistteoncountysupervisors'aides.
ByGarrettTherotf
January17,2009
BruceW.Mcctendon,thechieftanduseptannerforLosAngetesCounty,was
firedFridaybythecounty'schiefexecutive.
McctendonsaidhewascattedtoameetingwithWittiamTFujiokaandtotdhe
wasterminatedfrom his$191,028-a-yearjobasheadoftheDepartmentof
RegionatPtanning.Securityofficerstaterescortedhim outofthebuitding.
FujiokasaidFridaythatpersonrletrutesbarredhimfrom pubtictydisctosingthe
reasonbehindMcctendon'stermination,whichwaseffectiveimmediatety.
Mcctendonhetdthejobfortwoyearsandwittreceiveseverancepayforthe
equivatentofsixmonthsofwork,Fujiokasaid.
Mcctendon,reachedbytetephone,saidhebetievedhehadbeenfiredin
retatiationforbtowingthewhistteoncountysupervisors'aides.Hesaidhehad
givenFujiokainformationthatshowedthataidestothecountysupervisors
routinetysoughttoimproperlyinfluencedecisionsonwhethertopermit
developmentplans.
'l
twasittegat,andtheycangotojaitfordoingit,'saidMcctendon,62.Hesaid
hismeetingswithFujiokainrecentweeksmadeitctearthathewasIikel yto
befired.Hesaidherecentlybeganconsultingwithattorneysinpreparation
forfilingawhistle-blowerretaliationIawsuit...-
January27,2009
TheBOSratifiestheirDecember16decisiontopermittheShoresdevelopment.Their
FinalActionsandSupportingpaperswerenotinorder.Forexample:
ThefinalhearingwasonJanuary27,2009.ThecoveringIetterwaswrittenby
RaymondFortner.Hesi
gnedi
t,buttheIetterreferredtoadi
perentproject.This
wasneverpubliclycorrected,andtheFinalAction,akaMinutes,neverappeared
onIineorweresenttothetestifiers.Whatisgoingonhere?Ina
strangeparallelwithBruceMcclendon,Fodnersoonresignedform hischief
Countycounseloffi
ce.Wherei
stheFinalActi
on?(Note:Thetewasnoposted
FinalActionontheBOSwebsiteforseveralmonths,beforeitappearedwithno
18/24
47
explanationofthedelay.Thisparagraphwascopiedfrom myIetterassistingthe
Audi
tor-controll
er'
sinvestigationoftheBruceMccl
endonfiri
ng.)
SometimebeforetheJanuary27,2009
TheMSCII,ontheadviceoftheirnewcounselRoseZoia,filedanappealtotheportion
ofYafle'sJune2,2008decisionappealingthoseportionsofhisrulingsthatwerefound
againstus.Atthehearing,thejudgehadalreadymadehi sdecisi
on.HetoldtheShores'
lawyersthata28% increaseinexportedmaterialwastoomuchanincreasewithout
havingstudieditsimpact.HetoldourIawyerthattheCountywantedtousetheMarina
asacashcow,andsoanyal ternativeprojectwoul
dearnI
essthanthemaximum
income,andthereforetheal
ternativeprojectsdi
dnotmeetthegoaloftheproposed
project.
AftertheBOSrecertifiedtheEIE,Zoiasuggestedweshouldappealthatrecertification.
TheMSCIIboardofdirectorsdeclinedtodoso.Theymentionedthisinpassingata
generalmeetingoftheassociation.Isaidthattheydidnotmeettheconditionsofthe
Judges'order,andIsaidIwoulddeliveraIettertotheJudge.IwroteupaJocumenton
mywebsitewhichgi vesamorecompletedescriptionoftheissues.Clickonthefirstlink
theretofindmyIettertoYaffe.HisIawclerkstookitintohim andthenreturnedit.The
Judgewouldnotacceptit.IIearnedseveralmonthsIater,tomyamazement,thata
judgegi
vesanorder,andi
snotconcernedwhetheri
ti
sfolowedornot.
Later,theAppellateCourtdeniedourappeal,rulingthatourappealwasmootsincewe
didnotappealtheBOSrecertificationoftheEIR.
02/23/09
''CASupremeCourtOrdersDisbarmentofAttorneyRichard1.Fine''
03/04/09
FinalContemptHearingbeforeJudgeYaffe.Fineheldincontemptafterprosecutionby
R. J.ComerandJoshuaL.Rosen(originallytheattysfortheEpsteins),afteragreement
withJudgeYaffethattheynow alsorepresenthim andthesuperiorcourt.FINE
HANDCUFFEDANDESCORTEDAWAYBYTHREEUNIFORMEDANDSIXPLAINCLOTHES
'WARRANTDETAIL''SHERIFF'SDEPUTIES.
Conclusion
lnviewofthejai
li
ngofRi
chardFine,andthetimelineabove,apredi
ctabl
echai
n
ofeventsoccurred.ThesuccessoftheShoreshasloweredthestandardsofthe
EIR's.TheconsultantsarecreatingEIRswithBaldosinsteadofWaldos.The
errorsareobvious.YounolongesneedtohaveatableofSunelevationsand
azimuthanglesandusetrigonometrytoshowtheshadowstudiesarewrong.AII
youneedtoknowisthatthereisnosuchdayasOctoberSolstice,adaythatwas
themostcriticaldayfortheshadow studypertheEIR,sotheyshowtheshadows
foreveryhouronthatmythicalOctoberday.Thetrafficstudydoesnotincludean
impodantintersectionrightinfrontofmycondoonanyoftheirtraffictripmaps,
19/24
48
AmicusCuriaeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Sattlrday,September19,2009
andusestableswhichimpliesagreatimprovementintheLOSatmost
intersecti
ons.ThehaulrouteforthetrucksoftheWoodfine&Neptuneprojects
andtheShoresbecomesambiguousontheNoiseImpactstudyonpageswith
simultaneouslycrossedoutandunderlinedwords.Theoriginaldocumentisnot
specifiedandinfactthereisnooriginaldocument.theredoesnotseem tobean
intensionofrequestingaConditionalUsePermitforexportingmorethan100,000
cubicyardsofmateri al.theIawyersrepresentingthisprojectarethesameones
whoparticipatedintheContemptactionagainstFine,seekingtodestroyhim and
mi srepresentingthenecessi tyfortheShoresProjecttoapplyforanOff-si
te
transportGrading CUP.ThelawyersfortheShoresarealsotheIawyersforthe
Neptune&Woodfi nprojects.TheirsuccessinDecembertransl atesi
ntoeven
moreextravagantbehaviorinthecurrentElRs,withtheknowledgetheycanget
awaywithanything.SotheShoresstrategyofdestroyingthecareerofFine
throughdisbarmentandbankruptcyhassucceededinfrighteningawayIocal
IawyersandintimidatinghomeownerssuchasMarinaStrandcolonies1,II,111,IV
andenvironmentalgroupssuchastheCoalitiontoSavetheMarina.Andtheir
actionsafterthedisbarringofRichardFineaswellastheirinfluenceatthe
beginningoftheprocess,andtheAggravatedAmbiguityofwhostartedtheBar
investigationofFineandwhypointtothepeoplewhobenefittedmostfrom the
proceedingsagainstFine.
20/24
49
AmicusCuriaeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Saturday,Septemberl9,2009
PROOFOFSERVICE
STATEOFCALIFORNIA,
COUNTYOFLOSANGELES
Iamoancoulieb.Mymailingaddressis'
,.s/(vtcv'
t
)otc...'
v
/lsctzo.p.
u/t....,
'
ù-ecovhpv,
- c'
./
1ElO'
LQ/
l
OnS ber 7 ,2009,1servedtheforegoingdocumentdescribedas
AMICUSCURIAE BRIEF
oninterestedpartiesinthisactionbydepositingatruecopythereof,whichwas
enclosedin asealedenvelope,withpostagef'ullyprepaid,intheUnitedStates
Mail,addressedasfollows:
Richard1.Fine
InmateID#1824367
c/oMen'sCentralJail
21/24
50
Ami
cusCuriaeBriefCaseNo.09-56073Sahzrday,September19,2009
441BauchetStreet
LosAngeles,CA 90012
fqlt
nhar
-
llijr-
ll
-l
tg,
- -gqlai
lAom
CounselforAppell
antSheri
ffofLosAngel
esCounty(LeroyD.Baca):
AaronMitchellFontana
PaulB.Beach
LAWRENCEBEACHALLEN&CHOI,PC
100WestBroadway,Ste.1200
Glendale,CA 91210-1219
CounselforAppellantsJudgeDavidRYaffeandLACountySuperiorCourt:
KevinM.Mccormick
BENTON!ORR DUVAL&BUCKINGHAM
39N.CallforniaStreet
P.O.Box1178
Ventura,CA 93002
ki
n Ci
rcui
tCoudofAppeal
s'
.
Molly wyer,ClerkofCoud
U. S.Couf l-of-A4gea'l s fo-.-r t heNinthCircuit
95SeventhStreet'-- --
'-'-.-. -,
.
-,...
SanFrancisco,CA 94103
Ca<-e-, .09-56073
Ri
D rc
.h
Fainr
d 1.Su'
e's npep.y
ou
rj
t'Thee ar i
m'ff.!.ofLosAngelesCounty,etaI.
.
,
.,
F-TmQ-R.-i
- Qh
-.af-d.
-F.
-i
.
f)p-
(..,
& g. rn
.>= ill i.-,
b-
'
-'
(
,
n
.-''
22/24
51
AmicusCuriaeBri
efCaseNo.09-56073Sattlrday,Septemberl9,2009
Datedthis w'
) dayofSeptember,2009Respectfullysubmitted
:By o
1.J) . Xj-t
,
b : (,
- .'v
DanielHenryGbttlieb
23/24
52
Ami
24/24
53
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Appellant’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Emergency Petition
for Writ of Mandate” is DENIED.
54
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Dr. Daniel Gottlieb’s motion for amicus curiae status and submission of an
amicus curiae brief is DENIED.
55
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s “Motion to Reconsider Clerk’s Denial of Requests for Judicial
Notice” is DENIED. As to the request for judicial notice of California
Government Code §§ 68220 – 68222, however, we note that the request is denied
only because it is unnecessary to request judicial notice of a statute. The panel will
consult the parties’ cited legal authorities in its consideration of this appeal.
56
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2009

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
et al.,
Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2009**

Pasadena, California
Richard Fine appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for
habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
57
The district court correctly concluded that Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge Yaffe’s refusal to recuse himself from Fine’s contempt proceedings was not
“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law” or an “unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see
also Jones v. Ryan, 583 F.3d 626, 636 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review). A judge’s
failure to recuse himself results in a constitutional violation where “the probability
of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be
constitutionally tolerable.” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252,
2257 (2009) (citation and quotation omitted). Fine asserts that Judge Yaffe was
intolerably biased because he received employment benefits from Los Angeles
County, a party to the underlying litigation. However, unlike the circumstances of
Caperton, Judge Yaffe’s receipt of these benefits did not give him a “direct
personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in the matter. Id. at 2259 (citing Tumey v.
Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)). Nor was Judge Yaffe so “personally embroiled” that
he could not preside impartially. Crater v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119, 1132 (9th Cir.
2007). Fine’s argument that he “exposed” Judge Yaffe for receiving “criminal
payments” is belied by a California statute expressly providing that judges “shall
continue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court then paying the
benefits.” See Cal. Gov. Code § 68220; see also Sturgeon v. County of L.A., 84
58
Cal. Rptr. 3d 242 (2008) (rejecting taxpayer’s contention that judicial
compensation was an unconstitutional waste or gift of public funds, but finding
that judicial compensation required statutory prescription).
AFFIRMED.
59
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Office of the Clerk

95 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Information Regarding Judgment and Post-Judgment Proceedings

(December 2009)
Judgment
• This Court has filed and entered the attached judgment in your case.
Fed. R. App. P. 36. Please note the filed date on the attached
decision because all of the dates described below run from that date,
not from the date you receive this notice.
Mandate (Fed. R. App. P. 41; 9th Cir. R. 41-1 & -2)

• The mandate will issue 7 days after the expiration of the time for
filing a petition for rehearing or 7 days from the denial of a petition
for rehearing, unless the Court directs otherwise. To file a motion to
stay the mandate, file it electronically via the appellate ECF system
or, if you are a pro se litigant or an attorney with an exemption from
using appellate ECF, file one original motion on paper.
Petition for Panel Rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40; 9th Cir. R. 40-1)
Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to -3)
(1) A. Purpose (Panel Rehearing):

• A party should seek panel rehearing only if one or more of the following
grounds exist:
► A material point of fact or law was overlooked in the decision;
► A change in the law occurred after the case was submitted which
appears to have been overlooked by the panel; or
► An apparent conflict with another decision of the Court was not
addressed in the opinion.
• Do not file a petition for panel rehearing merely to reargue the case.
B. Purpose (Rehearing En Banc)

• A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following
grounds exist:
Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2009 1
60
► Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain

uniformity of the Court’s decisions; or
► The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or
► The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another
court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a
rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for
national uniformity.
(2) Deadlines for Filing:

• A petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1).
• If the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party in a civil case,
the time for filing a petition for rehearing is 45 days after entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1).
• If the mandate has issued, the petition for rehearing should be
accompanied by a motion to recall the mandate.
• See Advisory Note to 9th Cir. R. 40-1 (petitions must be received on the
due date).
• An order to publish a previously unpublished memorandum disposition
extends the time to file a petition for rehearing to 14 days after the date of
the order of publication or, in all civil cases in which the United States or
an agency or officer thereof is a party, 45 days after the date of the order of
publication. 9th Cir. R. 40-2.
(3) Statement of Counsel

• A petition should contain an introduction stating that, in counsel’s
judgment, one or more of the situations described in the “purpose” section
above exist. The points to be raised must be stated clearly.
(4) Form & Number of Copies (9th Cir. R. 40-1; Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2))
• The petition shall not exceed 15 pages unless it complies with the
alternative length limitations of 4,200 words or 390 lines of text.
• The petition must be accompanied by a copy of the panel’s decision being
challenged.
• An answer, when ordered by the Court, shall comply with the same length
limitations as the petition.
• If a pro se litigant elects to file a form brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-1, a
petition for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc need not comply with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.

61
• The petition or answer must be accompanied by a Certificate of

Compliance found at Form 11, available on our website at under Forms.
• You may file a petition electronically via the appellate ECF system. No
paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise. If you are a
pro se litigant or an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF
system, file one original petition on paper. No additional paper copies are
required unless the Court orders otherwise.
Bill of Costs (Fed. R. App. P. 39, 9th Cir. R. 39-1)

• The Bill of Costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.
• See Form 10 for additional information, available on our website at under
Forms.
Attorneys Fees
• Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1 describes the content and due dates for attorneys
fees applications.
• All relevant forms are available on our website at under Forms or by
telephoning (415) 355-7806.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

• Please refer to the Rules of the United States Supreme Court at
Counsel Listing in Published Opinions

• Please check counsel listing on the attached decision.
• If there are any errors in a published opinion, please send a letter in
writing within 10 days to:
► West Publishing Company; 610 Opperman Drive; PO Box 64526;
St. Paul, MN 55164-0526 (Attn: Kathy Blesener, Senior Editor);
► and electronically file a copy of the letter via the appellate ECF
system by using “File Correspondence to Court,” or if you are an
attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, mail the
Court one copy of the letter.

62
Form 10. Bill of Costs ................................................................................................................................(Rev. 12-1-09)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
BILL OF COSTS
Note: If you wish to file a bill of costs, it MUST be submitted on this form and filed, with the clerk, with proof of
service, within 14 days of the date of entry of judgment, and in accordance with 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. A
late bill of costs must be accompanied by a motion showing good cause. Please refer to FRAP 39, 28
U.S.C. § 1920, and 9th Circuit Rule 39-1 when preparing your bill of costs.
v. 9th Cir. No.
The Clerk is requested to tax the following costs against:
Cost Taxable
REQUESTED ALLOWED
under FRAP 39,
Each Column Must Be Completed To Be Completed by the Clerk
28 U.S.C. § 1920,
9th Cir. R. 39-1
No. of Pages per Cost per TOTAL No. of Pages per Cost per TOTAL
Docs. Doc. Page* COST Docs. Doc. Page* COST
Excerpt of Record $ $ $ $
Opening Brief $ $ $ $
Answering Brief $ $ $ $
Reply Brief $ $ $ $
Other** $ $ $ $
TOTAL: $ TOTAL: $
* Costs per page may not exceed .10 or actual cost, whichever is less. 9th Circuit Rule 39-1.
** Other: Any other requests must be accompanied by a statement explaining why the item(s) should be taxed
pursuant to 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. Additional items without such supporting statements will not be
considered.
Attorneys' fees cannot be requested on this form.
Continue to next page.

63
Form 10. Bill of Costs - Continued
I, , swear under penalty of perjury that the services for which costs are taxed
were actually and necessarily performed, and that the requested costs were actually expended as listed.
Signature
("s/" plus attorney's name if submitted electronically)
Date
Name of Counsel:
Attorney for:
(To Be Completed by the Clerk)
Date Costs are taxed in the amount of $
Clerk of Court
By: , Deputy Clerk
64
1 ltlcl-
l.
xuo 1.FlxE,I.nproper .
2 PrisonerID#1824367 /$ '
% v
-
(% 'Yw
le , ,r
Mpjyy )q,o)
,-
, ,
,r,
u,
, ,
)
.
ts))
,k
c/o Me n,
s Ce ntr
alJai
l tJ..6 ..
3 441BauchetSt reet DE21:7'-7
4 LosAngeles,CA 90012 ogî
% .-..
5 UM TED STATESCOURT OFAPPEALS c m R DAT: m'.''
. j
*,
6
7 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
8
9 RICHARD 1.Flc m CaseNo.09-56073
10
AppellantandPetitioner,
D.C.No.2:09-cv-01914JFW (CW)
11 VS.
12 REQUESTFORJUDICIAI,
NOTICEOFMONTEREY
13 SFIEI UFFOFLOSANGELES COIJNTY JUDGES'PUBLIC
14 COUNTY,etaI, STATEMENTSAGREEWG WITH
AppelleesandRespondents PETITIONER'SARGUMENT1tE
15 INFLUENCESCREATED BY
JUDICIALSOURCESOFINCOME
18
AppellantrespectfullyrequeststhattheCourttakejudicialnoticeofthe
21
recentstatementsmadebyMontereyCountyPresidingJudgeAdrienneGrover
?
andJudgeAlbertMaldonado concemingtheintluencescreated byjudicial
23
sourcesofincome,asreportedbytheMontereyHerald'sarticleofDecember7,
25 2009,towit:
Incommentingontheconstitutionalprohibitionagainstajudge'ssalary
beingreduceddulinghis/hertermofoft
ke,thejournalistreported:
-1
-
65
1 çG
AdrienneGrover,presidingjudgeoftheMontereyColmtySupelior
z Court,saidtheprovisionensurestheindependenceofthejudiciary.
Judgesmighthesitatetoruleagm'nsta1aw pmssedbytheLegislamre
3 andsignedbythegovernoriftheyfelttheirsalariescouldbecutin
4 retaliation.
''
5 ut
M aldonadosaidtheprotectionissocenlaltoAmericanvaluesthat
6 itwasoneof64groundscitedilztheDeclarationofhdependence.''
7
8 JudgeMaldonadowasreferringtocolonists'reasonsforrevolutionagainstKing
9 George1l1,sabusesofpower,whichincluded:11 HehasmadeJudgesdependent
10
11 onhiswillaloneforthetenureofthekoftices,andthenmotmtandpaymentof
12 theirsalaries.''
13
14 Therelevance oftheattached docllmentisthatitcontradictsthefalse
15 inferenceofAppelleesLA SuperiorCourtandJudgeDavidP. YaffethatLA
16
17 Cotmty'spaymentstojudgeshavenoinfluenceonjudges'decisionsincases
18 whereLA Colmtyisapartytoanactionbeforeajudgewho'dreceivedsaid
19
payments,thusJudgeYaffehadno duty to recusehimselffrom theMarina
20
21 Strandcase.
22
23 Thisdoclzmentconstitutefactsnotreasonably subjecttodispute. The
24 articledidnotcometoAppellant'sattentionuntilnow.
25
///
26
27 ///
28
-2-
66
LEGAL STANDARD
A courtmayproperlytakenoticeof''
mattersofpublicrecord''pursuantto
FederalRuleofEvidencesection201totheextenttheyarenotsubjectto
reasonabledispute.Leev.C# qffosAngeles,250F.3d668,689(9thCir.
2001).
CONCLUSION
TheallegationsintheinstantappealandtmderlyingPetition forWrit
HabeasCorpusareinextricablyintertwinedwiththeissuesraisedintheattached
document. Accordingly,thisCourtisentitledtotakejudicialnoticeofthis
document,and Appellanttherefore specifically requeststhatthis Courttake
judicialnoticeofthedocumentidentifiedabove.
Datedthis /6 dayofDecember,2009 Respectfullysubmitted,

21
BY:
RICHARD 1.FINE,
23 InProPer
25
-3-
67
TwoM onterevCountvJudeesDeclinetoDonateDav'sSalarv
ByVAGINIA FIENNESSEY
MontereyHeraldNews-HeraldSalinasBtlreau
Updated:12/07/200910:25:51AM PST
WhenCalifomiacourtswereorderedshutteredonedayamonthduetothestate's
budgetcrisis,SupremeCourtCltiefJusticeRonaldGeorgeencotlragedjudgesto
voltmtarilyrelinquishthatday'
ssalarytoshow solidal'
itywithemployeeswhohad
nochoice.
A1lofMonterey'
sjudgeshavedoneso,donating6.4percentoftheirsalariesto
stateorlocalcoud coffers,excepttwo.JudgeSusr DaupltleandJudgeAlbert
Maldonadosaidtheyhaveoptednottomeetthechallengeforpersonaland
philosophicalrecons.
Dauphinesaidherrecentlyadded%sigmnentoverseeingjuveniledependency
caseshasrequiredhertoworkonthecourt-closureday.Maldonadosaidhe,too,
hascontinuedtoworkand,withadaughteringraduateschool,needsthesalary.
Butbothalsocitedconstimtionalargumentsthatarebeingheardacrossthestate.
'
l'
heCalifomiaconstitutionforbidstheLegislat
urefrom reducingthepayofany
electedofficer,includingajudge,dtuinghisorherterminoftke.
AdrienneGrover,presidingjudgeoftheMontereyCountySuperiorCourt,
saidtheprovisionensurestheindependeneeofthejudiciary.Judgesmight
hesitatetoruleagainstalaw passedbytheLegislatureandsignedbythe
governoriftheyfelttheirsalariescouldbecutinretaliation.
MaldonadosaidtheprotectionissocentraltoAmericanvaluesthatitwasone
of64groundscitedintheDeclara4ionofIndependence.
Thereareotherreasonshe'snotparticipating,Maldonadosaid.
Healreadycontibutestocharities.Hesaidhedoesn' twanttofacilitatecourt
closuresthathamperthecriminaljusticesystem.Andhesaidhedoesn'
twant''my
salarygoingintothedeepholeofthegeneralfund,'wherehugebudgetdeficitsare
predlctedforthenextfiveyears.
Instead,hesaid,hehascontinuedtoworkontheclosureday,usuallyservingas
theonejudgewhoisoncalltoissuearrestwarrantsandprotectiveorders.Among
ltisorderssincetheclosuresbeganitlSeptember,hesaidawasanarrestwarrantfor
arapesuspectandanordertodetainaMontereyHighSchoolsmdentwho'd
threatenedtostabafellow smdentandcutouther7-month-oldfetus.
68
'lbelievemyjobistoprotectthepublicbyshowingupforwork''hesaid.
Whenthestatemandatedcourtclosures,Groversaid,itlehlocalcourtstodecideif
employeeswouldberequiredtotakefurlough.Monterey' scoultsnegotiatedwith
laborunionsfortheunpaidday.
Judgeswerelefttodecideindividuallyiftheywouldworkandwhethertheywould
donateaday'
ssalary.Groversaidshehastoldthejudgeswhoaregivinguppay
thattheyarenotexpectedtowork,thoughshesuspectssomehave.
Someofthosehavedonatedtheirsalariesbacktothestatetrialcourtfund,withthe
expectationitwillbedistributedproportionallytothecourtsinthefuture.Others
optedtodonateitdirectlytothelocalcourts,shesaid.
Dauphinesaidsheisstillweighingheroptions.
'1'
m stillconsideringandmaystilldoit,'shesaid.'ButasItakeonmynew
%signment,1reallyGnd1needmoretimethan1have.'
(Emphasisadded.
)
Source'
.http://- .montereyherald.coenews/ci- l3g3g368?source-ss
69
PROOFOFSERVICE
STATE OFCALIFORM A,
COUNTY OFLOSANGELES
lnm FredSottile. My addressis2601E.VictoriaStreet,# 108,Rancho

Dominguez,CA 90220.
onDecember /5,2009,Iservedtheforegoingdocumentdescribedas
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MONTEREY COUNTY
JUDGES'PUBLIC STATEMENTS AGREEING W ITH PETITIONER'S
ARGUMENTRE INFLIJENCESCREATED BY JUDICG L SOURCESOF
INCOME on interestedpartiesinthisactionbydep-itingatruecopythereof,
which wasenclosed in a sealed envelope,with postage fully prepaid, itlthe
UnitedStatesMail,addressedasfollows:
AaronMitchellFontana KevinM.Mccormick
PaulB.Beach BENTON,ORK DUVM &BUCKINGHAM
LAWRENCEBEACH ALLEN & CHOI,PC 39N.CalifomiaStreet
1* WestBrxdway,Ste.12* P.O.Box1178
Glendale,CA 91210-1219 Ventura,CA 93002
lcertifyanddeclare,underpenaltyofperjuryunderthelawsoftheUlzited
StatesofAmericaand the StateofCaliforniaa thattheforegoing istnzeand
correct.
Executedonthis 1f dayofDecember,2009,atRanchoDominguez,
(2alifornia.
'
F- S>m,-
FltsDsow lt,
:
,d
-a
70
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s “Request for Judicial Notice of Monterey County Judges’ Public
Statements” is DENIED.
71
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2010


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
The panel has voted to deny Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing. Judge
Reinhardt and Judge Wardlaw have voted to deny Appellant’s petitions for
rehearing en banc, and Judge Trott so recommends. The full court has been
advised of the suggestions for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested
a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions
for rehearing en banc are denied. No further motions shall be entertained in this
appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
72
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2010


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify Judges and to Void the Memorandum
Disposition and Other Orders is DENIED.
73

FILED
FEB 18 2010
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner - Appellant,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
v. U.S. District Court for Central
California, Los Angeles
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY; et al., MANDATE
The judgment of this Court, entered December 16, 2009, takes effect this
date.
This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule
41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly C. Dwyer
Clerk of Court
Gabriela Van Allen

Deputy Clerk
74
SupremeCourtoftheUnited States
OfficeoftheClerk
W ashington,DC 20543-0001
WillinmK.Suter
ClerkoftheCourt
April16,2010 (202)479-3011
wlc.
u t
cv
as,oct
'-ef:vikq4w,
ù*e p
Clerk j A'pp
'4Ats
UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinth
Circuit
AN 1,81'1'l
.. :
1' ,
y
.
95SeventhStreet
SanFrancisco,CA 94103-1526
Re: Richard1.Fine
v.LeroyD.Baca,Sheriff,LosAngelesCounty,California,etal.
No.09-1250
(YburNo.09-56073)
DearClerk:
Thepetitionforawritofcertiorariintheaboveentitledcasewasfiledon
March23,2010andplacedonthedocketApril16,2010asNo.09-1250.
Sincerely,
William K.Suter,Clerk
by
ClaytonHiggins
CaseAnalyst
75
a e c = k'kf ESupr D eme CourtoftheUnitedStates
uUo.SLt
-
.y
COcjj
El
yy
wo
vj
yjl
jyjq
Eu
asK Washi
Officon
ngt eoftheClerk
,DC 20543-0001
kIA'J2720: .:
) WillinmK.Suter
ClerkoftheCourt
FILED May24,2010 (202)479-3011
DOCKUED DATE TX -.
INI
Clerk
Circuit
95SeventhStreet
Re: Richard1.Fine
v.LeroyD.Baca,Sheriff,LosAngelesCounty,California,eta1.
No.09-1250
(YourNo.09-56073)
DearClerk:
TheCourttodayenteredthefollowingorderintheabove-entitledcase:
Thepetitionforawritofcertiorariisdenied.
Sincerely,
* p
l
76
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
OfficeoftheClerk
Washinlbn,DC 20543-0001
WillinmK.Suter
ClerkoftheCouz't
July26,2010 (202)479-3011
Clerk
Circuit
95SeventhStreet
Re: Richard1.Fine
v.LeroyD.Baca,Sherifr,LosAngelesCounty,California,etal.
No.09-1250
(YourNo.09-56073)
DearClerk:
TheCourttodayenteredthefollowingorderintheabove-entitledcase:
Thepetitionforrehearingisdenied.
Sincerely,
l
77
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Richard Fine requests that this panel vacate its December 16, 2009, decision
affirming the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Fine asserts
that new information undermines our prior decision.
We affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the state court’s contempt
finding was not “contrary to,” and did not “involve[] an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), because Judge Yaffe’s
refusal to recuse himself did not present a “probability of actual bias . . . too high to
be constitutionally tolerable,” Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct.
2252, 2257 (2009) (quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)). Nothing
78
alleged in Fine’s current petition demonstrates that a constitutionally intolerable
probability of actual bias existed.
Therefore, the petition to vacate the panel’s December 16, 2009, decision is
DENIED.
79
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Judge Reinhardt and Judge Wardlaw have voted to deny Appellant’s petition
for rehearing en banc, and Judge Trott so recommends. The full court has been
advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no active judge has requested
a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
80

09-56073 Richard Fine 9th Circuit Court of Appeal All Orders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

09-56073 Richard Fine 9th Circuit Court of Appeal All Orders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selected docket entries for case 09−56073

Generated: 05/20/2011 06:22:31

Filed Document Description Page Docket Text

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Before: KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge.

that he is probably correct or that there is a substantial likelihood that he is correct

in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is

assessment of his constitutional claims “debatable.” (Id. at 338.) Accordingly,

appellant is granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the trial

to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a completed CJA Form 23. Failure

The Clerk shall serve a copy of CJA Form 23 on appellant.

will be set upon disposition of the motion.

Appellant’s remaining motions and requests will be addressed by separate

CHARGE/OFFENSE (describe if applicable & check box ÿ) G Felony

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING ABILITY TO PAY

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

29 and 30 and August 6, 2009, are ordered filed.

Appellant's request for a certificate of appealability is addressed by separate

Appellant's remaining motions and requests – including his request for

immediate release pending appeal – are hereby denied.

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order denying his

request for immediate release pending appeal is denied.

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Before: TASHIMA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Appellant's second motion for immediate release is denied. No further

motions for immediate release pending appeal shall be filed or entertained.

No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order

shall be filed or entertained.

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Appellant’s “emergency motion to immediately grant writ of habeas corpus

To the extent appellant seeks expedited consideration of this appeal, that

under 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2.

FOR THE COURT:

By: Sunil N. Rao

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

The Answering Brief submitted by Appellee Sheriff of Los Angeles County

FOR THE COURT:

By: Liora Anis

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner.

Appellant’s September 17, 2009 and October 6, 2009 motions seeking