9th Circuit Appeal - Dkt 17 - Appellant's Opening Brief - 9th Circuit Appeal

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 1 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

UNIW DSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS

RMUOE LLYccRD E wY1 ERVCLERKD . s.COII TOFAôPEALS

FORTHENINTHCmCIJIT

Atlp3120% FILED--DOCKETED

RJC

1.FINE, AppellantandPetitioner,

--. -DATE INI TI AL

CaseNo.09-56073

D.C.No.2:09-cv-019l4JFW (CW)

VS.

SY RIFFOFLOSANGELES COUNTY,eta1, AppelleesandRespondents

APPELLANT'SOPEM NG BRIEF RICHARD 1.FINE PrisonerID #1824367 c/oMen'sCenkalJail 44lBauchetStreet LosAngeles,CA 90012 ProSe

Case: 09-56073

15

18 19 20 21 23

08/31/2009

Page: 2 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

Case: 09-56073

l a 4 5

08/31/2009

Page: 3 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

(2. -l-l1etllll-kltltl -A,t)stltrlclftrtisrrlEtrl(1Ettklrectlsftl......................-...................................-.........-37 l.Theunconstltutlonal,lllegalcnmlnalpa entsmandaterecusal.........................3 2.Thechargesofattackingtheintegrityofthecourtmandaterecusal....................3

3 Recusalisman tedbecauseJudgeYaffeisjudgi nghisownact1 'ons..................38

7

21.Jtltlé;tllfKftt-t%tl'SklllAllftlilrrltllltrrlEtlltllttklSrtltlIISEtl.............-.......................-....-.-.........36) 5.Recusalismandatedbecausethesystem ofalocalgove entwhoisapa

8

toacasemyingthejudgeofthecasehasbeenheldadem' alofdueprocess.......39

6

9 (2()lltlllzs1 -()11.....................-........................................-......................................................................41 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-

-i ii-

'

* '

Case: 09-56073

l

08/31/2009

Page: 4 of 48

I

DktEntry: 7047502

I

2 3 4 ases t) <11-l -#r ()l1As (;tl ().A?. ItArtl1 'e,Zl75 .é5.EI13.......-.....-..........-.....---.....-.............-.....-...-.........-.1 5 a rtonpeta1,v- .T. sey oal o.,lnc,etal,566 .S. (2009)-.........................passi 6 7 i 1)S()l1A/.tl 111 11,Z l11 .é ;.é;t$2 1,5:7:5(16):r3)....................................-.-.....-......................321,dl( ) 8 11Ar. f t rlct lr,ti6) Et 1.1, 11. 21th11 S5t$,EI211(16/216)).......................................................................13 9 ln e Ch1 'son,349 .S.133,136(1955) 3,35,38 10 11 'naSt rand olony11 omeo ers ssociationv. o ofLos ngeles, 12 13 C tlr l)t l Ar.l Dtll 'ls lft ll1 'i t,21()() .6;.Zl55(16 ): ?1)....................-....................................8,6 ),1() 14 )! j -d12/ S geonv. o ofLos ngeles,167 a1.pp. 4tik630(2008)arev.deme 23/08..........1,2 16 1r11133t l)/5f. llit)a1571 3 .1 5.151()(16) :41 7).........-.....-...-.....................-.......-............-.................I)E tSS1 17 (1Nr. 1 -llétért ,()l- ()( )t )&rill() ,zl()6) .é 9.157(1f), 7: 2).............-............................1s;!1,5 3: 3,S421,zl() 18 t flçl -llyZ l111 -é !.: !5aZ 1e /(16)* 71 $).......................................-......-......................5: !,321,3ts 1 - ()5NrAC. C 19 20

21

25 26 27 28

tutes

ltl1 f() Et tls1 -C1() SS ltl1 -1 D () r1 3l ' 1t 11S1 l:() ss C tl1 -t ()1 ' é t tlsilztlss alifomia usiness

llrtltk lSS1 -( )!1s ()(1ej *Z1& /3((l).....................................-..............................; !( ) l7rtlt t lSs1 -( )11S ()(lejt$()i lZl................................................................;!; ! 17r()tt )ss1 ()l )s ()cl()jti1:?ts........................................................1t$,; !1 5,é l() Professions odej6127(b) 25

-'

e.-.........-.....-.-.....................................-........................................21.44 1 -.'i 1. tli() eso ces ()cl. .t): I' l' . l( . l . a1:: .t' -I V-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 5 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 6 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 1. lntroduction 2 3

' IhiscaseisaclassicexampleoftheactionsofajudgewhîchSupremeCottrt

4 caseshave consistently held to be a denialofdue processassuch itoffera 5 6 7

possibletemptationtotheaverage...judgeto ...leadhim nottoholdthe balancenice,clearandtnze''.(Capertonv.,4.XMassevCoalCo.,etal,566U.S. 8 (2009)decidedJune8,2009,SlipOpinionpage16(quotingAetnaLi felns. 9 Co.v.Ltnwjc,475US8l3,825(1986)nquotingWardv.Monroeville,409U.S. 10 11 57,60(1972),inttu' nquotingTumevv.Ohio,273U.S.510,532(1927).) 12

ln this.case,LosM gelesCotmty SuperiorCourtJudgeDavidP.Yaffe

13 14

(alongwith al1otherLosAngelesCountySupeliorCourtjudges)received 15 $467300peryearfrom LosAngelesCotmty(hereinafterKCLA County'l. This 16 17

payment was paid as '' M egaFlex'' benefits, a professional development

18 allowanceandacontributiontohis40l(k)plan.' I' heûtMegaFlex''benefitsand 19 20

theprofessionaldevelopmentallowancecouldbetakenincash. Thepayments

zl weremadetoG&attractandretainqualifiedpeopletoserveasjudgesinthis(LAj 22 county''. (seeSturgeonv. Counp( lé/vo, gAngeles,l67Cal.App.4th630(2008), 23

24 rev.deniedl2/23/08,forah storypfpayments.) .i 25 JudgeYaffeanda1lSuperiorCourtjudgesarestateemployeesandare 26 27

electedeverysixyearsundertheCalifomiaConstimtion.' Fheirûûcompensation''

28 is setby the Califomia Legislattzre underArticle V1,Section 19,of the --l-

:

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 7 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l CalifomiaConstitution. TheLA Countypaymentsareapproximately 28% of 2 3

theirstatesalaryof$178,800' ,withtheLA Cotmtypayments,andtheirstate

4 benefitsandtheLA Countypayments,theLA SuperiorCourtjudgesreceive 5 approximately $249,000peryear. (LA Cotmty'spaymentstojudgeswere 6

7 recentlyreportedashavingbeenincreasedto $57,026,or32% oftheirstate 8 Salal y.See,forexnmple,theDailyBreeze'sJtme6,2009,editorialGKAQuestion 9 10

ofJudmn nt''athttpr /o w.dailv eeze.com/editorial/ci-l2537056.) G e =/ rbr

11

TheSturgeoncaseheldthattheLA CountypaymentsviolatedArticleVl,

12 13

Section l9,ofthe Califomia Constitution. Subsequentthereto,Senate Bill

14 CCSBXZ 115 '7 written by the JudicialCotmcilofCalifomia,was enacted on 15 February20,2009.Suchbillgaveretroactiveimmtmityfrom itseffectivedate 16 17

ofMay21,2009,toa11judges,amongstothers,from criminalprosecution,civil i8 liability and disciplinary action on thepotmdthattheçç benefits''judicial 19 paymentsjEûwerenotauthorizedunderlaw''.SenateBillLL SBXZ11''wasastate 20 21 statuteanddidnotaffectFederallaw ortherightsundertheU.S.Constitution.

22

TheLA Cotmtypaymentshavebeenoccurringsincethe1980s(Sturgeon,

23

24 supra).LA SuperiorCourtjudgeshavecontinuouslypresidedoverLA County 25 CaSeS. senate BillûtSBXZ ll''hasprovided thatcounty paymentsshould 26 27 28

continueastheyexisted,wit, ha180-dayterminationnotice,exceptastothose

.

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 8 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l judgescurrently serving. ' I' he constimtionality oftLSBXZ 11''underthe 2 3

CaliforniaConstimtionisnotbeforethiscourt. 4 TheactionsofJudgeYaffe,however,ofreceivingLA Countypaymentsin 5 6 7

J

addition tohisstatesalaryandbenefits,wllileLA Cotmtywasapartybefore him inthetmderlyingcaseofMarinaStrandColony11HomeownersAssociation

8 V.CONnlvofluosAngeles(LASCcaseno.BSl09420. )Makinganorderinfavor 9 10

ofLA Countyforappellanttopayattorney'sfeesandcoststoLA Countyandits

11 co-applicantforanEnvironmentalImpactReport(E& E1R'')withoutnoticeto 12 13

Appellant,withoutAppellantpresentatthe hearing,and in violation ofthe

14 PublicResourcesCode,andthenpresidingatacontemptproceedingtorequire

15 Appellanttoparticipateinjudgmentdebtorproceedingsincludingincarcerating 16 17

AppellantuntilhedisclosedhisassetsisbeforethisCourt.

18

TheSupremeCourtprecedenthasbeen crystalclearfrom Tumey supra,

19 20

through Caperton,supra. ' l' he payments from LA Cotmty to Judge Yaffe

21 mandatehisrecusalinboththeMarinaStrandcaseandthecontemptcase. k2

23 24

'

Further,hecannotjudgehisown actsin the contemptcase(1n Re Murchison,349U.S.133,136(1955),citedinCa-perton,juprwSl aipOpinionat

25 Pzge10. 26 27 28

--3-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 9 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l H.StatementofJurisdiction. 2 3

ThejurisdictionoftheDistrictCourtwmsbasedupon28U.S.C.j2254 4 (PetitionforWritofHabeasCorpusbyPersoninStateClzstody). Appellant 5 Richard1.Fine(hereinafter'' Fine'')hasbeeninthecustodyofLA Cotmty 6 7

SheriffLeroy D.Baca since March 4,2009,having been found guilty of

B contemptofcourt. Heisbeing heldwithoutbail, foran indefmiteterm and 9

10 withoutany scheduled courtappearance. (See Judgmentand Order of 11 Contempt,SectionV,Subsection4,page14,ExhibitILC''tothePetitionforWrit 12 13

ofHabeasCorpus,Dkt.#1.çç Mr.Fineissentencedtoconfmementinthecounty

14 jailuntilheprovidesa1loftheinformationhehasbeenorderedtoprovide...'') 15

A CertificateofAppealabilitywasgrantedonAugust12,2009,tmder28

16

17 U.S.C.j2253(c)andFed.R.App.proc.22(b),therebyestablishing appellate 18 jurisdiction. 19 20 21 22

111. Theappealistimelvandfrom afinalorder.

TheDistictCourtentereditsjudgmentonJtme30,2009(D1d.#30).A 23 NoticeofAppealwastiledonJuly1,2009(Dkt.#34). 24 25 26 27

1V. State-mentofissuespresentedforreview. The issue presented for review as set forth in the Certificate of

28 Appealabilityis:

Case: 09-56073

l

08/31/2009

Page: 10 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

WhethertheGaIjudgeshouldhaverecusedhimself. ' Fhisissuewasspecitically addressed in theGrotmdsinthePetition for

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

15

Wl' itofHabeasCorpus(hereinafterthe''Petition''),Grounds1,2and6. TheRespondent(SherifgdidnotanswerthePetition.Instead,theSheriff movedGltodisrnissorinthealternativerequestthatthiscourtdirectrealparties

ininteresttorespond...''.(Dkt.#12).Suchmotionwasdeniedasmoot.(Dk1. #30). Priortosuchdenial,withoutseekingleavetointervene,norfilinganotice ofinterestedparties,theLA SuperiorCourtandJudgeYaflbfiledaûtResponse''

andlreclarationofKevinMccormickinSupportofResponse''(Dkt.#15and #16).Neitherofthesedocllmentsopposedorcontestedthegrounds,factsor claimssetforthinthePetition.

lntheDistrictCourt,theSheriffdefaultedontheissuebynotanswering. lntheDiskictCourt,theLA SuperiorCourtandJudgeYaffewerenotparties. However,eveniftheywere,theyconcededtheissuebynotopposingitandnot contestingit. Despitethelack ofopposition,theDistrictCourt,on itsown accord,in

violationof28U.S.C.j2243,andwithoutcitationtotherecord,heldthatJudge Yaflbdidnothavetorecusehimself.(SeeDkt.#25-2,pages14-22. )

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 11 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1

lnparticular,theDistrictCourtdidnotmentionGround6ofthePetition,

2 3

Part3,which stated that ûipetitionerwas denied due process because the

4 January8,2008,Order was entered withoutnotice to Fine and Fine being 5 6

presentatthehearing,makingsuch ordervoid. JudgeYaffewasdecidingthe

7 legalityofhisownvoidOrderinthecontemptproceeding.

8 9

F11rther,theDistrictCourtreliedonthejudgmenttoestablishûifacts,''when Addendum 8tothePetition,wasnotopposed,sholedtheseL'facts''tobetmtrue.

10 >, 11 ThisactbytheDistrictCotlrtviolated28U.S.C.j2243,whichrequiredthe 12 13

DistrictCourttohaveahearingiftherewasadisputebetweenthefactsinthe

14 PetitionandtheResponse.Asnosuchdisputeoccurred,theDistrictCourtcould 15 16

notrelyontheJudgmentwhichwasdisputedbythePetitionandnotcontested

17 byanyresponse. 18 Additionally,atpage 19,theDistrictCourtcitesto thetçorderStriking 19 20

Notice,''Exhibit&IB''totheDeclaration ofKevinMccormick. Thisdocument

21 wasnotanexhibitinthecontempttrialandonitsfacewasneverservedonFine. 22 Also,atpagel9,foomotel1,theDistrictCourtcitestoaSeptember19,2008, 23

24 StateBarOpinionwhichwisalsonotanexhibitatthecontempttrial.(' Fhisis 25 a1sotruefortheitemsinfoomote4atpage6,andfoomote7atpage9. ) 26 27

Finally,the DistrictCourtttmakesup''arecord by making statements

28 attributed totheççrecord''withoutcitation,atpages21,lines24-26 -- çûl-he

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 12 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

record showsthatJudgeYaffegavePetitioneramplewarning aboutpossible contemptsanctionsforhisactions ...''' ,andatpage22,lines23-25 çuudge YaffewaspatientandprofessionalindealingwithPetitionerwhilecarryingout

ltisjudicialdutiesandvindicatingthepropertyauthorityofhiscourt.'' Grolmd 1ofthePetition claimedthatFinewasdenied dueprocessand Judge Yaffe should have recused himself because Fine was charged with 11

criticizingJudgeYaffeinmanyways,including(1)attackingtheintegrityof JudgeYaffeand theLA SuperiorCourt(seeOrderto Show Causedated November3,2008(û&OSC'')exhibittoPetition)(SeeAddendllm toParapaph7 ofPetition,page405' ,(2)takingunconstimtionalpayments9om LA Countyand simultaneously heming cases in which LA County is a party and making decisionsinfavorofLA ColmtyasintheMarinaStrandcaseandthenenforcing

21

thosedecisionsincontemptproceedings(seeOSC' ,seeAddendum toparagraph 7ofPetition,page4-5), 'and(3)thecriminalactoftakingpaymentsfrom LA County (see SenateBill' tSBXZ 11''enacted Febnlary 20,2009,effective May2l,2009,AppendixtoPetition,page176, .seeReporter'sTranscliptdated January22,2009,page165ofAddendum toPetition;seeSentencingTranscript datedMarch4,2009,Exhibit''D''toMccormickDeclaration,pagel7,linel8

throughpage25,line4,Dkt.#l6).

Case: 09-56073

1 2 3

08/31/2009

Page: 13 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

CitingtotheSturgeoncaseandSenateBillûûSBXZ1l''7theDistlictCourt acknowledgedatpagel7,lines12-19,inrelevantpart:

4

...thus the state legislature has reaffmned the practice in

5 6 7

q uestion(countypaymentstojudgesq,.setstandards,andprovided . lmmtmitytogovernmentalemployeeshudges)whomightotherwise besubjectedtosuit,(criminallprosecution,ordisciplinaryactionon thegrotmdsthatthepriorcountybenetitsforjudgeswereillegal.

8

Petitioner is correctthatthe courtofappealfound thatthe mannerinwhichthecotmtypreviouslyprovidedadditionalbenefitsto

9

judgeswastmconstitutional....

10

Upon theseclearfactsandwithoutany referenceto any SupremeCourt

11 12

caseoranyprecedent,theDistictCourtrefusedtorequirerecusalonGrotmd1.

13

DtlringthecaseandbeforetlzeMagistrateJudgehadmadeherReportand

14 15

Recommendation(thelAepolf'l(Dk4.#25-2,adoptedbytheDistrictCourt, 16 Dk4.#29and#30),FinehadinformedboththeMagistrateJudgeandtheDistrict 17 CourtoftheSupremeCourt,srecentCaperton decision wherein theSupreme 18

19 Courtheldthatalegitimates3-million-dollarcontributionbyapotentiallitigant 20 tothecampaigncommitteeofan ultimatelysuccessfulcandidatefortheWest 21 22

23

VirginiaSupremeCourtmandatedhisrecusalfrom theconkibutor'scase.

Additionally,theDistrictCourtdidnotaddressthecaseofMayberrvv.

24 25

Pennsvlvania,400U.S.455(1971),raisedinthePetitioninGrolmdlfor-the 26 propositionthatacriticizedjudgecmmotjudgehisownactions. 27

' I' heDistrictCourtdidnothaveanylegalprecedentto deny recusalon

28

Ground1. --8-

:

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 14 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1

Ground2ofthePetitionstatedttdenialofrighttoanimpartialadjudicator''

2 3

because Judge Yaffe was ûû personally embroiled''in the proceeding. The

4 Grotmd stated that lûhe was personally accused of tnking unconstimtional 5 6

payments from a party and these accusations gave rise to the contempt

7 proceeding.JudgeYaffe'sconductshowedhefelttheemotionalandfmancial 8 stingoftheacctusation.' '(SeePetition-Ground2.) 9 TheAddendum toParapaph 7ofthePetition setforthfurtherfactsand 10 11 legal arpzments and incorporated page references to flpetitioner's brief 12 13

supportinghisPetitiontotheCaliforniaSupremeCourt''attachedasExhibit&QE''

14 to the Petition. lncluded in such were Judge Yaffe's refusalto leave the 15 tmderlying Marina Strand case afterhisdisqualification, hisappointmentoç 16 17

attomeyswhohadafmancialinterestin theunderlying casetoprosecutethe

18 contempt,andhisemotionalinvolvementinvindicating hishurtfeelingsand 19 20

angeragainstFine. In theOSC,hesignedmzillegalprosecution forattacking

21 theintegrityofthecourtgludgeYaffelwhichviolatedCCP jl2ll(a)(11), 22 23

which statesthatacontemptchargecnnnot1ieforthe tiling ofany pleading

24 criticizingajudge.' l' heGroundalsocitedto0@/v.UnitedStates,348U.S.11 25 (jpjy;. 26 27

TheDistrictCourtdidnotrespondtothespecificfactsin Ground2 and

28 citedtoMqvberly,supra,butwrongfullyaddressedthespecificcommentsofthe

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 15 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l lawyer. (Seepages20-22.) Thiscaseonlyconcemsoneofthecontempt 2 3

chrges.ltisJudgeYaffe'sreactiontosuchwrittenpleadingssuchassigning

4 antmlawfulOSC forattackingtheintegrityofthecourqandsigninganOSCto 5 6

enforcehisownillegalandcriminalconductoftakingmoneyfrom LA County,

7 apartytoacasebeforelzim inwhosefavorheissuedavoidOrderthatshowshis 8 &:emtsojjment7:. 9 10

TheDistrictCourtdidnotaddressthesefacts,anddeniedGrotmd2despite

11 theprecedentofMqvberl,suprw andOfut,supraamandatingrecusal.Other 12 13

examplesoflçembroilment''aresetforthintheStatementofFacts.

14

Insllmmary,neithertheSheriff,theLA SuperiorCourtandJudgeYaffe

15 16

northeDistrictCourtsetforthanyfactualorlegalbasistoopposeJudgeYaffe,s

l7 recusal.

18 V. Statementofease:proceedinasanddecisioninDistrictCourt. 19 2c

21

A.Statementofcase. Thisisanappealfrom adenialofaPetitionforWritoj-uabeasCopusina

22

23 contemptproceeding.' FhejudgeinthecontemptproceedingwasLA Superior 24 CourtJudgeDavid P.Yaffe,an elected statejudgeundertheCalifornia 25 26

Constitution.lnadditiontohisstatesalary,hehadreceivedpaymentsf' rom LA

27 Countyknownasûllocaljudicialbenefits''.In2008,thesepaymentsamountedto 28 approximately$46,300peryear(seeSturgeon,supra)orapproximately28% of -- 1 0--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 16 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 hisstatesalaryof$178,800peryear. Sturgeon,supraaheld thatthese 3

CountypaymentswereunconstitutionalasaviolationofArticleVl,Section 19, oftheCaliforniaConstitmion. Such Article statesin relevantpart: l'The Legislature shallprescribe

compensationforjudgesofcourtsofrecord.'' Sturgeonalsoheldthatthelegislamre'sdutywasnotdelegable. ln responsetoSturgeon,supra,SenateBillQûSBXZ 11''wasenactedon

z r . . t ' 3 q. .

February 20,2009,and became effective on May 21,2009. Such Bill

recognizedthattheLA Countypaymentsandal1ççlocaljudicialbenefits''were criminalactsandprovided immlmity from criminalprosecution,civilliability

anddisciplinaryactiontoa1lgovernmentalemployees,includingjudges. SenateBillLCSBXZ11''statedinrelevantpart: Notwithstandinganyotherlaw,no governmentalentity,orofficeror employee ofa governmentalentity,shallincurany liability orbe

subjectto prosecution ordisciplinary action because ofbenefits providedtoajudgetmdertheofficialeffectivedateofthisactonthe

groundthatthosebenetitswerenotauthorizedunderlaw. SenateBill11SBX2 l1''alsoextendedthebenetitsasofJuly 1,2008,to

judgesthenreceivingbenefits,withal80-dayterminationpotice,exceptasto thosejudgesservingacurrentterm.T' heBilldidnotobligatethestateorthe JudicialCounciltopayforbenefitspreviouslyprovidedbythecolmty,cityand

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 17 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l county,orthecourt. (SeeSenateBillQLSBXZ 11''7page176,Appendixto 2 3

4 5 6

Petition.) lnhistestimonyatthecontempttrial,JudgeYaffeadmittedthathewas receivingpaymentsfrom LA County,thathedidnotdisclosesuchonhisForm

7 700 StatementofEconomic Interest,thathe did nothave any employment 8 G eementOrarfangementtoPCrfOn11SeW iceswithLA Countyand,excluding 9 10

hisdecision regarding the ç'dirt''in the Marina Strand case,he could not

11 rememberany caseinthelastfiveyearsthathedecided againstLA County. 12 13

(SeeReporter'sTranscriptdated12/22/08,pagel55etseq.ofAppendixto

14 Petition.) 15

The takl . ng of the money from LA County, which was both

16 17

tmconstimtionaland a criminalact,mandated Judge Yaffe's recusalunder

18 Califomialaw intheMarinaStrandcasewhereLA Cotmtywasaparty,andthe 19 20

contemptproceedingwherellisactionsandordersinfavorofLA Countywere

21 theb%esoftheproceeding.

22

Canon2oftheCalifomiaCodeofJudicialEthicsstatesthatajudge:t , shall

23

24 avoidtheimproprietyandtheappearanceofimproprietyina1lofthejudge's 25 activities.' '' lhecommentarytothisCanonprovidesanobjectivetestforthe 26 anceofimpropriety:thequestionisnotwhetherthejudgeisactt zally 27 appear 28 bi%ed,butççwhetheraperson awareofthefactsmightreasonably entertain a --l 2--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 18 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l doubtthatthejudgewouldbeabletoactwithintegrity,impartiality,and 2 competence.''(See,e.g.,Hallv.Harker,69Cal. App.4t h836,841(1999).) 3 4

Judge Yaffeengaged in criminalactsby taking thepaymentsfrom LA

5 6

.mmtmityprovidedby SenateBill'û Cotmty. Butforthel SBXZ ll''7hewould

7 havebeenprosecutedandremovedfrom thebenchforsuchacts.ltisclearthat

B t:apersonawareofthefactsmightre%onablyentertainadoubtthatthejudge 9 Yaffelwouldbeabletoactwithintegrity,impartiality,andcompetence.'' 10 ( 11

JudgeYafferefusedtorecusehimselfintheMarinaStrand cmse,refused

12 13

to transferthecase orttvoid''hisunconstitutionaland void orders,and was

14 disqualified(seeMotion,TrialExhibit1û1A''7page31,etseq.,Appendixto 15 16 17

Petition',see TrialExhibitûû9''forcopyofJanuary 8,2008,Order,page67et seq.,AppendixtoPetition, 'seeTrialExhibittûl4''forMotiontoVoid,pagel16,

18 etseq.,AppendixtoPetition' ,andseeTrialExhibittQ1''forDisqualificationof 19 20

JudgeYaffe,page143,etseq.,AppendixtoPetition).Hestillrefusedtoleave

21 andpresidedoverthecontemptcase. 22 JudgeYaffeknew thathecouldnotpresideoverthecontemptcase. (See 23

24 Reporter'sTranscriptdatedJanuary22,2009,page 165,AppendixtoPetition, ' 25 sentencingTranscript,pagel7,line l8throughpage26,line3,ExhibitLûD''to 26

27 MccormickDeclaration,Dk4.#16-5.) 28

--1 3--

.

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 19 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1

B. ProceedingsanddecisioninDistrictCourt.

2 3

TheproceedingsintheDistrictCourtviolated28U.S.C.j2243.

4

' l' hePetitionwasfiledonMarch20,2009.' lheMagistrateJudgeviolated

5 6

!

28U.S.C.j2243andwaitedlmtilAplil7,2009,toordertheSherifftofilean

7 answeronAplil21,2009,insteadoforderingaresponsetoanOSC Qûforthwith''.

8 (SeeDkt.#6) OnApril9,2009,Finefiledan ExParteApplication and 9 10

Memorandum forOrderforlmmediateReleasePendingDecisiononPetitionfor

11 WritofHabe% CorpusandAppeal. (SeeDk't.#9) OnApril9,2009,the 12 13

MagistrateJudgeorderedtheSherifftorespondtotheExParteApplication on

14 or before April 17,2009. The Sheriff never responded. The Ex Parte 15 Applicationshouldhavebeengrantedforlackofopposition. 16

17

OnApril21,2009,theSheriffdidnotfileananswerorûtcertifylingjthe

18 truecauseofdetention''orttshow causewhythewritshouldnotbegranted''as 19 20

requiredby28U.S.C.j2243.lnstead,hefiledaNoticeoflnterestedParties 21 designatingonlytheSheriffandFine(Dkt.//11)andaMotiontoDismissorin 22 23

theAlternativeThatThisCourtDirecttheRealPartieslnlnteresttoRespondto

24 Petitioner'sHabeasCorpusPetition.(Dk4.#12) 25

OnApril23,2009,theMagistrateJudgedirectedFinetofileanopposition

26 27

byMay 1,2009,anddirectedtheLA SuperiorCourtandJudgeYaffeand'rel

28 Rey Shores Joint Venture'' and ûrel Rey Shores Joint Venture North'' -- l 4--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 20 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 (hereinaftercollectivelyreferredtoasçrelReyShores'')tofileananswerby 2 3

Mayl,2009.TheMay1,2009,dateviolatedthe20-daylinlitationof28U.S. C.

4 j2243,whichexpiredonApril27,2009.Additionally,theDistrictCourtdid 5 6 7

8

:

nothavejurisdictionovertheseentities. FinetiledanoppositiononApril24,2009.(Dk't.//14) TheSheriffsMotionwasultimatelydeniedasmootbytheDistrictCourt

9

10 judgeonJune30,2009.(Dk4.#30) 11

On May 1,2009,the LA Superior Courtand Judge Yaffe filed a

12 13

ûçResponse''(mislabeledinthedocketasanç'answef')andaDeclarationof 14 KevinMcconnick.(Dk4.#15and#16) 15

OnMay5,2009,theMagistrateJudgeeitherdeterminedthattheResponse

16

17 didnotraiseanissueoffactwiththePetitionorviolated28U.S.C.j2243as 18 shedidnotscheduleahemingwithPetitionerpresenttodisputeanyfactsinthe 19 20

Response.lnsteadshegaveFinetmtilMay22,2009,toreplytotheResponse

21 andthenwouldtakethematlerundersubmissionwithoutoralargument.(Dkt. 22 #19) 23

24

On May 5,2009,the Magistrate Judge struck the Opposition to the

25 sheriff'sMotion. 26 27

On May 14,2009,Fine filed hisResponse in SupportofPetition and

28 RequestforImmediateReleaseFrom Custody.(Dk4.//24) --l j--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 21 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

On June 12, 2009, the Magiskate Judge filed her Report and 2 3

RecommendationtodenythePetition.(Dkt.#25-2)TheReportindicatedthat

4 shehadnotreadtheentirePetition. ShestatedthatthePetitionhadonlytive 5 6

pounds(page10,line28-pagel1,line1)whenithadseven.Shestatedthat 7 thecontemptproceedingdidnothaveacriminalcharge(page14,lines3-6) 8 WhentheOSC (page1,etseq.,AppendixtoPetition,page3,paragraph l6) 9 howsacriminalchargetmderB&PCodej6126.Further,asshownabove,she 10 s ll referencedtofalseûtfacts''byquotingfrom thedisputedjudgment,docllments 12 13

whichwerenotinthettrecord''ofthecontemptproceedingandttmakingup''her

14 ownrecord. ShealsoomittedtodiscussrelevantprecedentsuchasCaperton, 15 SUPra. 16

17 FinetiledhisobjectionstotheReport.(Dkt.#26)OnJune20,2009,the 18 DistrictCourtJudgeacceptedtheRepol' tandenteredjudgment.mkt.#29and 19 20

//30).

21 Fine filed a Notice of Appeal and a Request for a Certit icate of 22 Appealability,whichwasdenied(Dk4.#34).Finet iledanExParteApplication 23

24 tobereleasedpendingtheappeal,whichwasdenied(Dk1.#37). 25 26 27 28

on August 127 20097 the Courtof Appealgranted the Certit icate of Appealability.

<

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 22 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 V1. Statementoffactsrelevanttoissues. 2

a 4

A.ActionsrelatedtoFine. Fineisaprominentattorneywhohaspracticed over45yearsin various

5 6

State and Federalcourts throughoutthe colmtry. He isa graduate ofthe

7 University ofWisconsin,theUniversityofChicagoLaw Schooland holdsa 8 9

Ph. D.inlnternationalLaw from theUniversityofLondon-LondonSchoolof

10 EconomicsandPoliticalScience. 11 Finehasbeen involvedin manyhigh-profilecasesachievingresultsfor 12 13

taxpayersandcitizens. Asexamples: AD v.United Way- requiredUnited

14 way to allow donorsto designatethecharity to receivetheircontributions, ' 15 16

CSEA v.Matsushitaaeta1,--restructured the consumerservice industry in

17 CaliforniatmdertheSong-BeverlyActwhenthestaterefusedto enforcesuch' , 18 19 %

MalibuVideov.Wilsonandothercases-returnedandsavedtnpayersover$1 billion ofmoniestakenbystate,countyandmunicipalgovernmentsfrom trust

21 and specialfunds, andWhitev.Davis(HowardJarvisTupayersAssoc.v. 22 23

Colmell)-prohibitedtheStateofCalifonziafrom payinganybillswithoutan 24 appropriation(i.e.,budget). ' 25 26

FinehadalsobroughtandfoughtthecasesofHenv.CityofLosAngeles,

27 eta1,--involvingtheflrstterroristkillingataU.S.airpol 't,andlAM v.OPEC28 involvingpricefixingbytheOPEC countries. --1 7--

;

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 23 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l

Fine was with the U.S.Departmentof Justice in Washington,D.C.,

2 3

founded theftrstmunicipalantitrustdivision in theU.S.fortheCity ofLos

4 Angeles,andistheHonoraryConsulGeneralfortheKingdom ofNonvayinLos 5 6

:

AngelesandotherSouthernCalifomiacounties. (SeeRéslzméofRichard1.

7 Fine,ExhibitLEA''toPetition.) 8 Finehasproperlychallengeda11ofthejudgesoftheLosAngelesSuperior 9 10

Courtandpm icularly JudgeYaffefortaking tmconstitutionalpayments9om

11 LA CountywhileatthesametimeLA Countywasapartybeforethem.(See 12 Addendum toParapaph 7,Ground 1toPetition.) Thesechallengeshave 13 14 resultedinadisbnnnentactionagainstFinecommencedbyBruceE.Mitchell,a

15 LA County Superior Court Commissioner who was receiving the 16 17

unconstitutionalandcriminalLA Countypaymentsandwhowasadefendantin

18 a Federal civilrights cl%s action suit broughtby Fine challenging such 19 20

paymentsasaviolationofArticleVl,Section19,oftheCaliforniaConstitution,

21 andArticles1andXIV oftheU.S.Constitution.ThecasewasSilvav.County 22 23

ofLosAngeles,etal.ltsoughtinjtmctiverelieftostopallLA Countypayments 24 toanyLASuperiorCourtjudicialofficerwhowouldhearaLA Cotmtycase. 25

I' hedisbarmentactionwastiledonFebruary6,2006.Atthattime,Fine

26 27

represented theMminaStrand Colony 11HomeownersAssociation beforetlze

28 LA County RegionalPlanning Commission. Hewould laterrepresentthem --1 8.--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 24 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l againstLA CountyintheMarina S-trand case. TheopponentbeforetheLA 2 3

ResonalPlanningCommissionwmsDelReyShores. Theirlocalmanaging

4 partnerwastheEpsteinFamilyTrust,thetnlsteeswereJerryandPatEpstein. 5 They becamethe;Nrealpartiesin interesty,jn jjy;ugyyg jpmy;y raso. a ujy 6

7 atlorneyswereArmbruster& Goldsmith,who becametheirattorneysin the 8 MarinaStrandcaseandwhoprosecutedthecontemptcase. 9 10

Atthe same time,Fine was fighting the Cotmty of Los Angeles in

11 ntlmerous other cases in the LA Superior Court. ln fotlr ofthese cases, 12 13

consolidatedunderCoalitiontoSavetheMarinaandMnn' naTenantsAssoc.,et

14 a1,v.County ofLos Angeles,eta1,Fine had moved to disqualify Judge 15 Brugueraonthegrotmdthatshewasreceivingpaymentsfrom LA County,and 16

17 movedtochangevenuetoSanFrancisco,wherejudgesdidnotreceivecounty 1S payments.Themotionsweredenied,aswerethesubsequentmits. 19 20

Atthesametime,FinewasfightinganotherEpsteinentityinthecaseof

21 CoalitiontoSavetheMminw etal,v.CountyofLosAngelesandMarinaPacitic 22 Associates, eta1. ' jcAssociates l'helocalu: managingpartner,,of.valinapacjj23

24 wastheEpsteinFamilyTmst,whosetrusteeswereJerryandPatEpstein.One 25 oftheirattomeyswasSheldonH.Sloan,amemberoftheBoardofGovernorsof 26 27

the California State Bar,President-Elect of the California State Bar,and

28 subsequentlyPresidentoftheCaliforniaStateBar. --1 9--

Case: 09-56073

l

08/31/2009

Page: 25 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

TheEpsteinsandtheirattorney,SheldonH.Sloan,hadaninterestinFine's

2 3

disbannentandremovalfrom theircases. 4 ' l' hefirm representingLA CountyinitsnegotiationwiththeEpsteinsfor 5 6 y

!

theleasein theMarinaStrmzd casewasMtmger,Tollesand Olson. Jefgey

Bleichofsuchfirm wasontheBoardofGovernorsoftheCaliforniaStateBar,

8 thePresident-ElectoftheStateBardmingSheldonH.Sloan'spresidency,and 9 10

succeededSheldonH.SloanasPresident. 11 LA Countyanditslawyers,Munger,TollesandOlsonandJeffreyBleich, 12 13

G

hadaninterestinFine'sdisbarmentandremovalfrom theircases.

14

ln 1996orearly 1997,LalzraChick,aformerLA CityCouncilmember

15 16 17

andthenLA CityController,wisappointedasapublicmemberoftheStateBar

BoardofGovemors.ShewasanLA CityCouncilmemberduringthecaseof

18 Shinklev.CityofLosM geles,oneofthecasesintheStateBar'scaseagainst 19 20

Fine.Additionally,Finehadexposedthatshehadgiven afavorablereportfor

21 thePlayaVistaDevelopmentwhilehavinghada$5,000tt behest''giveninher 22 23

nameonedayafterthereportwasreleasedandduringthetimethereportwas

24 beingconsideredbytheCityofLosAngeles. 25 FinewastheattorneyfortheGrassrootsCoalitioninthecaseofEtinaand 26 27

Gr%srootsCoalition,eta1,v.CityofLosAngeles,eta1,whichwasseekingto

28 enforceanorderagainstthecityofLosAngelesregardinganElR.Thegiftwas --2 0--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 26 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

givenbyLatham andWatkins,thelobbyistsandattorneysinthecaseforPlaya VistaCapitalCop.,therealpartiesininterestinthecase. 4 6

LauraChickhadaninterestinhavingFinedisbarredtoremovehim from thecaseandtocleartheactionsoftheCityofLosAngelesintheShinklecase

wheretheCitymadeanurllawfulB&Pj473dmotiontochangethesubstanceof 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

ajudgment. UndertheStateBarAct,thesalariesoftheStateBarCourtjudgeswereset bystatute,buttheirttcompensation''wassetbytheBoardofGovernors. They werepaidbytheStateBarfrom theduesofthemembersandthefmesandcosts leviedupontheattorneyswhom theyconvicted.Tlzissystem isadenialofdue

processastheStateBarCourtjudgeshaveantçinterest''intheoutcome,whichis unconstimtional.(SeeTumevandMonroeville,supra. ) ThechieftI' iaIcounseloftheStateBarservedattheple%ureoftheBoard ofGovernorsandreportedtoacommitteeoftheBoardofGovemors.

21 23

ThechargesagainstFineincluded chargesforfilingFederalcivilrights

lawsuitschallengingtheLA CountypaymentstotheLA SuperiorCoul' tjudges asviolatingArticleVl,Section l9,oftheCalifomiaConstitution,andtheFirst andFourteenthAmendmentstotheU.S.Constit m ion.

Dtuingthedisbarmentcase,theStateBarCourtHearingDepaltnentjudge wasamemberoftheBoard ofGovernorsoftheSouthern CaliforniaSpecial --2l-

E! .

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 27 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l Olympicswhichreceivedacontributionof$30,000from LA Cotmtydul ingthis 2 3

sametimeperiod.A representativeofLA ColmtysatontheBoardwithhim,

4 and a partnerofLatham and Watkinssaton the Board ofDirectors. The 5 6 7

Henri ngDepartmentjudgedidnotdisclosethisinformationanddidnotrecuse

himself.OnOctober12,2007,herecommendedFine'sdisbarmentandordered 8 Fineinactive:effectiveOctober1772007. 9 10

FineleR therepresentation ofa1ltheabovecases,includingtheMarina

11 Strand c%e. TheCalifomiaSupremeCourtdeniedFine'sPetitionforReview 12 13

on theinactive Orderbutdidnotaffirm the OrderororderFineinactiveas

14 requiredunderB&PCodej6084.OnlytheCaliforniaSupremeCourtcanorder 15 an attorneyinactive. Theaction oftheStateBarismadesubjecttothe 16 17 immediateandindependentreview oftheCalifomiaSupremeCourt. (1nRe 18 Rose>22Ca1.4t h430(2000)> 'ConwF v.StateBar,47Ca1.3d1107(1989).) 19 20

AfterFinelefttheMarinaStrandcase,JudgeYaffeissuedavoidOrderon

21 January8,2008,forFinetopayattomey'sfeesandcoststoLA Countyandits 22 23

co-applicant,DelReyShores.' l' heOrderwasenteredwithoutjurisdictionover

24 Fine,withoutnoticeto Fine,and withoutFinebeing presentatthehearing. 25 Further>theOrderviolatedthePublicResourcesCode. (SeeTrialExhi bitsIA> 26 bittoPetition 27 page31,9page67and 14page116,AppendixtoPetitionkExhi

28 pages33-35, .ExhibitCC D''toPetitionpages11-15.) --22-

Case: 09-56073

1

08/31/2009

Page: 28 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

AfterJudgeYaffe'sadmissionsin open courttmderquestioningbyFine

2 3

thathereceivedLA Countypayments,Fineservedhim withaCCPj170.3 4 ObjectiononMarch25,2009.Hedidnotrespondandwasdisqualifiedunder 5 CCPj170.3(c)(4)onApril7,2008.(T1ialExhibit21,page143,Appendixto 6 z Petition. ) 8

There are notany trialexhibits showing actions ofJudge Yaffe after

9

10 Aprill0,2009,whenhewasgiventheNoticeofDisqualiscationtTrialExhibit 11 21,filedApril11,2009).JudgeYaffedidsignajudgmentsubmittedtohim 12 terApril10,2008,towhichFineobjected,howeversuchjudgmentwasnotan 13 af 14 exhibitatthetrial. 15 OnNovember3, 2008,JudgeYaffeexecutedanOrdertoShow Causere 16

17 Contempt(ExhibitLC B''toPetition)(hereinafterthe'ûOSC'7).' l' heOSCcontained 18 16cotmts.Thetçcomplaint''wastheDeclarationofJoshuaL.Rosen(page27, 19 xtoPetition).Finemovedtodismiss.Fineflledamit.Bothwere 20 Appendi 21 denied. 22 The trialoccurred on December 22, December 24,December26 and 23

24 December30,2008,andJanuary8,January l2,andJanuary22,2009. Judge 25 Yafle presided despite demandsforhisrecusal. The wimesseswere Judge 26

27 Yaffe,whopresidedwhilehewasawimess. (SeeReporter'sTranscriptof 28 December22,2008), *JoshuaL.Rosen,R.J.ComertthecolmselforDelRey --23-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 29 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l Shores)andacustodianfromtheStateBarofCalifomia.' l' heprosecutorswere 2 3

JoshuaL.RosenandR.J.Comer.

4

Fineraisedvariousafflrmativeand constitutionaldefensesincludingbut

5 6

notlimited to denialofdueprocessofJudge Yaffepresiding,denialofdue

7 process due to lack ofnotice ofdoctlments and wimesses,the underlying

8 January8,2008, Orderisvoidresultingin allotheractionsbeingvoid,Judge 9 10

Yaflb wasdisqualitied forfailingtorespondtothe3/25/08 CCP j170.3 11 ObjectionpllrsuanttoCCPj170.3(c)(4),anyactionbyJudgeYaffeafterthe 12 disqualificationwasvoid,theApril15,2008,jud> entwasvoid,theWritof 13 14 Execution and subsequentactionswerevoid,CommissionerGrosswmsnota

15 ççtemporaryjudge''noraçûreferee''withauthoritytoenforceajudgment,under 16 17

Sturgeon,supra,theLA CotmtypaymentstoJudgeYaffewereunconstitutional,

18 andtmderSenateBillLCSBXZ11''theLA CotmtypaymentstoJudgeYaffewere 19 20

illegalandcriminalbasedupon theimmtmitygiventohim,anddenialofdue

21 processbytheattomeysforapartyactingasprosecutors,amongstotherthings. 22 OnJanuary22,2009,JudgeYaffefotmdFine::notguilty,,on 14 counts 23

24 andGûguilty''on2counts.(SeeReporter'sTranscriptofJanuary22,2009,pagç 25 153:Appendixto PetitionandMinuteOrderdated1/22/097pagel537Appendix 26 27 28

to Petition). TheJanuary 22,2009,Transcriptand Minute Orderdiffer

--2 4--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 30 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l signiticantlyfrom theMarch4,2009,Judgment.(SeeAddendum toParagraph 2 itionandExhibitûCC''toPetition-Judpnent.) 3 8ofPet 4

AfterJanuary22,2009,andpriortosentencing,Finemovedtosetaside

5 6

thejudgment,eventhoughnotwrittenjudgmenthadbeenentered.TheMotion

7 wasdenied. 8 On March 47 20097 Fineagain raised theissue oftherecusalofJudge 9 10

Yaffe,andthetmconstitutional,illegalandcriminalpaymentsfrom LA Cotmty

11 toJudgeYaffeandtheLA SuperiorCourtjudges.JudgeYafferespondedat 12 Reporter'sTranscript(Dkt.#16-5),page23,lines4-5: 13 14 TheCourt:çtlsthereanyjudgeorjusticeinCalifomiathatcanorderyou todoanything?''

15

16 17 18 19

AfterreceivingtheresponsecitingthejudgesinSanFrancisco,Mendocino andYoloCotmtieswhodidnotreceivecotmtypayments,andjusticeswhodid -

notreceive county payments,and being informed thateven with Line 20:

20 immlmity hewasstillsubjecttoprosecution tmder18U.S.C.j1346 for 21 22

violating the lçintangible righf'to honest services,Judge Yaffe stated,at

23 Reporter'sTranscriptdatedMarch 4,2009,page25,line20,ExhibitQûD''to 24 25

McconnickDeclaration,Dkt.#1 6-5:

26

Thecourt:1W1lright.' Fhankyou,Mr.Fine.''

27

JudgeYaffethensignedtheJudgmentandorderedFinetothecustodyof

28

theSheriff(ld.,page27,line6),whereheistoday. --25-

Case: 09-56073

l 2 3

08/31/2009

Page: 31 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

UndertheJanuary22,2009,MinuteOrder,Finewasfound ç'guilty''of

Count1-notansweringquestionsatajudgmentdebtorhearingonJtmel8, 2008,andCount16- holdinghimselfouttopractice1aw inviolationofB&P

5

Codejj6126and6127(b).B&PCodej6126wasacriminalsectionwitha penaltyofoneyearinjail.Finewasfotmd'' notguilty''ona1lothercotmts, includingCount5-'tlyingabouthisstatuswiththeStateBarinpleadingsfiled inthiscourtandoralargumentsbeforethecouf'.

11

Thetûguilty''judpnentonCotmt16andthettnotguiltf'judpnenton Colmt7 are inconsistenton theirface. Fine could nothold himselfoutto practice 1aw illegally dnd notmisrepresenthis status. lfhe was correctly representinghisstatus,hewasnotillegallyholdinghimselfouttopracticelaw.

As to Count 1,itwas shown thatany judo entwas void and CommissionerGrosswasneitheratttemporaryjudge''noraûû referee'' Finally,itshouldbenotedthattheStateBaractionagainstFinewenttothe State Bar CourtReview Department. The State Bardid notappealcounts

disrnissedbytheHearingDepaM entjudge,howeverwithoutnoticetheReview DepartmentreinstatedsuchinviolationofdueprocessandtheStateBarRules ofProcedure. The Review Department dismissed numerous counts. The remainingcotmtsrelatedtothetilingofthreeFederalcivilrightsactionsagainst

LA SuperiorCotu' tjudgeswhoreceivedlmconstimtionalandcriminalpayments --26-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 32 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 from LA County,andotherpleadingst iledincourtswhichareprotectedbythe 2 3

4

FirstAmendment. A PetitionforReview wastiledwiththeCalifomiaSupremeCourtaswell

5 6

asmotionstorectlsethosejusticeswhohadreceivedtheunconstitutionaland 7 cn' minalpaymentsfrom counties,andthosejusticeswhowereontheJudicial B COImCilofCaliforniw whichwroteSenateBillC&SBXZ1l''. 9 10

'Fherecusalmotionsweredenied.ThePetitionwasdenied.

11

A Petition foraWritofCertiorariispresentlybeforetheU.S.Supreme

12 13

Court,caseno.08-1573. TheStateBarhaswaiveditsresponse. Oneofthe

14 issuespresentediswhethertheCaliforniaSupremeCourtjtlsticesshouldrecuse 15 themselves as they have received tmconstitutional illegal payments from 16

17 counties,immunityforsuchandwrotethelaw grantingsuchimmunity. 18 19

B.ActionsrelatedtoJudgeYaffe.

20

Assetforthabove,JudgeYaffeanda11LA CountySuperiorCourtjudges

21 22

received tmconstimtional,illegal and criminalpayments from LA Cotmty.

23 ThesepaymentsoccurredwhileLA CotmtywasapartybeforeJudgeYaffein 24 theMarinaStrandcaseandwhilehewasenforcingtheJanuary'8,2008,Order 25 26

and its progeny,presiding over the attack on his integrity for taking the

27 payments,presidingoverhisembroilmentwithFineintheMarinaStrandcase 28

--27-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 33 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 andpresidingoverclaimsthatFinehadmisrepresentedhisprofessionalstatus 2 3

andwasillegallyholdinghimselfouttopracticelaw inthecontemptcase.

4

Butfortheimmtmity provided to them underSenate BillQLSBXZ ll''7

5 6

JudgeYaffeandalloftheotherLA CountySuperiorCourtjudgeswhotookthe

7 unconstimtional,illegal,criminalpaymentsfrom LA County,wouldbefacing 8 actionsto repay the monies, criminalprosecutionsand disciplinary actions 9 10

resultingintheirremovalfrom office.

11

Assetforthabove,JudgeYaffemadetheJanuary8,2008,OrderofLA

12 13

Countyanditsco-applicantfortheEIR intheMarinas' /rlzl casewithoutany

14 noticetoFine,withoutFinebeingpresentatthehearing,withoutjmisdiction 15 overFineandinviolationofthePublicResourcesCode(seeTrialExhibit1A, 16

17 page3l,to AppendixtoPetitionv 'TrialExhibitût9''7page67toAppendix to

18 petitîon). 19 20

Assetforthabove,JudgeYaffewasdisqualifiedonApril7,2008,whenhe

21 didnotrespondtoaMarch25,2008,CCPj170.3Objectionserveduponhim 22 afterheadnzittedinopencourttoreceivingtlzeLACotmtypayments.(SeeTrial 23 24 Exhibit21,page.143,AppendixtoPetition.) 25 ' rhe osc si>edby JudgeYaffeonNovember3, 2008,(page1oft he 26 27 AppendixtothePetition)supportedbytheDeclarationofJoshuaL.Rosen(page 28

--2 8--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 34 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

l 4oftheAppendixtothePetition),theû'complaint,''providestheKûembroilment'' 2 3

4

ofJudgeYaffewithFineintheMarinaStrandcase.

Counts1-6areanattempttoenforcethevoidJanuary8,2008,Orderand

5 6

anyvoidsubsequentorders.Additionally,thesecotmtsareanattempttoreject 7 thçdisqualificationafternotrespondingtotheMarch25,2008,CCPj170.3 8 Objectionbaseduponhisadmission ofreceivingtheLA Countypayments. 9 10

JudgeYaffeknowsthathecannotenforcethesecounts,yethisangerissopeat

11 athavingbeenexposedforhavingtakenthepaymentsandmadeillegalordersin 12 13

favorofLA Countyanditsco-applicant,herefusestobeobjectiveandfollow

14 thelaw. 15 Hethenaddstohismisconductbyselectingtheattomeyswj aowjjjtlejaujjt 16 17

from hisillegalorderstoprosecutethecontemptproceeding.Heknowsthatitis

18 adenialofdueprocesstohaveanon-independentprosecutor. However,an 19 20

independentprosecutorwouldnotprosecutevoidactions.

21 counts7and 16arelinkedasJudgeYaffeisangeredthatFinehaslisted 22 hl ' mself as ' tformer counse1 jbr Marina Strand Colony 11 Homeowners 23

24 Association''. Fine is notthe currentlawyerforMal ina Strand,yetFine's 25 actionsareinterfel ingwithJudgeYaffe's''arrangement''withLA County. 26 27

Hehasadmittedthathecannotrememberacaseinthelastfiveyearsthat

28 he decided againstLA County,excepttheûûdirt''in theMarina Strand case. --2 9--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 35 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 Fine'sactionsofexposingtheLA CountyrelationshiphaveangeredJudgeYaffe 2 3

topllnish Fine. Atthesentencinghearing,JudgeYaffestatedthathedidnot

4 thinkthattherewasacourtorderregardingprohibitingFinetopractice1aw (see 5 6

SentencingTranscript,pagel0,line30,throughpagel1,line2,Exhibitû' D,,to

7 MccormickDeclaration,Dkt.#16-5). Asshownabove,onlytheCalifornia 0 SupremeCourtcanorderanattonzeyinactive. SinceJudgeYaffeadmittedthat 9 10

therewasnocourtorder,therecouldnotbeacontempt.

11

Thisleavesthechargein Count16asanotherexampleofembroilment.

12 13

Additional,theRosenDeclarationdidnotshow thattherewasacourtorderasa

14 basisforthecotmt. Theembroihnentwasepegiousasthecotmtcontaineda 15 16 17

criminalchargeunderB&PCodej6126. Count8showedJudgeYaffe'sangeratFine'sactionofpursuingthevoid

18 January8,2008,OrderanditsprogenyandthedïsqualificationaRerJudgeYaffe 19 2o

didnotrespondtotheMarch25,2008,CCP j170.3Objection. Thecotmt

21 alleged çl motions for reconsideration7'. Yetno motion for reconsideration 22 23

24

occurred. Colmts9-14showedJudgeYaffe'sembroilmentastheychargeFinewith

25 attackingtheintepityofthecourt(JudgeYaffe)(Counts9- 10),theLA 26 iorCourt(Counts11-12),theStateBarCoul 'ttcotmt13)andcotmselfor 27 Super 28 RealPartieslnlnterest(DelReyShores)tcount15).Asshownabove,under --3 0--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 36 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 CCPj1211(d),acontemptchargecnnnot1ieforcriticizingajudge.Thatwould 2 3

eliminateColmts9-13. A contemptchargealsodoesnotlieforattackingthe

4 intep' ityofopposingcounsel(Count14).Thusallcountsareasham.Theonly 5 6

reasonforthecountswastheembroilmentofJudgeYaffeduetoFine,scriticism

7 ofhistakingtheLA Countypaymentsandshowingthatsuchactionviolated18

8 USCj1346y .t hett intangiblerighttohonestservices''e 9 10

Cotmt15 also isan exampleofJudgeYaffe'sembroilment. ltcharges

11 behavingin disorderly,contempmousorinsouciantmannertoward thecourt. 12 13

However,theRosenDeclarationdoesnotrefertoanyconductinthecourtroom.

14 Thecotmtwasapuresham.ltssolepurposewastoagpavateFineandforce 15 him to defend afalsecontemptproceeding. Judge Yaffeknew thisasany 16 17

conducthadtoappearbeforehim,andhewasboundtohaveatimelycontempt

18 trial.Onceagain,thecotmtwmsanexampleofJudgeYaffeactingagainstFine 19 20

whileknowingthatnochargeexisted.

21 'l'heresultofJudgeYaffe'sactionswasthatevenhecouldnotstomachall 22 ofhismisconduct.HefotmdFineqtnotguilty,,on !4qojmts. yjowever,when 23

24 questionedonCotmt16,hedidnotfindanunderlyingcourtordermakingFine 25 inactive.' Fhisshowsthathisçtguilty''decisionwasanadmittederror. 26 27

ThisleavesCotmt1,whichisbaseduponhisvoidJanuary8,2008,Order

28 in the Marina Strand case where he received the tmconstitutional,illegal, --31-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 37 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 criminalLA County payments. Asstated above,butforthe immunity he 2 3

receivedfrom SenateBill''SBXZ 1l''7JudgeYaffewouldnothaveevenbeen

4 thejudgeinsuchcaseandmayverywellhavebeenincarcerated. 5 6

Reco>izingthepossibility,asshownaboveJudgeYaffeenquiredofother

7 courtsandjudgeswhocouldhearthecmse.Heknew thatheshouldnothave 8 presidedovereithertheMarinaStrandcaseorthecontemptproceeding. 9 10

11 12

.-'

V1l. Summarvofaraument. A. Standardofreview. .

13 Thestandardofreview isobjectiveassetforthinWithrowv.Larkin,421 14 Uœs*35>47(1975). ' 15 16 B.Objectivestandards. 17 ObjectivestandardswerereviewedandestablishedinCaperton,supra. 18 19

20 21 22 23

Thesestandardsareadoptedandusedintheargtlment.

C.' I' heobjectivestandardsmandaterecusal. 1. Theunconstitt ztional,illegalcriminalpaymentsmandaterecusal.

Thepaymentsrepresenting28% ofhisstatesalaryposearisk ofactual

24 bi%,and reflectLA County'ssignificantand disproportionate influence On. 25 26

JudgeYaffe,coupledwit. h thefactthatLA County isaparty totheMarina

27 StrandcaseandabeneficiaryoftheJanuary8,2008,Order,çtofferatemptation 28

--32-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 38 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 totheaverage...judgeto...leadhim nottoholdthebalancenice,clearand 2 W C2SS 3

4 5

2. The charges of attacking the integrity of the courtmandate recusal.

6

Asacriticizedjudge,JudgeYaffe'sresponsetoFine'sexposttreofhis

7 receivingtmconstitutional,illegal,criminalpayments,from LA County,Fine's 8 9

chargeofviolating18U.S.C.j1346,Fine'sexposttreoftheJanuary8,2008, 10 OrderandfilingtheMarch25,2008,CCPj170.3Objection,wastofilethe 11 invalidchargewhichheknewviolatedCCPjl211(a)(11). 12

13 14 15

3. RecusalismandatedbecauseJudgeYaffeisjudginghisown actions.

JudgeYaffeisjudginghisownactionsinviolationoftheRuletç noman 16 canbethejudgeinhisowncase''andttnomanisperml xedtotrycaseswherehe l7 hasaninterestintheoutcome.! , ! ) 18

19 20

4. JudgeYaffe'sembroilmentmandatesrecusal. A11ofthecountsintheOSC manifestJudgeYaffe'sembroilment. Bias

21 existsasa11ofthecountsareasham. 22 23

5. Recusalismandatedbecausethesystem ofalocalgovenunent

24 25

adenialofdueprocess. ' I' hecasesofTumey-v.OhioandWardv.Monroevillehaveheldittobea

whoisapartytoacasepayingthejudgeofthecasehasbeenheld

26 27

denialofdueprocessforamayorofacitytobeajudgeandassessfmeswlzich 28 wentintothecity'stTisc.''Evenifhewasnotbeingpaidtobethejudge,asin --3 3--

s

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 39 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 Monroeville.Here,JudgeYaffedecidescaseswl zich$vemoneytotheCotmty 2 3

wllichpayshim.TheSupremeCourthmsheldthattheinterestneednotbethat

4 direct. In Gibson v.Bernhill,411U.S.564,573(1973),itheld thatan 5 6

.nl .slativeboard ofoptometri adml stscouldnotpresideoverahearing against

7 competingoptomeGsts. 8 vltl* Areument. 9

10

A.Standardofreview.

11 ' rheCourtreviewsthefactstoapplyobjectivestandardsthatrequire 12 13 recusalwhentl theprobabilityofactualbiasonthepartofthejudgeordecision 14 makeristoohightobeconstitutionallytolerable.'' Withrow v.farkin,421U.S. 15 16

20 21 22 23

35,47(1975),citedinCaperton,supraaSlipOpinion,page1. B.Theobjectivestandards. Caperton,suprwsetforththebmsicelementsoftheobjectivetest,citingthe maxim thatûûlnlommzisallowedtobeajudgeinhisowncalzse, 'becausehis interestwotlldcertal ' n1ybiashisjudpnent,andnotimprobably,con-upthis integrity''(citationsomitted)(Caperton,SlipOpinion,page6).

24

Citing to Tùmey,theCourtin Caperton,suprw atpage7 setforth the

17 18 19

25 26

followingprinciplesregardingpaymentstojudges:

27

Every procedttre which would offer a possible temptation to the

28

averagemanasajudgetoforgettheburdenofproofrequiredto convictthedefendantorwhichmightleadhim nottoholdthebalance w-3 4--

:

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 40 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 2 3

nice,clearandtruebetween thestateand acctlsedodeniesthelatter dueprocessoflaw. ' l' heCapertonCourtstatedatpage7:

4 5 6

ltlthecourqwasalsoconcemedwithameregenerajconceptojintereststhattemptadjudicatorstodisregardneutrality. Thisconceptwasextendedtonotrequiretodecideifthejudgewas

7 8

influencedbylû whethersittingonthecase...''wouldofferapossibletemptation

9 totheaverage...judgeto...leadhim nottoholdthebalancenice,clearand 10 true''ûti(citationsomitted)(Caperton,suprwpage9)to whatkindofdepeeor 11 12 kindofinterestissufficienttodisqualifyajudgef' rom sittingKcannotbedefmed 13 withprecision',y(citationsomitted)(1d.). 14 15

A secondsetofstandardsasdiscussedatpages4- 11ofCaperton,supra,

16 resultedintherulethatlt nomancanbethejudgeinhisowncase''andiç noman 17 18

ispermittedtotl' ycœseswherehehasan interestintheoutcome''citinglnRe

19 Murchi son,349U.S.133,136(1955). 20 lndiscussingcriticismofajudge,theCapertonCourtstatedatpage11: 21 22 T' hecourtas1 notwhetherthisjudgeisactually,subjectivelybi&sed, butwhethertheaveragejudgeinhispositionistûlikely''tobeneutral, 23 24

25

orwhetherthereisantmconstitutionaltt potentjajjor' bjas>'.

-*

The Court in Caperton, supraa then analyzed a s3-n1illion-dollar

26 contlibutionbyBlankenshiptothecampair colllmitleeofBenjaminwhowasa 27 28

candidatefortheWestVirginiaSupremeCourt.

--3 . 5--

Case: 09-56073

l 2 3

08/31/2009

Page: 41 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

Benjaminwon. Blankenship'scompany,A. T.MasseyCoalCo.,hada casebeforethecourtwhichitwonona3-2vote.Benjaminrefusedtorecuse

4 himself. 5 ' Fhis court,atpage 13 citing Withrow,421 U.S.at47,setforth the 6 z

defmitionofthestandardsasfollows: 8 Whethertûunderarealisticappraisalofpsychologicaltendenciesand 9 human weakness,''theinteresttt posessuch arisk ofactt zalbiasor preiudrnentthatthepracticemustbeforbiddeniftheguaranteeof lO due -pro -' cessistobead' *quatelyimplemented.,, e 11 12

TheCourtconcludedthatilthereisaseriousriskofactualbias-basedon

13 objectiveandre%onableperceptions-whenapersonwithapersonalstakeina 14 15

particularcasehadasi>ificantanddisproportionateinfluencein placingthe

16 judgeonthecasebyraisilzgfundsordirectingthejudge'selectioncampaign 17 . whenthecasewaspendingorl mminent.:,A(ld.,pagel4) 18 19

TheCourtconcludedthatBlankenship'scontributionsincomparisontothe

20 totalamotmtcontributed and thetotalamountspenton thecampaign had a 21 22

significantanddisproportionateinfluenceontheelection. ltfurtherconcluded

23 thattheriskthatBlankenship'sengenderedactualbiasissufficientlysubstantial 24 25 26 27 28

thatitûûmustbe-forbidden iftheguaranteeofdueprocessistobeadequately

implemented''.Withrow,supra,at47(1d.At15).

--36-

Case: 09-56073

l 2

3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10

11

08/31/2009

Page: 42 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

TheCapertonCourtconcludedatpage16:

Dueprocesstû maysometimesbartrialbyjudgeswhohavenoact -ual biasandwhowoulddotheirverybesttoweighthescaleso$.justjcu equally between contending parties ûû... the failure to consider objective standardsrequiring recusalis notconsistentwith the imperativesofdueprocess. WefmdthatBlankenship'ssi>ificant and disproportionate influence - coupled with the temporal relationship between theelection and thepending case-''tûoffera

possibletemptationtotheaverage...judgeto...leadhim nottohold thebalancenice,clearandtrue.''

C.Theobjectivestandardsmandaterecusal.

12

1. Thetmconstitutional,illegalcri minalpaymentsmandaterecusal. JudgeYaffereceives$46,300peryearinunconstitutional,illegal,criminal

13 14

paymentsfrom LA Cotmty,apartyintheMan' naStrandcaseandabeneticiary

15 oftheJanuary 8,2008,Orderwhich isthebasisoftheOrderenforcedin the 16 17

contemptproceeding.' Fhispaymentisapproximately28% ofhisstatesalaryof

18 $178,800peryear.The$46,300ispaidtohim inadditiontohisstatesalm' yand 19 st atebenefits,givinghim atotalcompensationofapproximately$249,000per 20

21 Y021-' 22 2 The charges of attacking the intepity of the coul' tmandate 23 recusal. 24 Here Judge Yaffe is reacting to Fine's expostlre of his receiving 25 26

tmconstitutional,illegaland criminalpayments from LA County and Fine's

27 chargethatheisviolating18U.S.C.j1346thelûintangibleright''tohonest 28

servicesby signing the November 3,2008,OSC. Fine's exposttre ofthe --37-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 43 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 January8,2008,Orderand the disqualification b%ed on the paymentsalso 2 3

angeredhim.He%ewunderCCPjl21l(a)(11)thatthechargescouldnotbe

4 brought,yethestillsignedtheOSC. 5 6 1

Thestandardissetfort hinCaperton,supraoatpage11:

8

Whetherthereisanunconstitutionalçûpotentialforbias''.

9 10

T' hecourtaSKSnotwhetherthejudgeisacmally,subjectivelybi%ed, butwhethertheaveragejudgeinhispositionislikelytobeneutral,or Here,thebiasclearlyexists. First,nojudgewouldbeinhisposition.

11 However,evenifinthepositionofhavingbeen exposedfortakingmoneyand 12 beingchticized,thejudgewouldneverhavesi>edtheOSCknowi ngthatitwas 13

14 illegal.JudgeYaflk'sactionsshow bothactualbiasandaçû potentialforbias.''

15

3 RectlsalismandatedbecauseJudgeYaffeisjudginghisown

17

JudgeYaffeisjudginghisownactionsoftakingthetmconstit mional,

18 19

illegal,criminalLA Colmtypayments' ,makingtheJanuary8,2008,Orderand

16

actions.

20 subsequentacts,andnotrespondingtotheMarch25,2008,CCPObjectiony 'and 21 22

subsequentactsintheMarinaStrandcase.

23

Theruleislç nomancanbethejudgeinhisowncase''and'' nomanis

24 25

permitted to try cases where he has an inter-estin the outcome,, ln Re

26 Murchison,349U.S.133,136(1955). 27 Here,JudgeYaffewillbejudginghisownactions,andcannotavoidsuch, 28

asthecountsareb%eduponhisactions. --38-

Case: 09-56073

l 2 3

08/31/2009

Page: 44 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

4. JudgeYaffe'sembroilmentmandatesrecusal. AsshownintheççactionsrelatedtoJudgeYaffe''7al1ofthecotmtsinthe

4 OSC maaifestJudgeYaffe'sembroilment. E

5 6

Thestandardisthesameasthatsetforthin#2above.

7

Hereagainthebiasexistsboth forthereasonssetfort h in//2above,but

8 9

also forthefalsechargesin a1loftheothercounts,astheCourtmayrecall,

10 foundFineçt notguilty''onJanuary 22,2009,on al1countsbut1and 16. On 11 12

March4,2009,headmittedthattherewasnotanyordermakingFineûç inactivev''

13 therebyshowingthattheççguilty''decisiononCotmt16wasinerror. 14 15

Asthesamehearing,JudgeYaffedidnothavearesponsewheninformed

16 ofthejudgeswho could hearthecasesandwho did notreceivecotmty 17 payments.SuchjudgeswouldruleJudgeYaffe'sactsvoid.Theselatterfacts 18 19 demonstratethattheentireOSC wasasham. 20 21

TheentireOSC wasamanifestation ofJudgeYaffe'sanger,hatred and

22 desiretoZjureFine. 23

24 25

5. Recusalismandated becausethesystem ofalocalgovenunent

-

wlzichisapartytoacasepayingthejudgeofthecasehasbeen heldadenialofdueprocess.

26

Here,JudgeYaffeandLA SupeliorCourtjudgesarebeingpaid$46,300in

27 28

additiontotheirstatesalariesbyLA County. JudgeYaffepresidesoverLA

--3 9--

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 45 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

1 Countycasesandinthiscase,onJanuary8,2008,orderedatlonaey'sfeesand 2 3

coststobepaidtoLA Countyanditsco-applicantwithoutnoticeorFinebeing

4 presentattheheari ngandinviolation ofthePublicResourcesCode.Hethen 5 6

:

presided atthe contempt proceeding to enforce such Order after he wms

7 disqualitied. 8 9

' l'heU.S.Supreme Courthasheldthatthe system underwhich alocal

10 govenunentpaysajudgeandthatjudgedecidescaseswhichbringmoneytothe 11 ci ty,sgeneralftmdwhichpayshissalaryviolatesdueprocess.(SeeTumev,in 12 zichthemayorkatasjudgeandwaspaid9om fmesleviedforviolationsof 13 wl 14 statealcoholicbeveragelawsandfmesalsowentintothecity'sgeneralfund; 15 16

seeWardv.Monroeville,supra-unlikeTumey themayordidnotshareinthe

17 town'sgeneralfisc.BOthcasesinCaperton,SupraaSlipOpinionatpages7-8. 18 19

Here,themoniesawardedbyJudgeYaffegotoLA County,whichpays

20 themoniestohimaasin Ward,supraaalbeitnotdirectlyfrom theçlfines''but 21 22

23 24 25 26

27 28

from thegeneralfund.

TheCourtinCaperton,suprw atSlip Opinionpage8,explainedthatthe -

interestcouldbelessdirect: &ç... t hejudge'sjfmancialstakeneednotbeasdirectorpositiveasit

appearedinTumev.''Gibsonv.Berlyhill,411U.S.564,573(1973) (anadminiskativeboardcomposedofoptometristshadapeclmiary --40-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 46 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

interestofçûsufticientsubstance''soitcouldnotpresideoveraheming

againstcompetingoptometrists.) Here,JudgeYaffehadthefmancialinteresttlto...leadhim nottoholdthe

balancenice,clearandtrue.''(Tumev,suprwat532.) Conclusion Fine respectfully requeststhatthe Courtpantthe Writforthwith,and

relereFinefrom thefalseimprisonmentwhichcommencedonMarch4,2009. 12 13 15 16 17

///

19 21

--4l-

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 47 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

Datedthis& dayof)y#t xr,2009 Respectfullysublnitted,

BY:

A

R1 ARD 1.FINE, lnProPer

8 9 l0

14

Case: 09-56073

08/31/2009

Page: 48 of 48

DktEntry: 7047502

PROOFOFSERWCE STATEOFCALIFORNIA, COUNTYOFLOSANGELES

lam FredSottile.MymailingaddressisW ojff.Vlcivzz/ 4Xr-.4.1tk-.

OnAugust2.1 ,2009,lservedtheforegoing documentdescribed as APPELLANT'S OPEM NG BRIEF on interested parties in this action by depositing atruecopy thereof,which wasenclosed in a sealed envelope,with

postagefullyprepaidailltheUnitedStatesMail,addressedasfollows: AaronMitchellFontana PaulB.Beach LAWRENCEBEACHALLEN&CHOI,PC 100WestBroadway,Ste.1200 Glendale,CA 91210-1219

KevinM.Mccormick BENFON,ORR,DUVM ,&BUCKINGHAM 39N.CaliforniaStreet P.O.Box1178 VentttrwCA 93002

Clerk,U.S.DistrictCourt 312N.SpringSt.,Rm G-8 LosAngeles,CA90012

lcertifyanddeclare,underpenaltyofperjurytmderthelawsoftheUnited StatesofAmericaandtheStateofCalifomia,thattheforegoingistl' ueand correct.

Executedonthis3.7 dayofAugust,2009,inthecityofkptvctiobôwcl wtotfc Califomia.

lnprm -% 7pfLa-i

FR/DSOTTILE