Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 2 - Response To Order To Show Cause Re Disbarment

1 2 3

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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6 7 8

In the Disciplinary Matter of RICHARD ISAAC FINE

Case No. MC-09-129 ABC RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISBARMENT FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10

California State Bar No.: 55259

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The disbarment would be improper, as the disbarment in California was unconstitutional and void. A timely Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 11, 2009. Such Petition shows that the words “moral turpitude” in California Business and Professions Code § 6106 being applied to truthful pleadings filed in courts violates the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and the right to petition the government to redress a grievance. As such, California Business and Professions Code § 6106 is unconstitutional. Such Petition further shows that California Business and Professions Code § 6007(c)(4) is unconstitutional as a denial of due process for lack of notice. Most important, such Petition showed that the six justices of the California Supreme Court who denied Fine’s Petition For Review, Motion To Strike the Notice of Disciplinary Charges, and motions to recuse themselves denied Fine due process by not recusing themselves.

Four of them had received illegal payments from counties while sitting as

Superior Court judges and were then given retroactive immunity for such acts from criminal prosecution, civil liability and discipline by Senate Bill SBx2 11 enacted February 20, 2009, as

-1-

1

part of the “budget package”, two of the Justices were members of the Judicial Council of

2

California, who wrote Senate Bill SBx2 11.

3

Fine was disbarred on the single charge of “moral turpitude” for filing pleadings in

4

courts. Two pleadings were Federal civil rights lawsuits showing that the payments from Los

5

Angeles County to Los Angeles County Superior Court judges violated Article VI, § 19, of the

6

California Constitution. This position has been upheld in the case of Sturgeon v. County of

7

Los Angeles (167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) rev. denied 12/23/08), prior to the time that the

8

California Supreme Court denied review in the disbarment case. The California Supreme

9

Court knew from the ruling in Sturgeon, supra, that Fine’s actions were not only protected

10

under the First Amendment, but that Fine was also correct on the substantive law in his

11

pleadings. They also knew from the history of the case that Fine had been severely denied due

12

process by the State Bar Court. In particular, Fine had been found “not guilty” on three counts

13

of making false statements in pleadings by the State Bar Hearing Judge. These were the only

14

charges of such conduct. The State Bar did not appeal such Finding.

15

Despite this non-appeal, the State Bar Review Department, without notice and in

16

violation of State Bar Rule of Procedure 305, reversed the Hearing Department on these

17

counts. This was also a denial of due process.

18

Additionally, the State Bar stated in its responsive brief on review, in responding to

19

Fine’s First Amendment argument that the entire State Bar case consisted of pleadings filed in

20

courts, that it was not prosecuting Fine for the content of his statements, his speech or his

21

rhetoric. This left nothing in the case.

22

The State Bar Court Review Department found Fine “guilty” of “moral turpitude” for

23

filing truthful pleadings in courts which were correct under the law (except where they violated

24

due process as shown above).

25

knowledge of these actions.

The California Supreme Court denied review, with full

26

In addition to the above, further reasons mandate that the U.S. District Court not disbar

27

Fine. The case of Fine v. State Bar of California, et al, Case No. CV-08-2906 JFW (CW), is

28

still before the District Court with a Motion To Set Aside the judgment. The case was filed in

-2-

1

May 2008. The defendants moved to dismiss or have the Court abstain in June 2008. Fine

2

filed a timely opposition and defendants did not file a reply.

3

The complaint sought a declaration that California Business and Professions Code §

4

6106’s words “moral turpitude” were unconstitutional as they applied to pleadings filed in

5

courts as the statute in addition contained the words “dishonesty” and “corrupt”, that California

6

Business and Professions Code Section 6007(c)(4) was unconstitutional due to lack of notice,

7

and to enjoin defendants from disbarring Fine.

8

After a number of months without a ruling, Fine filed an ex parte application for a

9

temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction to declare the statutes

10

unconstitutional and to enjoin the defendants from disbarring Fine.

11

The defendants responded that they would give their opposition in their opposition to the

12

motion for the preliminary injunction. They never filed an opposition to the motion for a

13

preliminary injunction.

14

Approximately ten months after the Motion To Dismiss was filed, the Magistrate Judge

15

recommended, and the Judge ordered, over Fine’s objection, that the Court abstain. This was

16

done despite the fact that the State Bar case was over and no reason for abstention existed.

17

The six California Supreme Court justices who denied review should have recused

18

themselves. In addition, due process was denied when the Hearing Department Judge did not

19

recuse himself for being on the Board of Governors of a charity, with a representative of Los

20

Angeles County, that received $30,000 from Los Angeles County while he was deciding Fine’s

21

disbarment case and holding that acts of filing the two Federal civil rights cases against Los

22

Angeles County for making illegal payments to Los Angeles Superior Court judges was “moral

23

turpitude”.

24

Fine has moved to set aside the judgment in case CV-08-2906 JFW (CW) that the

25

June.8, 2008, U.S. Supreme Court decision of Caperton, et al. v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., et

26

al, 556 U.S.- (2009) and cases cited therein mandate the recusal of the California Supreme

27

Court justices from the disbarment case, and require the Court in Case CV-08-2906 JFW (CW)

28

-3-

1

to find these justices biased, deny abstention, and enter the temporary restraining order and

2

preliminary injunction.

3

The defendants have not opposed the Motion. Thus, unless an unknown bias exists on

4

behalf of Judge Walter, the Motion should be granted and the preliminary injunction entered.

5

The disbarment would then be enjoined.

6

The attention of the Court is further invited to Case No. CV-09-1914 JFW (CW), a

7

Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. This Petition, filed by Fine while falsely

8

incarcerated in a contempt proceeding, also raises the issue of the illegal payments by Los

9

Angeles County to Los Angeles Superior Court judges and the violation of due process when

10

they do not recuse themselves.

11

In this case, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, who was the Respondent to the Petition,

12

did not answer the Petition. Magistrate Judge Woehrle then directed the Los Angeles County

13

Superior Court and Judge David P. Yaffe to answer the Petition. They filed a response that did

14

not answer or respond to any ground, claim or fact set forth in the Petition.

15

The First Ground of the Petition was that Judge Yaffe could not preside over the

16

contempt case because he had taken illegal payments from Los Angeles County and not

17

disclosed such in his State form 700 financial interest statement or to the parties in the

18

underlying case. He did not recuse himself as required under CCP § 170.1(a)(3) - (financial

19

interest in a party or proceeding) or Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 2 – “A judge shall avoid

20

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities”. He then ordered

21

Fine to pay attorney’s fees and costs to Los Angeles County and their co-applicant for an EIR

22

(environmental impact report) in the underlying case, after Fine was no longer an attorney in

23

the case, without jurisdiction over Fine, without notice to Fine and without Fine being present

24

at the hearing.

25

Upon making a special appearance, Fine criticized Judge Yaffe for such conduct,

26

disqualified him from the underlying case and informed him that such conduct violated the

27

“implied/intangible” right to honest services, 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343 and 1346 (See U.S. v.

28

-4-

1

Holzer, 816 F.2nd 304 (1987) – Chicago judge who received loans from attorney who appeared

2

before him and did not disclose such was guilty of mail fraud and wire fraud.

3

Among the sixteen charges in the order to show cause re contempt were (1) refusing to

4

answer questions in a judgment debtor proceeding directly resulting from the void January 8,

5

2008, order of Judge Yaffe, and (2) attacking the integrity of Judge Yaffe and the Los Angeles

6

County Superior Court with respect to the receiving of the illegal payments from Los Angeles

7

County.

8 9 10 11

As the judge presiding over the contempt proceeding, Judge Yaffe would be deciding the legality of his own conduct and deciding the legality of the attack on his integrity. Needless to say, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and Judge Yaffe did not respond to or contest Ground One or any ground, fact or claim in the Petition.

12

Unfortunately, Magistrate Judge Woehrle, without having read the entire Petition, the

13

exhibits and attached documents, and without having read Caperton, supra, made an erroneous

14

Recommendation that the Petition be denied. Such Recommendation was based upon false

15

facts that she obtained from documents that were not in the “record”, her own research of

16

documents not submitted in the case, references to statements in a document that had been

17

disputed by the Petition and not contested by the Los Angeles County Superior Court and

18

Judge Yaffe, and ultimately simply “making up the record” by making a statement of fact,

19

attributing it to the “record” without citation when no record of the event or transcript of the

20

event has been provided.

21

A lengthy and detailed objection and memorandum to the Magistrate Judge’s

22

recommendation has been filed outlining this conduct and her numerous violations of 28

23

U.S.C. § 2243 which also violated Fine’s rights to due process and mandated his release from

24

incarceration by April 8, 2009. Fine still remains illegally incarcerated.

25

Finally, the Court’s attention is respectfully addressed to the fact that the Order To Show

26

Cause was found completely by accident on PACER by a colleague. It was not served on Fine;

27

he is incarcerated. PACER makes no reference to the OSC having been served on anyone.

28

-5-

1

Based upon all of the above, and particularly that the State Bar itself, and its judges,

2

have not opposed the fact and argument that due process was denied Fine in the State Bar

3

proceeding due to the refusal of the California Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves,

4

the U.S. District Court must not disbar Fine.

5 6 7 8 9 10

Dated this _____ day of June, 2009

Respectfully submitted, BY: ____________________________ RICHARD I. FINE, In PRO PER

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-6-

PROOF OF SERVICE

1 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

3

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I am Greg McPhee.

My business address is 2450 N. Lake Avenue, PMB 227,

Altadena, CA 91001. On June ____, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISBARMENT FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

11 12 13

None: No other parties identified within Order to Show Cause.

14 15

No other parties identified in court docket on PACER.

16 17 18 19 20

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

21 22

Executed on this _____ day of June, 2009, at Altadena, California.

23 24 25

____________________________________ GREG McPHEE

26 27 28

-7-