Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/217544065/LASCMotionNull8-27-10
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 19:13:13
Document Index: 687119907

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1346', '§ 1346', '§ 170', '§ 170', '§ 170', '§ 170', '§ 170']

LASCMotionNull8-27-10 | Judge
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinRICHARD I.FINE, In Pro Per Prisoner ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (Former Counsel for Petitioner and Defendant in the Contempt Proceeding)
DOCKETED ON 8-27-10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT MARINA STRAND COLONY II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al, Respondents. Case No. BS 109420 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VOID AND ANNUL ALL ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF RICHARD I. FINE DATE: 9/16/10 TIME: 9:00 AM COURTROOM: Dept. 86 CASE FILED: 6/14/07 CONTEMPT TRIAL DATE: 12/22/08
DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE; DEL REY SHORES JOINT VENTURE NORTH, Real Parties In Interest. _______________________________
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 16, 2010, at 9:00 AM in Dept. 86 of the above-mentioned Court located at 111 North Hill Street, Los
Angeles, California, 90012, Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”), former counsel for Petitioner and Defendant in the contempt proceeding, will move and hereby moves for an order voiding and annulling all orders and judgments, including those in the contempt proceeding. This Motion is made upon the direction of LA Superior Court Counsel Frederick R. Bennett, who stated in an 8/12/10 letter to Fine: “Judge Yaffe is available to consider such motion.” This Motion is made solely for the convenience of the Superior Court; Fine does not waive any claim that Judge Yaffe did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enter any order or judgment in the case or in the contempt proceeding due to fraud upon the Court. This Motion is being made to
accommodate Mr. Bennett, who argues in his 8/12/10 letter that only Judge Yaffe can void and annul his orders and judgments. Fine does not accept this argument, but is willing to bring the Motion as directed by Mr. Bennett to allow Judge Yaffe to enter the order voiding and annulling all orders and judgments, including those in the contempt proceeding. In the event that Judge Yaffe does not enter such an order, this Motion is withdrawn as Mr. Bennett’s direction was deliberately false and misleading. The substantive grounds for the Motion are set forth in the “Notice that All Orders and Judgments in the Marina Strand Case are Void Based Upon Judge
1(a)(6)(A)(iii) by not disqualifying himself. During his tenure as a LA Superior Court judge from 1987 through the present. of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v. They were recognized as criminal in California Senate Bill SBx2-11. it is estimated that Judge Yaffe received approximately $500. from criminal prosecution. 167 Cal. Judge Yaffe joined in this fraud upon the court by not disclosing such in violation of Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3E(2).App. Section 19. which gave
retroactive immunity to “a governmental entity and officers and employees of a governmental entity. The LA County payments to judges were held to violate Article VI. He further violated Canon 3E(1) and CCP Section 170.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Yaffe’s Admission of Fraud Upon the Court and Obstruction of Justice in the 7/13/10 Minute Order of This Court” filed 8/9/10 (hereinafter the “8/9/10 Notice”). rev. civil liability
. and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. The 7/13/10 Minute Order exposed the fraud upon the court through Judge Yaffe’s admission therein. He also violated Canon 4D(1) by accepting the LA County payments. County of Los Angeles. LA County and its attorneys committed the first fraud upon the court by not disclosing that LA County was making payments to Judge Yaffe.” including judges. denied 12/23/08.000 in payments from LA County.4th 630 (2008).
the payments from LA County to State LA Superior Court judges from the late 1980s. the Epstein Family Trust (managing partner of Del Rey Shores) and
. After 5/21/09. In LA County. which they also did not disclose.00 in April of 2007 from Jerry B.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and disciplinary action for paying or receiving “judicial benefits” from counties. was illegal. no immunity existed for the payments. through the present were over $300 million. Epstein (Trustee of the Epstein Family Trust). This made LA County’s certification of the EIR false and illegal. California. Nor does it extend to judges presiding over cases in which the county who paid them was a party before the judges. The retroactive immunity did not extend to “fraud upon the court” or the obstruction of justice of not disclosing the payments. effective 5/21/09. when the payments began. The illegality occurred because LA Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe voted for the EIR illegally. A second fraud upon the court occurred by LA County and its attorneys and Real Parties in Interest (“Del Rey Shores”) and its attorneys not disclosing that the LA County Supervisors’ 5/15/07 vote approving their co-application for an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to redevelop the Del Rey Shores apartment complex in Marina del Rey. They had received contributions greater than
Northern Fire & Marine Ins. the EIR failed to pass. 348.S. but after removing the votes of Antonovich and Knabe. The Political Reform Act and the case of BreakZone Billiards v. and that the certification was illegal. 254 U. the 8/9/10 Notice. They committed fraud upon the court by not disclosing such. City of Torrance. Levine (“chief of staff” for Jerry B.App. the file in this case. v.S. Throckmorton. This motion is based upon the Notice of Motion. Fine. 64. 81 Cal. Epstein).4th 1205 (2000). 98 U. Co. 61. /// /// ///
. prohibited Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe from voting on the EIR. the Declaration of Richard I.S. Supreme Court precedents hold that fraud upon the court vitiates the case. Three were needed for approval. the Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (See U..S. and in the contempt proceeding.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
David D. The EIR received four votes. and upon such other documents and evidence which may be presented at the hearing. U. Vallely v. 66 (1878). that all orders and judgments are regarded as nullities and void. 353-354 (1920)). LA County and its counsel and Del Rey Shores and its counsel knew that the EIR did not pass.
BY: _________________________ RICHARD I.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Dated this 27th day of August. In Pro Per
Bennett set forth in his letter dated August 12.
. and Judge Yaffe himself. In the event that Judge Yaffe does not grant this Motion and enter an order voiding and annulling all orders and judgments in this case. and by bringing such Motion Fine does not waive his position that Judge Yaffe does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case due to fraud upon the Court by LA County. seeks an order voiding and annulling all orders and judgments in this case and in the contempt proceeding. the Motion is brought at the direction of LA Superior Court Counsel Frederick R. former counsel for Petitioner and Defendant in the contempt proceeding. 2010 to Fine. its attorneys. The Notice of Motion is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. R. Bennett. including those in the contempt proceeding. Rosen. This Motion is brought solely to accommodate the direction of Mr. PREFATORY STATEMENT Moving Party (“Fine”).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Real Parties in Interest Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North (“Del Rey Shores”) and their attorneys Armbruster and Goldsmith.J. this Motion is withdrawn. As stated in the Notice of Motion. Comer and Joshua L.
according to California case law. Senior Assistant. Section 19. both LA County and the LA Superior Court knew that the LA County payments were illegal. and (5) “The Board of Supervisors has
evidently found that in order to attract and retain qualified judges to serve in this [LA] County it is necessary and appropriate to provide them with benefits such
. County Clerk/Executive Officer. Zolin. 1988 letter from Roger M. approved by DeWitt W. of the California Constitution. LA County Counsel.4th
630 (2008). LA County began making payments to State LA Superior Court judges in the late 1980s. according to two California Attorney General opinions. A November 10. Superior Court. Clinton. rev. Such letter showed that: (1) only the State Legislature could “prescribe” the “compensation” of judges.1 2 3 4 5 6 7
II. Section 19.
LA COUNTY PAYMENTS TO STATE TRIAL COURT JUDGES IN LA COUNTY As stated in the case of Sturgeon v. The Sturgeon case held that these payments violated Article VI. under Article VI. LA County Counsel. of the California Constitution. to Frank S. was produced as evidence in the appellate phase of the Sturgeon case. County of Los Angeles. as far back as 1988. (2) “compensation” encompassed fringe benefits. Whitby. denied 12/23/08. (4) Superior Court judges are State Constitutional Officers.
However. (3) the Legislature’s duty was not delegable to any other body.App. 167 Cal.
___ (2009). The payments’ sole purpose could only be to influence the judges to rule in favor of LA County. Slip Opinion page 16. in relevant part:
.T. The November 10. A. In an analogous situation. Massey Coal Co. ”. It stated in Caperton v.T.. . They further knew that the
payments could not “attract” a judge who was already in office and could not “retain” a judge who could only remain in office by winning an election. 556 U. .S. Inc.S. State benefits and State retirement. Supreme Court held that Judge Benjamin should have recused himself. Benjamin who was running to become a judge of the highest court in West Virginia. Judge Benjamin being the deciding vote.. Massey Coal Co. Don Blankenship. the Chief Executive Officer of A. which was often a party before the judges who accepted the money.. Inc. 1988 letter showed that at all times LA County and the judges knew that the payments were illegal.T. The U. A.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
as the flexible benefit plan contribution and the 401(k) match . contributed $3 million to the campaign committee of Mr. had a $50 million judgment against it which it was appealing to such court. Massey Coal Co. in addition to their State salary. Judge Benjamin won his election and the judgment was later reversed by a 3-2 vote..
persons likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves. .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause. Canon 3E(2) requires the judge to: disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170. Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 4D(1) prohibits judges from entering into financial dealings that: (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position. even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification. Fine. similar fears of bias can arise when—without the consent of the other parties—a man chooses the judge in his own cause. . Canon 3E(1) requires the judge to “disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.1. paragraph 11) without the consent of the other parties to the litigation. LA County has paid over $300 million to LA Superior Court judges.”
. CCP Section 170. Such Section states: A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: [] A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. From the late 1980s through the present. (Declaration of Richard I. or (b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with .1(a)(6)(A)(iii) mandated such judge’s disqualification.
Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. United States. § 1346. civil liability and disciplinary action to a “governmental entity. The U. 18 U.S. 1038 (1960). 11. citing Offutt v.S.” Levine v. If the judge did not.Ct. did it extend to county payments received after 5/21/09. ____ (decided
. 616. The U. Supreme Court held in Skilling v. At all times. effective 5/21/09.C. officer.” The retroactive immunity did not extend to the judge’s actions of presiding over cases in which the county who paid them was a party.S. Nor. After the Sturgeon decision.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Any judge who received a LA County payment was bound to disclose such and disqualify himself. from criminal prosecution. 561 U. 11. or employee of a governmental entity.S. 80 S.Ct. United States. the judge could be facing a bribery charge.” including judges who were paid or received “judicial benefits. Further. Senate Bill SBx2-11 gave retroactive immunity. which recognized that the County payments to judges were criminal. 75 S. the judge receiving the payment may be prosecuted for violating the intangible right to honest services under Federal law. judges who accepted “bribes” from an interested party were biased. United States. 348 U. the legislature enacted Senate Bill SBx2-11. 362 U. 14. 13 (1954).S.S. a judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice. Therefore. 610.
6/24/2010). incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. that § 1346 encompasses bribery and kickbacks. For a full explanation of the effect of the 7/13/10 Minute Order and the reasons to void and annul all orders and judgments see “Notice that All Orders
and Judgments in the Marina Strand Case are Void Based Upon Judge Yaffe’s Admission of Fraud Upon the Court and Obstruction of Justice in the 7/13/10 Minute Order of This Court” filed 8/9/10 (hereinafter the “8/9/10 Notice”). 2008 draft order that was not filed . 2008. The Court did not intend to make any finding as to whether Mr. refers to an earlier March 18. III. . The Report for fiscal year 2008/2009 shows one case.
.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification. Judge Yaffe’s Admission of Fraud Upon the Court and Obstruction of Justice in His 7/13/10 Minute Order. THE FRAUDS UPON THE COURT A. Fine has standing to file a Verified Statement of Disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 170. On 7/13/10 Judge Yaffe issued a Minute Order in which he admitted fraud upon the Court and obstruction of justice by stating: It has been brought to the Court’s attention that its Order striking Notice of Disqualification dated and filed March 27. Slip Opinion pages 48-49. .3. LA County Counsel Annual Litigation Cost Management Reports for the fiscal years 2004/2005 to 2006/2007 show that only two cases were decided against LA County when a LA Superior Court judge made the decision. . (See Exhibit 6 to 3/25/08 CCP § 170.
. paragraph 9. quoting 2/19/08 Declaration. The contention has no merit. Fine’s contention that he can disqualify Judge Yaffe from hearing a contempt proceeding against him and from punishing him for contempt. He also knew that he and LA County had actively concealed the payments even after Fine had stated in a 2/19/08 Declaration that “the Court [Judge Yaffe] has not disclosed if it is receiving payments from LA County. paragraph 12).1(a)(6)(A)(iii) and Canons 3E(2) and (1) by not having disqualified himself. and that he had violated CCP § 170. Mr. page 13.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The significance of the admission is that no 3/18/08 Order ever existed and no finding ever existed that Fine could not disqualify Judge Yaffe. because Mr. . as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 170. Fine did not present a Statement of Disqualification on that ground at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification. The result is that paragraph 2. when he filed the case on behalf of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association . 2007. Fine knew that all judges of this Court receive compensation from the County of Los Angeles on June 14. of the 3/4/09 Judgment and Order of Contempt is false and a sham. page 13 of the March 4.3(c)(1). . because part of Judge Yaffe’s remuneration as a judge is paid by the County of Los Angeles.
admission supercedes and voids Judge Yaffe’s argument at paragraph 2.” (Fine Declaration. 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt in which Judge Yaffe: rejects Mr. Judge Yaffe knew when he made the above statement on 3/4/09 that he and LA County had committed fraud upon the Court by not having disclosed the payments to him.
Supreme Court stated in In re Murchison. that he did not disclose such on his Form 700 Statement of Financial Interest. . The second disclosure occurred on the first day of the contempt trial in which Judge Yaffe unlawfully “judged his own actions. LA County and Its Attorneys’ Fraud Upon the Court
LA County and its attorneys have never disclosed to this day that LA County has made payments to Judge Yaffe. Judge Yaffe testified on 12/22/08 that he received payments from LA County. at Slip Opinion page 10: no man can be a judge in his own case . cited in Caperton. supra. All disclosures have been made by Judge Yaffe. and that he could not remember any case in the last three years that he decided against LA County. .
. 136 (1955). 133. (Paragraph 2 of Fine Declaration). B.S.” The U. Judge Yaffe does not contest in the 3/4/09 Judgment and Order of Contempt that he was disqualified ten days after Fine filed and served the 3/25/08 Verified Statement of Disqualification to which Judge Yaffe did not respond. that he did not have any contract or agreement to perform services for LA County.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Additionally. The first disclosure occurred on 3/20/08 at a hearing in response to questions by Fine. 349 U. no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.S.
Epstein) contributed greater than $500.000. (Fine Declaration.
. as the contributions were greater than $500. Epstein (Trustee of the Epstein Family Trust). Del Rey Shores’ and Its Attorneys’ Fraud Upon the Court
LA County.00 and were made within a year prior to the vote. These Supervisors then voted for the EIR on 5/15/07. the Epstein Family Trust (managing partner of Del Rey Shores) and David O.4th 1205 (2000). (Fine Declaration. it is estimated that he received approximately $500. six weeks before the vote to approve the EIR.App. paragraphs 5-7).00 in payments from LA County. LA County’s.00 to each of the LA County Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe. Jerry B. paragraph 12). LA County and Del Rey Shores were the co-applicants. Assuming that he had received LA County payments from 1987 through the present. Judge Yaffe has been a LA Superior Court Judge since 1987. C.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Based upon his biography. Levine (“Chief of Staff” for Jerry B. Del Rey Shores and its attorneys concealed the illegality of the 5/15/07 vote of the LA County Supervisors to approve the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to redevelop the Del Rey Shores apartment complex in Marina Del Rey. California. In April 2007. City of Torrance. These votes violated the Political Reform Act and the case of BreakZone
Billiards v. Its Attorneys’. 81 Cal. its attorneys.
S. 254 U.
Three were needed for
certification. and even judgments. Throckmorton. 98 U. When Fine presented the contribution evidence at the contempt trial.S. Supreme Court. and certainly in contravention of it. U. and a judgment equally with a contract . Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co. . 61. the attorney for Del Rey Shores. Del Rey Shores and its attorneys did not disclose this information. 348. Supreme Court Cases Mandate That the Order Voiding and Annulling All Orders and Judgments be Entered Based Upon Fraud Upon the Court The U. The U. and they cannot [act] beyond the power delegated to them. documents. 353-354 (1920): Courts are constituted by authority. Comer. their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. The 2007 contribution information did not become available under the latter part of 2008. Res Adjudicata. and this
. LA County. Section 499). the EIR was not certified.S. which the Superior Court is bound to follow. If they act beyond that authority. . The Court continued at page 66: Fraud vitiates everything.. Since Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe’s two votes were illegal.S. R. still did not disclose the illegality (Id). D.J. .S. Supreme Court further stated in Vallely v.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Four votes were cast in favor of the EIR. (citing Wells. its attorneys. They are not voidable. 64 (1878): There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts. but simply void. stated in U.S. To this day the disclosure has not been made. v.
Rule 60(b)(5). It has been over three years since the case was filed.S. (1 Pet.) 328. and LA County.Ct. 204 U. 27 S. A report from the Administrative Office of the Courts shows that 90% of the judges receive County payments. It has already destroyed the integrity of the California judicial system. Smith. Old Wayne Life Assn. and LA County and its attorneys are still holding to their fraud upon the court regarding the payments to Judge Yaffe. it will destroy what little remains of the California judicial system. 26 U. 312 F. Unlawfully incarcerating Fine and unlawfully disbarring him has only resulted in arousing the anger of the citizenry and the media. its attorneys. v. the judgment based upon it is also void.R.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
even prior to reversal. and Del Rey Shores and its attorneys are still holding to their fraud upon the court regarding the illegality of the EIR. Elliott v. held: if the underlying judgment is void.P. in Austin v.2d 337.S. Lessee of Piersol.C. in light of F. 236. CONCLUSION It took Judge Yaffe two and a quarter years to admit that he made a false Order on 3/18/08 and that Fine had standing to disqualify him.
IV. McDonough. This
obstruction of justice must not be allowed to continue. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 343 (1962). 340. Unless it is stopped now. 8. Calls for
Dated this 27th day of August. and immediately release Fine from the unlawful incarceration. It is time for the Superior Court to obey the law and void and annul all the orders and judgments in the case and in the contempt proceeding. 2010
BY: _________________________ RICHARD I. FINE.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
prosecution of the judges and the supervisors have begun and will not stop until this problem is resolved and the judicial system is reformed.
that I became aware of the 3/20/08 Minute Order mentioned in the 7/13/10 Minute Order was when I received a copy of it with the 7/13/10 Minute Order. Prior to that time. I could and would competently testify thereto as follows: 1. Fine. A comparison of the Notice of Ruling of the 3/20/08 Hearing
. 3. LA County and its attorneys did not disclose that
Judge Yaffe was receiving payments from LA County.
and was the Defendant in the contempt proceeding. 2. The first hearing I attended in the case was on 3/20/08. FINE
I. if called upon to testify. Richard I.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DECLARATION OF RICHARD I. I am the former counsel for Petitioner and was such until 10/17/07. yet at all times each knew this to exist. Rosen. No 3/20/08 Minute Order was ever served upon me. at which
time Judge Yaffe admitted that he was receiving payments from LA County in response to my questions. No 3/20/08 Minute Order was attached to the Notice of Ruling of the 3/20/08 Hearing served by Mr. 4. nor was such Minute Order mentioned in such Notice of Ruling. declare: The following facts are within my personal knowledge and.
Epstein. the Epstein interests contributed $2. and $1. Levine – the “Chief of Staff” for Jerry B. the Epstein Family Trust. At such time. approximately six weeks prior to their votes in favor of the co-application of LA County and Del Rey Shores for an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to redevelop the Del Rey Shores apartment complex in Marina del Rey.00 to Supervisor Knabe in 2006. 5.050.000. Rosen ever disclosed the contributions by Jerry B. Epstein. 6. Epstein. and David D. Del Rey Shores Joint Venture. Armbruster and Goldsmith. The 2007 contributions were not available by LA County online until the latter part of 2008. to LA County Supervisors Antonovich and Knabe in April 2007. As shown by the 3/25/08 CCP § 170. the Epstein Family Trust.J. Comer and Joshua L. and David D.00 to Supervisor Antonovich in 2006. or its attorneys.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and the 3/20/08 Minute Order shows that little similarity exists between the substance of the two documents. Comer
responded that Supervisor Antonovich had received a letter from the Fair Political Practices Commission stating that the contributions were legal. R.J.3 Verified Statement of
Disqualification. I introduced this evidence at the contempt trial. R. its attorneys. Levine. Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North (hereinafter “Del Rey Shores”). I found the April 2007 contributions from Jerry B. California. At no time from the beginning of the case through the present has
either LA County. Neither
its attorneys.00 and occurred within one year prior to the vote. the EIR was not approved and not certified. 81 Cal. and Judge Yaffe knew at all times that
Judge Yaffe was receiving payments from LA County and never disclosed such.4th 1205 (2000). I did not know that Judge Yaffe was specifically receiving LA County payments until I elicited the information from him at my first court appearance on 3/20/08. and Del Rey Shores and its attorneys had
this information from the outset of the Marina Strand case and never disclosed it. 8.App. Three were needed for approval. From this statement.” 10. LA County. LA County. The Court [Judge Yaffe] has not disclosed if it is receiving payments from LA County. as the contributions to each of them were greater than $500. Comer addressed the fact that Supervisor Antonovich’s vote and Supervisor Knabe’s vote in favor of the EIR was illegal under the Political Reform Act and the case of BreakZone Billiards v. Prior thereto. its attorneys. I filed a Declaration in Support of the 2/19/08 Motion
which stated at paragraph 12: “In the instant case Los Angeles County is a party. 9. but with Antonovich and Knabe’s votes being illegal.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
the letter nor Mr. Four votes were cast for the EIR. LA County. 7. City of Torrance. and Judge Yaffe
. its attorneys.
167 Cal.00 in 2007 and 2008 as shown in the Sturgeon case.3 Verified Statement of Disqualification).388.250.409.
I have calculated that he has received approximately $500.000. I have calculated that LA County has paid the State trial judges in LA County over $300 million since 1987.App.00 in payments
. 11. Judge Yaffe has been a Judge since 1987. rev. Sturgeon held the payments violated Article VI. A 2/22/08 letter to the Court of Appeal from Judicial Watch in response to the Court’s questions showed that the LA County payments to “State Trial Judges” from fiscal year 1999/2000 to fiscal year 2005/2006 were $127.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
payments. 12.4th 630
(2008). the annual payments per judge of $46.00 per judge. The case of Sturgeon v. Based upon this letter. and CCP § 170. who was a party “likely to appear before the court on which the judge [he] serves. (See Exhibit “5” to the 3/25/08 CCP § 170. by taking the payments from LA County. without the consent of the other party to the litigation. denied 12/23/08. Canon 4D(1). and Canon 3E(1). Section 19. Based upon his biography. states that the LA County payments to LA Superior Court judges began in the late 1980s.” Canon 3E(2) by not disclosing the payment. or approximately $23 million per year. Judge Yaffe also knew that he violated the Code of Judicial Ethics. County of Los Angeles. of the California Constitution. and now with the current payments of $57.3(a)(6)(A)(iii) by not disqualifying himself.000.
at Los Angeles. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. without the consent of the other party to the litigation.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
from LA County from 1987 to present.
BY: _________________________ RICHARD I. California. Executed this 27th day of August 2010. FINE
Rancho Dominguez. Ste. Comer Armbruster & Goldsmith. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am Fred Sottile. Room 546 Los Angeles. in the United States Mail.. under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. CA 90012
I certify and declare. CA 93002 Joshua Lee Rosen Joshua L Rosen Law Offices 5905 Sherbourne Drive Los Angeles . at Rancho Dominguez. CA 90220. Orr. On August 27. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above-entitled action. LLP 10940 Wilshire Blvd. McCormick Benton. with postage fully prepaid. Victoria Street.J. California Street P. California. INCLUDING THOSE IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING. CA 90056 Rose M. # 108.401 Santa Rosa. My address is 2601 E. Box 1178 Ventura. I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VOID AND ANNUL ALL ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS. ____________________________________ FRED SOTTILE
. 2010. Lemke Principal Deputy County Counsel LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OFF. 2010. 2100 Los Angeles. which was enclosed in a sealed envelope.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Ste. CA 90024 Frederick Bennett LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR CT 111 North Hill Street. Executed on this 27th day of August. CA 95404 Elaine M.O. addressed as follows:
Kevin M. DECLARATION OF RICHARD I. 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles. FINE on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof. Zoia 50 Old Courthouse Square. CA 90012-2713 R. that the foregoing is true and correct. Duval & Buckingham 39 N.
More From This UserSkip carouselHebrewbooks_org_9671.pdfharmonic_massage_manual.pdfEPC Fiduciary Handbook 3pdfChristian Citizen 00 EddyLaws Passed in the Territory of the UnitSacred SexualityCivic Ancestry of n 00 WildHandBook of Practical Forms.pdfA Practical Treatise on the Law of Covenants for Title (1860)Five Books of McabeesMagistrate Court PracticeElliot's Book of Forms (1881)Judiciary HandbookA Treatise on Extraordinary Legal Remedies - Embracing Mandamus, Quo Warranto and Prohibition (1884)Maxims of Law42 Fallaciesmindseye_1978_04-2Practical Forms of Writs The Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja Jyotish Vedic AstrologyGarga Horä Jyotish Vedic AstrologyLaghu Parashari Siddhanta Jyotish Vedic AstrologyBrihat Jatak Jyotish Vedic AstrologyCorpus Juris Secundum Volume XlixThe American PassportLASC RemoveJudgeKuhl3!8!11
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulLASCMotionNull8-27-10 by metroid4ever0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedList price: $0.00Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedMotion to Void Judge Yaffe's Orders & Judgments in Marina Strand Caseby Honor in JusticeMemorandum of Points and Authoritiesby Leslie Dutton1301 Austria v Masaquelby redroux995 INDLAW SC 804by Ramakrishnan VishwanathanBildner vs Ilusorioby Lawrence SantiagoUnited States v. Chokwe Lumumba, 794 F.2d 806, 2d Cir. (1986)by Scribd Government DocsContempt of Court Actby Pir Muhammad SalihIn Re Little, 404 U.S. 553 (1972)by Scribd Government DocsSkinner Suspendedby the kingfishAngelesby Kay Ann J GempisIn Re Lozano (1930)by ghianGiron v. Chaparro, 10th Cir. (2006)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Howard Wendy, 575 F.2d 1025, 2d Cir. (1978)by Scribd Government DocsBildner v Ilusorioby herbs22221473Bugaring v. Español Digestby Niq PolidoCommonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers Appeal of Abraham E. Freedman, Esquire, 552 F.2d 498, 3rd Cir. (1977)by Scribd Government DocsRule 71 Cases 1 7 Completeby Edward-Shine FajardaDefenition of Contemptby Nitin ToppoMelendres # 965 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_965_MAR 20 TRANSCRIPTby Jack RyanContempt of Courtby elly_azreenProfessional Ethics Project 2 Final Shwetaby Abhas Jaiswal22 Baculi vs Battungby Editha Abalos CastilloNos. 00-2456, 00-4202, 263 F.3d 56, 3rd Cir. (2001)by Scribd Government DocsLeg Prof Digests.docxby Kristell FerrerZebert Appealby the kingfishContempt Casesby Leida Mae BumanlagChapter III the Lawyer and the Courtsby James Gregory A. Villasis4-7-16 SFRX vs Volentine Hearingby smallcapsmarketSimilar to LASCMotionNull8-27-10Skip carouselMotion to Void Judge Yaffe's Orders & Judgments in Marina Strand CaseMemorandum of Points and Authorities1301 Austria v Masaquel995 INDLAW SC 804Bildner vs IlusorioUnited States v. Chokwe Lumumba, 794 F.2d 806, 2d Cir. (1986)Contempt of Court ActIn Re Little, 404 U.S. 553 (1972)Skinner SuspendedAngelesIn Re Lozano (1930)Giron v. Chaparro, 10th Cir. (2006)United States v. Howard Wendy, 575 F.2d 1025, 2d Cir. (1978)Bildner v IlusorioBugaring v. Español DigestCommonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers Appeal of Abraham E. Freedman, Esquire, 552 F.2d 498, 3rd Cir. (1977)Rule 71 Cases 1 7 CompleteDefenition of ContemptMelendres # 965 | D.Ariz._2-07-cv-02513_965_MAR 20 TRANSCRIPTContempt of CourtProfessional Ethics Project 2 Final Shweta22 Baculi vs BattungNos. 00-2456, 00-4202, 263 F.3d 56, 3rd Cir. (2001)Leg Prof Digests.docxZebert AppealContempt CasesChapter III the Lawyer and the Courts4-7-16 SFRX vs Volentine HearingLorenzo Shipping v Distribution[1]contemptLASCMotionNull8-27-10