Saturday, January 30, 2010

Judge David Yaffe Served With Demand for Immediate Release Of Richard Fine














FULL TEXT AND POINTS & AUTHORITIES

Demand For Immediate Release From LA County Jail, And Other Relief

Richard I. Fine (hereinafter “Fine”) hereby demands immediate release from the Los Angeles County Jail and other relief as set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Grounds for demand are:

1. From the outset, Judge Yaffe knew that “coercive incarceration” would not “coerce” Fine into answering questions about his assets because:

A. The issue in the case was whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself, and had no relevance or relationship to Fine’s assets, and

B. Fine informed Judge Yaffe in open court that Judge Yaffe had violated the law by taking payments from LA County, that he could not preside over the case and that Fine would answer the questions only if he lost all appeals on the issue.

2. Under the case of In Re Farr, 36 Cal.App.3d 577, 584 (1974), once it was established that there was no substantial likelihood that such contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, the commitment would become punitive in nature and thus subject to the statutory limitation. Cited in In Re William T. Farr on Habeas Corpus, 64 Cal.App.3d 605, 611-612 (1976).

3. Judge Yaffe knew from the outset of March 4, 2009 that his confinement of Fine violated the Farr case, was penal and unlawful.

4. Judge Yaffe knew that the LA County payments to him violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, were criminal (including misappropriation of funds, destruction of justice and bribes), and required him to recuse himself in the Marina Strand case at the outset under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

5. Judge Yaffe also knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, California law and the California Code of Judicial Ethics also required him to recuse himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case even if the LA County payments were not criminal.

6. Judge Yaffe further knew that the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution required him to recuse himself from the contempt proceedings because he was judging his own actions of receiving payments from LA County and making orders in the County’s favor. The demand is based upon the aforementioned grounds and other reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto.

Dated this 27th day of January, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

BY:
RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW .............

DO YOU THINK JUDGE YAFFE SHOULD RELEASE DR. FINE ?

2 comments:

  1. They should not only release Richard Fine, but they should put Judge David Yaffe, and Sheriff Baca behind bars.

    Part of a Judges duties are to promote and keep public confidence in the Judicial System. Watching this horrific, inhumane case, where 2000 Judges can take illegal payments for years, and then get away with it, because another corrupt wheel in the Government writes a law to blanket their illegalities, screams we have no civilized courts. Judges break laws on a daily basis and have immunity at every turn. Covered by the District Attorneys, the Attorney Generals, Hell, the Governor himself.
    It's about Government self preservation, and "screw the little people who pay our salaries. We can and will do whatever we want, and we can and will get away with it. No one can stop us, and we'll scare the crap out of anyone who tries. We'll make an example from Richard Fine."

    FREE RICHARD I. FINE TODAY. RESTORE OUR FAITH IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AND HOLD EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE. I MEAN EVERYONE.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Political terrorism is just what this is. Yaffe, and Baca, are conspiring against the people of California. In fact all of California's government are political terrorists. We've been infiltrated, where's homeland stupidity?

    ReplyDelete