JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION


Attorney Richard I. Fine Files A Complaint Against Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yaffe Who Put Him In Jail Indefinitely Without A Hearing
Los Angeles, CA Full Disclosure Network has learned that Superior Court Judge David Yaffe plans to step down from the bench in October 2010, prior to the expiration date of his elected term of office. Possible reasons for Judge Yaffe's decision could be the long grueling case of jailed anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine. Yaffe ordered Fine to be held in solitary "coercive confinement for contempt of court indefinitely, without bail, without a hearing and without a release date.On June 30, 2010 Richard I. Fine lodged a formal complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance against Judge Yaffe.



L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffe Plans To Retire
Leaving Attorney Richard Fine In Jail Without Being Convicted Of Anything
LINK

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® has learned that Superior Court Judge David Yaffe plans to step down from the bench in October 2010, prior to the expiration date of his elected term of office. The reasons? Presumably by retiring early the Governor will have an opportunity to name his successor rather than having a contested election to fill the spot. But there are other possible reasons for Judge Yaffe's decision, not the least of which could be the long grueling case of jailed anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine. Yaffe ordered Fine to be held in solitary "coercive confinement for contempt of court indefinitely, without bail, without a hearing and without a release date.

CATCH 22 KEEPS FINE IN JAIL

The Judge's Order stated that Fine would not be released from jail until he appeared at a Debtors Hearing in Deptartment 1A and provided the court with information regarding his assets. Fine had contended he would not answer the questions until he had exhausted all his appeals as the Judge's order was void and illegal. The Court had apparently set a Debtor Hearing date of June 14, 2010.

As the date neared a volunteer for Richard Fine attempted to arrange with the Court and Sheriff Baca's office for transportation to the Court. Janette Isaacs related in an Email that both the Court and Sheriff refused to transport Dr. Fine to the hearing. She was told that "budget cuts" prevented them from providing the transportation. Read her Email report to Full Disclosure® with details.

COMPAINT FILED
On June 30, 2010 Richard I. Fine lodged a formal complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance against Judge Yaffe. The entire document is available here

Read Full Report & Details Here

EXCERPTS FROM COMPAINT
Demand for Immediate Removal of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe engaged in fraud upon the court, obstruction of justice, misappropriation of funds, bribery, violation of Code of Judicial Ethics Canons 4D(1), 3E(2), 3E(1) and 2, violation of CCP § 170.1(a)(b)(A)(iii), violation of California Constitution Article 1; §§ 7 and 15 (due process) and section 3 (Petition Government for Redress of Grievances, violation of U.S. Constitution Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment (due process), First Amendment (Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances) and Article II, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause), violation of the “Intangible Right to Honest Services (18 U.S.C. § 1346, and violation of his oath of office, in his actions in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS 109420 (Marina Strand case) and its ancillary contempt proceeding against Richard I. Fine (FINE).

The Marina Strand case was a writ of mandate proceeding brought to invalidate the County Board of Supervisors May 15, 2007 illegal certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) applied for by Los Angeles County and its co-applicant Del Rey Shores Joint Venture and Del Rey Shores Joint Venture North (collectively Del Rey Shores) to re-develop the Del Rey Shores Apartment Complex in Marina Del Rey, California from 200 plus units to 500 plus units extending five stories high with “sails” on the roof resulting in the buildings rising to approximately 100 feet above the ground level of the surrounding two story buildings . The proposed redevelopment also increased the parking spaces from 200 plus to 1,000 plus.

I. Judge Yaffe Committed “Fraud Upon the Court” By Presiding Over the Marina Strand Case While Having Received Illegal Payments From Los Angeles County and Not Having Disclosed Such Thereby Voiding All of His Actions.

II. Senate Bill SBX 211’s Retroactive Immunity is Limited to Just the Payments of the County Benefits to the Judges and Nothing More by its Terms.

III. Judge Yaffe Deliberately Lied in a Court Document

IV. Judge Yaffe Violated CCP Section 170.3(c)(4) by Refusing to Leave the Marina Strand Case After he was Disqualified and by Refusing to Send the File to the Presiding Judge for Re-Assignment.

V. From the Outset of the Marina Strand Case Judge Yaffe Violated Canons 4D(1), 3E(2), 3E(1)2 and CCP Section 170.1(a)(b)(A)(iii) by Taking the Los Angeles County Money, Not Disclosing Such and Not Disqualifying Himself.

VI. Judge Yaffe Violated CCP section 1216.

VII. Judge Yaffe Violated Federal and State Due Process, His Oath of Office and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by Judging his Own Actions in the Contempt Proceeding Ancillary to the Marina Strand Case.

VIII. By Taking Payments From Los Angeles County Which Were also Illegal and “Bribes” Judge Yaffe Violated Federal and State Constitutional Due process

IX. Judge Yaffe Violated Due Process by Holding Fine in Contempt and Ordering him and Keeping him in “Coercive Confinement” Without a Hearing. X. Judge Yaffe’s Actions are Not an Isolated Incident But a Continuing Course of Conduct that Mandates his Removal.

CONCLUSION OF COMPLAINT:
Judge Yaffe is the “tip of the iceberg” of the largest judicial scandal in American history. In Los Angeles County alone, approximately $300 million of illegal payments have been made to Los Angeles Superior Court judges from Los Angeles County since the late 1980’s.

Illegal payments have been made to superior court judges in 55 of the 58 California counties. Approximately 90 percent of the court of appeal justices received illegal county payments when they were superior court judges. Based on their biographic records, five of the seven California Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice, received illegal county payments when they were superior court judges.

All of these superior court judges, court of appeal justices and superior court justices received retroactive immunity as of May 21, 2009 from civil liability, criminal prosecution and disciplinary actions for the illegal county payments. They did not receive immunity for failure to disclose the payments, “fraud upon the court”, federal criminal acts such as violating the Intangible Right to Honest Services – 18 U.S.C. 1346, violating federal and state constitutional due process and the right to petition the government to redress a grievance.

At the present time California has “the best judiciary that money can buy”. The corruption of the California judiciary due to the illegal county payments exceeds that of any country in the world as it affects over 90 percent of the judges and justices.

The commission must remove Judge Yaffe and then remove every other judge and justice who has taken illegal county payments until the integrity of the judiciary is restored.
Until such time, no Californian will receive a “fair trial presided over by an impartial judge.”

I, Richard I. Fine, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing facts are within my personal knowledge and if called to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. Executed this ___ day of June, 2010, at Los Angeles, California. ___________________________ RICHARD I. FINE

RELATED LINKS:

Richard I Fine files Demand for Release with U S Supreme Court

Court Transcript: Judge Yaffe Admission as witness while sitting a Judge on the Case

posted by Full Disclosure Network at 9:53 AM
1 Comments:

* US v. Stewart 234 f. supp 94 (1964) if a US government officer acts in violation of the constitution, he ceases to represent the government. Title 5 US Code sec. 556(d), 557, and 706. Courts loose jurisdiction if they don't follow due process of law. Also, Boyd v. United States 116 USR 616.Can't use a mans private papers against him. (5th amendment). Judge Yaffe has been impersonating a judge for over a year, what's he going to "retire" from?

By Blogger joebanana, at Sunday, July 11, 2010

Judicial Corruption Follows Richard Fine, Still Imprisoned Without A Hearing In Solitary Confinement In California

Huffington Post Editor Victoria Fine Writes About Her Dad, Esteemed Lawyer Richard I. Fine, Who Is In Solitary Confinement For Speaking Out About Judicial Corruption in California

Leslie Dutton of Full Disclosure Cable TV Sues For The Right To Interview Richard Fine, In Prison Indefinitely

From Judicial reform activist Joseph Zernik:

The case of Richard Fine was used only as an example. The vast majority of the victims are blacks and latinos, and about a third of them were estimated to have been still juveniles at the time of their false imprisonment.

As quoted in the paper forwarded to you some weeks ago:
1) Reports by PBS in 2001 related to the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) provided various estimates of the number of those who were falsely imprisoned in Los Angeles County as 8,000 to 30,000.
2) Unofficial report by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the UC Irvine Law School, and renowned constitutional scholar in 2001 stated upon review of the matter: “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”
3) Unofficial report by Prof David Burcham, Dean of Loyola Los Angeles Law School in 2001 stated: “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
4) Official report by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel stated in 2006: "Innocent people remain in prison". It also recommended "external investigation" of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which the US government so far has refused to conduct.

http://www.parentadvocates.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=7788