RICHARD I.

FINE
1
c/o Men’s Central Jail
2 Prisoner ID # 1824367
441 Bauchet Street
3 Los Angeles, CA 90012
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6

7
In the Disciplinary Matter of Case No. MC-09-129 ABC
8 RICHARD ISAAC FINE
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW
9 CAUSE RE DISBARMENT FROM
10
California State Bar No.: 55259 THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
11 CALIFORNIA
12

13
The disbarment would be improper, as the disbarment in California was
14

15
unconstitutional and void. A timely Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari was filed with the U.S.
Supreme Court on June 11, 2009.
16

17
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
18

19
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.
20

21
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.
22

23
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
24

25
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
26

27
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
28

-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). The California Supreme Court denied review, with full
25 knowledge of these actions.
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 As the judge presiding over the contempt proceeding, Judge Yaffe would be deciding
9 the legality of his own conduct and deciding the legality of the attack on his integrity.
10 Needless to say, the Los Angeles County Superior Court and Judge Yaffe did not
11 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
Dated this _____ day of June, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
7

8
BY: ____________________________
9 RICHARD I. FINE,
In PRO PER
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4

5 I am Greg McPhee. My business address is 2450 N. Lake Avenue, PMB 227,

6 Altadena, CA 91001.
On June ____, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as RESPONSE TO
7
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISBARMENT FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA on interested parties in this action
9
by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully
10
prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:
11

12
None:
13
No other parties identified within Order to Show Cause.
14
No other parties identified in court docket on PACER.
15

16

17

18

19
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
20
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-