You are on page 1of 40

Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 2 of 13


Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 24

EXHIBIT 1
z

19/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 2 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...


Get Local' Create Your MyBO Aocount ( or Login) Ema,' Address ZiP Code Get Started

Email Address

ZJp Code

Logrn I RegIster I Search 810gs


Community Blogs

Post from American Homeowners Resource Center:


My Home
Request For Criminal Investigation for Violation of the Implied Right of Honest
Services By California Judges Judicial corruption is driving the current economic crisis Corrmunlly
and making Americans homeless
My Neighborhood
ByAHRC Homeownersfor Barack Obama - Feb 11th, 2009 at 11 35 am EST
Also listed In Action Center Updates I AHRC Homeownersfor Barack Obama I Columbus State Community College for My Groups
Obama My Fnends
Find Fnends
Comments I Mall to a Fnend I Report ObjectIOnable Content

Han Enc Holder


Attorney General
Events
U S Department of Jusbce Find E.....nts
950 Pennsyl'lanla A..... Host an E.....nt
Washington, DC, 20530-0001
Manage my E.....nts

Dear Attorney General Holder Fundraisltlg

As you are only too painfully aware, hOUSing In the US has been the linchpin olthe current economic criSIS The
Affiencan Homeowners Resource Center IS a nabonwlde grassroots organlZ3bon dedicated to the Affiencan Messages
homeowner, and has been working on these problems for almost 20 years

810g
We ha..... seen corrupbon In all facets of the hOUSing market In homeowner assoCiabons where 55 mllhon
Affiencans now II""', we ha..... documented the corrupbon belWeeen pollbclans, the lawyers who farm VIew All Blogs
homeowner aSSOCiatIOns, and JUdges who Invanably rule for the assOCIation against the homeowner We have Search All Blogs
seen a gross ViolatIOn 01 the cIVIl nghts of homeowners which has resulted In them lOSing thelt homes and thelt
II.....s - literally
Action Center
We ha..... seen how a giant fraud has Infected the enbre body pollbc and economiC From the saVings and loan
scandal of the 1980's up unbl today, the fraudsters ha..... piled scheme upon scheme to mass massl"'"
Resources
personal weallh for themseJ .....s al the e"Pense of allzens We are wondenng whal they are planning as an
encore

De lopers bnbe POllbclans to appro..... the znnlng for thelt 'last hOUSing de.....lopments The bankers then
pro de the mortgages alteaserrates to get clbzens to buy the homes, and pocket the sumptuous
commiSSions (Some of the millIon dollar homes In foredosure In Southern California were owned by those
who peddled the sub-pnme mortgages)

The lawyers then mO\e In to convert homeowner aSSoCiations mto cash registers for them selves , piling
regulallon upon regulatIOn so that they can fine the homeowner. and carry out non-JudiCial foredosures on the
homeowners when they cannot afford the outrageous fines and lawyers' fees, and consplte With the pollbClans
to pass laws to make all thiS legal

Wlen the homeowner goes to court, the JUdges Invanably Side With the homeowner assoCiation and Its lawyers
(Some of these ..... ry same lawyers ha..... acted as commiSSioners In such cases) The Judges then grant
hundreds of thousands m legal fees to these lawyers against the homeowners

~a lawyer has the courage and Integrity to sbck up for homeowners, the JudiCial system goes after hlmlher with
a .....ngeance The followmg documentallon regardmg one such lawyer, Richard Fine, Will show the depth of
corrupllon of the legal system, which ...olates the constitution and laws as If they did not eXlsl

Such aCli... tywlII conbnue With Impunltyun'ess you take deC/slle and ,mmed/ate aClion 10 slop It The currenl
ensls which we are In, IS not simply economic Indeed, the economic ens IS flows from the POlitical, legal and
cultural ... rus that has Infected e..... ry part of our soaety Unless you promptly use the many tools at your
disposal, the damage to our soaetywIIi far exceed that which maybe caused byan external enemy

Hence, we are wnbng as a '101l0w up" to pre...ous requesls by homeowners to Inslltute grand Junes to
Investigate wrongdoing over 'llOmeowner Issues" In Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Countles as a
beginning

my.barackobama.com/.. .jgGxhb5 1/12


20/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 3 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...


We realize that there are many Items on your plate, but as hOUSing IS central to the current criSIS, we hope that
you will place a high pnonty on these matters We would appreciate your prompt response both on the above
matters, and the follOWing case study of a lawyer who !ned to do something, and what happened to him

It IS senlas a formal cnmlnal complalntlor ",olabon of the "Implied nghtto honestse",ces", (28 USC § 1346)
and other appropnate statutes against the follOWing Indl",duals, and a request that the Department of Jusbce
open an In",stlgabon of them

Sincerely,

Elizabeth McMahon - Publisher


Amencan Homeowners Resource Center
PO Box97
San Juan Capistrano, California 92693

cc
President Barak Obama
Hon PatnckJ Leahy, Chm Senate JUdlClaryComm
Hon John Conyers Jr ,Chm House JudiCIary Comm
Hon Henry Waxman
Hon Brad Sherman
Thomas P O'Bnen, U S Attorney
Callfomla Chief Jusbce Ronald M George
Callfomla Attorney General Edmund G Brown, Jr

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF IMPLIED RIGHT OF HONEST SERVICES AND
OTHER APPROPRIATE CHARGES - LOS ANGELES COURTS

Richard I Fine
468 North Camden Dn"', SUite 200
Be",~yHllls, CA 90210
Tel (310) 277-5833
FaCSimile (310) 277-1543

February 1,2009

AskDOJ@usdoJ gOY

Hon Enc Holder


Attorney General
U S Department of Jusbce
950 Pennsylvania A'"
Washington, DC, 20530-0001

Re Cnmlnal Complaint and Requestlor Invesbgabon for \i1olabon of the Implied Right of Honest Se",ces and
Other Appropnate Charges of

(1) I'JI Los Angeles Superior Court JUdges,


(2) Los Angeles Supenor Court JUdge Da"'d P Yaffe,
(3) Los Angeles Supenor Court Judge Soussan G Bruguera,
(4) Los Angeles Supenor Court Commissioner Bruce E Mtchell,
(5) Calif State Bar Court Heanng Department Judge Richard A Honn,
(6) Los Angeles County Supe",sor Mchael Antono",ch,
(7) Los Angeles County Supe",sor Don Knabe, and
(8) Los Angeles County Supe",sor Glona Molina

Dear Attomey General Holder

This lette"s a formal cnmlnal complalntforvlOlabon of the "Implied nghtto honestse",ces", (28 USC § 1346)
and other appropnate statutes against, and a requestlhat the Departm ent of JUStice open and Invesbgabon of

(1) All Los Angeles Supenor Court JUdges,


(2) Los Angeles Supenor Court JUdge Da"'d P Yaffe,
(3) Los Angeles Supenor Court judge Soussan G Bruguera,
(4) Los Angeles SupenorCourt Commissioner Bruce E Mtchell,
(5) Callfomla State Bar Court Heanng Department JUdge Richard A Honn,
(6) Los Angeles County Supe",sor Mchael Antono",ch,
(7) Los Angeles County Supe",sor Donald Knabe, and
(8) Los Angeles County Supe",sor Glona Molina

The reason for the cnmlnal complaint and request IS that the aforemenboned JudiCIal officers and the county
supe",sors have ",olated the "Implied nght of honest se",ces" and pOSSibly other federal laws

my.barackobama.com/.../gGxhb5 2/12
21/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 4 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...

The LA Supenor Court judges ha"" taken "unconsbtubonal" payments from LA County, not dlsdosed such and
decided cases In la\Qr of LA County

LA Supenor Court JUdge Da\/ld P Yaffe, and LA Supenor Court Judge Soussan G Bruguera, par1Jcularty, ha""
taken "unconstltubonal" payments from LA County who was a party before them, not disclosed such and
decided the cases or made rUlings In fa\Qr of LA County

LA Supenor Court Commissioner Bruce E Mtchell has taken payments from LA County, not dlsdosed such,
while acbng as a ''temporary Judge" In the Eminent Domain Department of the LA Superior Court and has
"appro""d and ordered" the taking of approXimately $2 million from the 01 Flores Class Settlement Fund In
\/lolatlOn of the Stipulation of Settlement and Final Judgmentfor his own benefit and the benefit of "other Judicial
officers"

Callfomla State Bar Court Heanng Department judge Richard A Honn was on the board of a chanty which
recel""d $30,00000 from LA County while he presided o""r a case 1n\QI\/lng LA County and deCided In their
la\Qr judge Honn was a member of the Board of Go""mors of the Special Olympics Southern California
Another member of the board was Gerald Hlme, a LA County represenlatl"" SpeCial Olympics Southern
California recel""d $30,00000 from LA County dUring the bme judge Honn heard the case against the lawyer
who filed federal CI\/ll nghts cases alleging that the LA County payments to past and present LA Supenor Court
JudiCial officers were "unconstltubonal" and \/lolated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U S
Constitution DUring thiS bme of conlnbubons, judge Honn held that such lawyer was gUilty of "moral turpitude"
for filing such cases

LA County Superlllsors Antono\/lch, Knabe and Molina recel""d contnbubons from a de",,'oper who ad\Qcated a
project before the Board, dld'notdlsclose SUCh, did not recuse themsel""s, and "",ted for the de",,'opec's
proJect, when such project came before them Within twel"" (12) months of the dates of the contributions In
\/lolatlon of the California Political Reform Act

These acts and Vlolabons are a m,crocosm of the mjf,ad ofVlolauons of the ",mplled right of honest serlllces"
occurnng dally In the LA Supen or Court

I History and Background of Payments and \/lolatlons Resulbng In Callfomla's Current "JudiCial Cnsls"

Since the late 1980s, the Los Angeles County Board of Superlllsors has paid the Los Angeles Supenor Court
Judges "unconstitutional" payments known as "local JudiCial benefits" In \/lolatlon of Mcle VI, § 19 of the
Callfomla Constitution As of the present time, the am aunt of these payments IS estimated to be o""r $300
million based upon figures taken from LA County Annual BUdgets where such payments are under the heading
of ''Tnal Court Funding"

The Los Angeles (LA) Supenor Court judges are state elected publiC offiCials under Mcle VI, § 16 of the
Callfomla Consbtutlon and not allowed to ha"" additional employment other than part ume teaching, under
Mde VI, § 17 of the California Constitution

Since 1974, Callfomla has had a Polibcal Reform Act reqUlnng elected publiC offiCials, Indudlng JUdges, and
public employees to dis dose sources of Income and refrain from conflicts of Interest The JudiCiary IS also
subject to a Code of JudiCial EthiCS

Unfortunately, these laws ha"" been blatantly VIolated In California resulbng In \/lolabons of 18 USC 1346, the
federal law enforCing the "Implied nght to honest serlllces"

"ResponSible" state bodies such as the state prosecutonal agencies, the state
Appellate courts, the JudiCial Counol, and the CommISSion on JudiCial Performance ha....e
refused to face and resol"" the problem Even worse, the State Bar has prosecuted
Richard I Fine ("Fine") and the Slate Bar Court has recommended disbarment for "moral
turpitude" for hiS bnnglng federal CI\/ll nghts cases shOWing such "unconsbtuMnal"
payments and the resulbng Vlolabons of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, against
LA County who 10 ade such paym ents and past and present LA Superior Court jUdges and court com miSSIOners
who were receiVIng the LA County payments

Callfomla IS now In a "JudiCial Crises" The LA Supenor Court has become "dysfunctional" due to the $21
million per year of "uncons btutionaI" payments from LA County to the LA Supenor Court Judges LA County
Counsel documents show that In the years 2005 and 2006-2007, not one person won a case against LA County
when the deCiSion was made by a LA Supenor Court Judge

The LA County payments have been held to VIolate Mda VI, § 19, of the California Constitution In the recent
case of Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles, at ai, OCtober 10, 2008 modified November 7,2008, Court of
Appeal, Fourth App DISt, DIV One, Cer1Jfied for Publication, ReVIew Denied, December 23, 2008, remltltur
Issued %'09, LASC Case No BC 351286, Appeal No 0050832, Supreme Ct Case No 5168408 Yet, the LA
County payments conbnue

The problem elOsts In other California counties The same payments are being given from other California
counbes to the judges, but not In the same amount as LA County Some counbas have now discontinued the
payments after the enactment of the 1997 Lockyer-Isenberg Tnal Court Funding Act (Cal Govl Code §77000 et
seq) which dedared that the State was solely responSible fortnal court funding \0 remove the dlspanbes In
comoensabon recelwd bv ludoes In different counties

my.barackobama.com/.. .jgGxhb5 3/12


22/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 5 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...


compensation recelwd by JUdges In different counties

Addlbonally, over $2 million was taken from a class settlement fund and used to purchase the claims against a
LA Supenor Court commissioner and other Judicial officers, and then defend such deaslon

These Violations haw precluded any meaningful access to Justice for over ten (10) million LA County residents
for years Unless, these "olabons are prosecuted and stopped, the residents of LA County will conbnue to be
depnved of their basIc consbtubonal nghts to an unbiased Judlaal system, a county govemmentfree of Influence
and public servants who render "honest services"

Only federal Intervenbon and con"cbons Will restore meaningful access to JUStice In the LASupenor Court
system and re Insbtute the First Amendment nght to pebbon the govemmentto redress gnevances and the
Fourteenth Amendment nghtto due process

II The Violations Have PreclUded the Meaningful Access to JUStice, Cost the Ta>q:>ayers over $1 Billion and
Denied Over 10 Mllion People Their First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

These \/Iolatlons have directly cost LA County homeowners, ta>q:>ayers, and residents over $1 billion and \/Iolated
their First Amendment nght to pebbon the govemmentto redress gnevances and Fourteenth Amendment nght
to due process These "olabons have affected every case where LA County, ItS agenaes or employees are a
party including but not limited to, homeowner and property cases, the children's courts, the probate courts, LA
County contracts, the leases In Manna del Reyand other LA County "pUblic land" and public facllibes, and LA
County negligence, amongst others All facets of life In LA County are affected

These \/Iolallons have directly cost LA County homeowners, ta>q:>ayers, and residents over $300 million of
"unconsbtubonal" LA County payments to LA Supen or Court Judges In the last twenty years and are conllnulng at
the rate of apprOl(Jmately $21 million per year This IS happening despite the case of Sturgeon v County of Los
Angeles, etal, which held at pages 1-2

Section 19 arlicle VI of the California Conslltullon requires that the Legislature


"prescnbe compensabon for judges of courts of record The duty to prescnbe judloal compensallon IS not
delegable Thus the pracllce of the County of Los Angeles of pro\/ldlng Los Angeles County supenor court
JUdges With employment benefits, In addition to the compensabon prescribed by the legislature, IS not
permissible

From the bme the LA County payments began In the late 1980s through the present, LA County has paid the LA
Supenor Court JUdges over $300 million as shown by LA County Annual BUdget documents LA County has
been paYIng LA Supenor Court judges "local judlaal benefits" In addition to their State compensabon Since the
late 1980s

As of the present lime California Court Judges receive a base salary and benefits of $192,38600 (Salary-
$178,78900) LA Supenor Court Judges receive $249,413 00 (LA County payments of up to $46,386 00 per year
per JUdge) LA County payments total apprOl(Jmately $21 million per year to LA Supenor Court jUdges In addilion
to their current State of Califomla salanes, gl"ng them higher annual "compensabon" than U S Supreme Court
Assoaate jusllces who receive apprOl(Jmately $217,000 00 and the U S Supreme Court Chief Jusbce who
receives apprOl,m ately $218,000 00

Deaslons of LASupenor Court jUdges In a few cases affecllng Income from LA County leased "pUblic land" to
"developers"ln Manna del Rey show that ta>q:>ayers have "\ost" at least $700 million ,n Income from the value of
LA County leased land In Manna del Reyas of2005, and atleast $70 million In fees for '1ease renewals"

Four ta>q:>ayer class aellon lawsUits filed were filed In 2004-2005 Such laWSUits alleged a gift of public funds to
pm-ate IndiVIduals In Vlolabon of Artlde XVI, § 6 of the California Consbtutlon by the LA County Supervisors'
leases to "developers" In Manna del Rey The laWSUits were filed against LA County, Archstone Smith Operabng
Trust, Kmgswood Village- Manna, Villa Venella, Neptune Manna and the Oakwood and consolidated under
Coalillon to Save the Manna and Manna Tenants Assoclallon, et al v County of Los Angeles et al , LASC Case
No BS 085898

The ta>q:>ayers lost apprOl(Jmately $700 million of Income from the developers In Manna del Rey, when LA
Supenor Court JUdge Soussan G Bruguera dismissed the consolidated cases before trial JUdge Bruguera
first did not disclose that she was recel"ng LA County payments, but admitted In response to a
"dlsquallficabon"whlch she unlawfully "struck", that she was recel"ng payments from LA County, who was the
lead defendant In the cases The loss IS conllnulng at apprOl(Jmately $70 million per year AI the present time,
the loss over the past thirteen (13) years IS apprOl(Jmately $91 0 million and growing

III The Legal BaSIS of the "Implied Rlghtto Honest SerYces"Is Well Established Against Judges and Elected
OffiCials

The "Implied nghtlo honest serYces"ls set forth In the case of United States v
Holzer,81 F 2d 304, 308 (7th Cir 1987) vacated 484 U S 807 (ordenng reconslderallon In light of McNally v
United States, 483 U S 350,3591987), reinstated under 18 USC section 1346 overtumlng McNally and
relnstabng pre McNally case law See United States v Grandmaison, 77 F 3d 555, 565-566 (1st C" 1996) and
UnJled States v Sawyer, 85 F 3d 713, 723-725 (1 st Cir 1996) In Holzer, supra, the court stated at 81 F 2d at
311

IIln thiS arOJlt It IS extortion If the offiCial knows that the bnbe Dlft or other favor IS motivated bv a hone that It Will
my.barackobama.com/.. ,fgGxhb5 4/12
23/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 6 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...


"/n this ClrUlIt It IS eJdort,on II the offiCIal knows that the bnbe, gill, or other fa\Or IS mobvated by a hope that It will
Inlluence him In the exerCIse olhls office and II, knowing thiS, he accepts the bnbe" (EmphasIs added)

This aetl..tyolrecel..ng money from a party was considered ''fraud'' and ..alated
18 USC §§ 1341 and 1343, the federal mall and Wire fraud statute In Holzer, supra, In which the court stated at
81 F 2a at308

Asystem In which judges are paid by the parties rather than by the state does not Inherently dlstortjudgmen~ It
IS, Indeed, the system used In arbilrabon, which IS a type of adjudlcabon, and It was also used In the Judicial
system 01 England unlil well Into the nineteenth century But the State 01 illinOis has deCIded that jUdges shall
not be compensated out offees paid by the IIbgants, and a JUdge who disregards thiS deCIsion depnves the
state of whatever benefits (what the cases call the public'S "Intangible nghts") It hoped to obtain from the system
01 compensabon that It did adopt He also makes llligants pay double lor JudiCIal se",ces--once In their taxes
(which pay the Judges' salanes), and the second bme In fees paid d"ectlyto the JUdge \M1en, In addllion, the
judge conceals what he IS dOing, he commits fraud, for what he IS concealing IS dearty matenal Inlormalion to
his employer, the state" (EmphasIs added)

In the case 01 US v Blumeyer, 114 F 3d 758 (8th C" 1997) the court stated a bnel history 01 the nght to honest
se",ces as follows at 765

Congress responded to WcNaily In 1988 by enacling § 1346, which pro..des that ''the term 'scheme or
arbfice to defraud' Indudes a scheme or artifice to depnve another olthe Intangible nght of honest se",ces " 18
USC § 1346 (1988) We have pre.. ously recognized that "[s]eelion 1346 was enacted to ovemule the
Supreme courrs decIsion In WcNally" and that It restored the ''''tallty'' 01 our pre-WcNally cases In\Ol.. ng offiCIal
comupbon United States v Jain, 93 F 3d 436, 441-42 (8th C" 1996), peblion lor cert filed, 65 U S L W 3531
(U S Jan 17,1997) (No 96-1167) (EmphasIs added)

JUdge Posnerrecently stated In U S v Black, 530 F 3d 596 (7th C" 2008) at 600

Seelion 1346 of the lederal cnmlnal code, added In 1988 In orderto overrule
WcNallyv United States, 483 US 350,107 S C12875, 97 L Ed 2d 292 (1987),
defines "scheme orarbfice to defraud" In seelion 1341 to Indude a scheme or
arbfice to "depnve another 01 the intangible nght 01 honest se",ces "

He conbnued at 530 F 3d at 601

As eJ9>lained In United States v Orsburn, supra, 525 F 3d at 546, seebon 1346 was added "10 deal With people
who took cash from third parbes (..a bnbes or kickbacks) United States v Holzer, 816 F 2d 304 (7th C" 1987),
supplies a good e""mple Judge Holzer accepted bnbes from llligants \M1at he took from his employer, the
state's Judicial system, was the honest adjudlcabon se",ce that the public thought It was purchasing In
exchange for his salary" United States v Sonch, 523 F 3d 702, 707-08 (7th C" 2008), United States v
Thompson, 484 F 3d 877, 884 (7th C" 2007), Man-Seok Choe v Torres, 525 F 3d 733, 737 (9th C" 2008),
United States v Kemp, 500 F 3d 257, 279-80 (3d C" 2007), United States v RybiCki, supra, 354 F 3d at 139-42

Judges who accept bnbes Invanably argue that they dldn1 allow the bnbes to Influence the" deCIsions But a
judge who accepts bnbes depnves the JudiCIary 01 his honest se",ces even II, as contended by FrancIs Bacon,
the mosllamous olcomuptjudges, he does nothing for the person who bnbed him Such a case does not differ
matenallyfrom that of the "honesf' reCIpient 01 a bnbe -- the reCIpient who, committed to honor among thieves,
performs his side of the Illegal bargain (EmphasIs added)

The ..olabons 01 state laws have also been a basIs lor the ..olalion 01 the "Implied nght to honest se",ces" In
California, the Code 01 JudiCIal EthiCS, Cannons 2A, 2 B (1) and (2), 3B(5), 3E (1) and (2) and 4D (1), (4) and (5)
state as folloW5 In relevant part

Cannon 2A
Ajudge shall respect and complywlth the law' and shall actatalilimes
In a manner that prom otes public confidence In the Integnty and ,m parllallty
01 the JudiCIary

Cannon 2B
(1) Ajudge shall not allow family, sOCIal, pOllbcal, or other
relationships to Influence the judge's Judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a
Judge conveyor permit others to comey the ImpresSIOn that any IndiVidual IS
In a special posItion to Influence the JUdge
(2) Ajudge shall nollend the presbge oljudlclal office or use the
JudiCIal btle In anymanner, including any oral orwntten communlcalion, to
advance the pecuniary or persona/Interests olthe Judge or others

Cannon 3B
(5) Ajudge shall perform JudiCIal duties WithOUt bias or prejudice A
judge shall not, In the performance olJudlClal duties, engage In speech,
gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (1) bias or
preJudice, Ineludlng but nolllmited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex,
religion, nabonal ongln, disability, age, sexual onentabon, or SOCIoeconomic
status, or (2) sexual harassment

my.barackobama.com/.. .jgGxhb5 5/12


24/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 7 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...

Cannon 3E
(1) Ajudge shall disqualify himself or herself many proceedmg In which
dlsquallficabon IS reqUired by law
(2) In all Inal court proceedmgs, a JUdge shall disclose on the record
Information that IS reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification
under Code of CI"I Procedure seelion 170 1, even If the Judge believes there IS
no adual baSIS for dlsquallficabon

Cannon 4D
(1) AJudge shall not engage m finanCla' and busmess dea'mgs that
(a) may reasonably be perceived to e~IOIt the JUdge's Judicial poslbon,
or
(b) mloOlve the Judge In frequent transaelions or conbnumg bUSiness
relabonshlps With lawyers or other persons likely to appear before the court on
which the Judge seMS

(4) Ajudge shall manage personallnveslments and financial aeli"tles so


as to m'nlmlZll the necessltyfordlsquallficabon As soon as reasonably
possible, a judge shall divest himself or herself of Investments and other
finanCial Interests that would require frequent disqualIfication

(5) Under no Circumstance shall a judge accept a gift, bequest, or faloOr


If the dono"s a party whose mterests have come or are reasonably likely to
come before the JUdge AJudge shall discourage members Of the Judge'S family
residing In the judge's household" from accepbng similar benefits from parues
who have come or are reasonably likely to come before the judge

Further, the JUdges, court commissioners, state bar court jUdges and county supe",sors are all subject to the
California Pollbcal Reform Act, which has both disclosure reqUirements for JudiCIal officers (Government Code §
87200 and § 82030(b)(2) as Interpreted by Regulabons of the Fair Political Praelices Commission, Ti~e 2,
Ol"slon 6 California Code of Regulabons, Regulabon 18232(a)) and recusa' reqUirements for elected offiCla's
(Cal Go~ Code §§ 81000 et seq, 87100 and 87103 (requires disclosure of receipt of pollbcal contnbubons of
$50000 or more Within the pre"ous twelve months of IoObng on the conlnbutors project and prohibits IoObng on
the projec~ See BreakZone Billards v City ofTorrance, 81 Cal App 4th 1205, 1227-1229 (Second App DISt, D,v
2,2000))

IV The SpeCIfic Charges and Supporung Documents

A Charges Agamst the LA Supenor Court Judges

The Los Angeles (LA) Supenor Court Judges, Los Angeles Supenor Court Judge Da"d P Yaffe and Los
Angeles Supenor Court JUdge Soussan G Bruguera have all received "unconsbtubonal" payrrents from LA
County, (See Sturgeon deCISion), and did not disclose such on their Form 700 Statement of EconomiC Interest
(See Form 700 at County Registrar) as required under the California Pollbcal Reform Ac~ Government Code §
87200 and § 82030(b)(2) as Interpreted by Regulabons of the Fair Political Praelices Commission, Ti~e 2,
DI"slon 6 California Code of Regulabons, Regulabon 18232(a), Which required judges and court
commiSSioners to disclose all Income except salary, reimbursement for expenses and per diem allowances
from a federal, state or local government agency, If they pro"ded se",ces to such government agency

(1) From the Outse~ the JUdges Knew that the Payrrents Were Illegal

A November 10, 1988 Memorandum from LA County Counsel to Frank S Zolln, County Clerk/El<lcub"" Officer,
Supenor Court, showed that LA County deCided to pay LA Supenor Court JUdges "local JudiCIal benefits"
conslsbng of "Mega Flex cafeten a benefits" [of Income equal to 19% of the judge's salary], a "profeSSional
development allowance" and a 401 (k) match "0 attract and retain quality judges to seM m thiS [LA] county"

M. the outset LA County and the LA Supenor Court knew that LA County could not legally "attract and retain quality
judges"

LA County could not "attract and retam quality Judges" as judges are elected offiCIals under Article VI, seelion 16
of the California Consbtubon To "attract and retain quality judges" LA County would have to spend ta~ayer
money on campaign contnbubons for partlCiUlar politiCians This would be an unconstltubonal gift of publiC funds
to pnvate mdl"duals prohibited by Article XVI, seelion 6 of the California Consblubon

LA County also could not mdependen~y"com pens ate" LA Supenor Court jUdges LA County and the LA Supenor
Court both knew from the 1988 Memorandum, that Article VI, seelion 19 of the California Consbtubon stated that
only the State Legislature could "prescnbe" the compensabon of the judges, that the case law held that when a
statute read only the State Legislature could "prescnbe" somethmg, thiS duty could not be delegated and that
the California Attorney General had Issued two opmlons stabng that counties could not treat Judges as county
employees for purposes ofpro"dlng benefits beyond those pro"ded stateWide to all judges The 1988
Memorandum also acknowledged that the Judges were state consbtubonal elected offiCials

LA County and the LA Supenor Courljudges also knew that LA County was a "pollbcal subdl"slon" of the State
of California whose property taxes were already being used to pay the compensabon of the JUdges as
determined bvthe State Lemslature Thevfurther knew that anv addlbonal oavment bv LA Countvwould "double
my.barackobama.com/.../gGxhb5 6/12
25/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 8 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...


determined by the State Legislature They further knew that any addlbonal payment by LA County would "double
charge" the LA County ta~ayers for the same State "JudiCIal se",ces" recell.ed by other counlles

Despite thiS knowledge, the program was Insbtuted In 1997, the Lockyer-Isenberg Tnal Court Funding Act (Cal
Govl COde §77000 et seq) dedared that the State was solely responsible for tnal court fundmg to remove the
dlspantJes In compensation received by JUdges In different counties

(2) LA Supenor Court JUdges DeCIded literally All Cases for LA County In the Last Few Years

LA Supenor Court jUdges have deCIded cases and made orders In fallOr of LA County to the e,.,luslon of the
opposing parnes In cases before them as shown by the June 9, 2005, October 3,2007 and October 1,2008
County Counsel Annual Llbgabon Cost Reports to the LA Board of Supe",sors The 2005 Report shows that
404 lawsuits were dismissed In the first three quarters of 2004-2005 as compared to 163 In the first three
quarters of2003-2004, no deCIsion m fallOrof a party by a JUdge In 2004-2005 and that 213 new laWSUits were
filed In the third quarter of FY 2004-2005 (Pages 1 and 2)

The October 3, 2007 Report shows no deCISion In fallOr of a party by a Judge In 2006-2007, (Page 3) and 261
dismissals In 2007 which was 12% less than 2006 (page 4) There were 670 new cases filed In 2007, which
was 21% less than 2006 and 5% less than 2005 (page 4)

The October 1,2008 Report shows the County tried 25 cases, prevailed In 16, received ad...,rse verdicts or
decIsions In 7 and 2 cases resulted In ''hung junes" The October 1,2008 Report did not show that any adverse
"deCISion" was rendered by a LA County Supenor Court Judge (Page 3) Unlike preVIous years, the October 1,
2008 Report did not report "new cases filed" or "dismissals"

The receiVing of"unconslilubonal" payments by a Judge from a party to a case, not dlsdoslng SUch, and Vlolatmg
a stale law Violates the Implied nghtto honest se",ces LA Supenor Court jUdges knew that the taking of the
payments from LA County by the LA Supen or Court judges also Violated Code of JudiCIal EthiCS Cannons 2A,
2B(1), 3B(5), 3E(1) and (2), and 4D(1) (4) and (5) and that not dlsclosmg such Violated the Polibcal Reform Act

B Charges Agamst LASupenor Court Judge DaVid P Yaffe

Judge DaVid P Yaffe preSides In the "'MIts and Receivers" Depal1Jment of the LA Supenor Court where many of
the cases InllOlVlng LA County are heard As such, he IS In a "unique" slluabon due to the nature of hiS
"depal1Jmenf' of haVing a greater affect on the nghts of those Ilbgabng With LA County than a judge who may ha...,
the '~ntermlttent" case

JUdge Yaffe's Violations are especially egregious as he not only Violated the "Implied nght to honest se",ces",
but further ~olated the Fourteenth Amendment nghtto due process by ISSUing an order to pay sanchons,
attomeys fees and costs Without nollce or heanng and withoutJunsdlcbon over the person, then Violated state
law by refUSing to remo..., himself from the case after being disqualified under law, and again Violated the
Fourteenth Amendment nghtto due process by acbng as the JUdge In a contempt proceeding to enforce hiS
unconstitutional order and Judge the person who crrtlczed hiS actions

On June 14,2007, "Flne"filed a pelilion forwnt of mandate In the case of Manna Strand Colony II Homeowners
AsSOClalion v County of Los Angeles, LASC Case No BS 109420 (Manna Strand case) as the attomeyfor the
Manna Strand Colony II Homeowners AssoClabon The pebllon sought to o...,rtum the approval of the LA County
Board of Supe",sors of an En"ronmental Impact Report (EIR) In fallOr of the re de",,'opment of the Del Rey
Shores apal1Jmentcomplexln Manna del Rey, Califomla

The pebtlCn alleged that the EIR "olated the Callfomla En"ronmental Quality Act (CEQA) Amongst the
numerous allegabons, was the allegation that LA County did not receive any poslll..., finanCIal benefit from the
project as required by CEQA LA County was the Respondent Its co applicant, Oef Rey Shores JOint Venture
and Del Rey Shores JOint Venture North [Jerry B Epstein, the Epstein FamllyTrust, Pat T Epstein and DaVid 0
LeVlnejwere the "Real Parnes In Interesf' DaVid P Yaffe was the judge Pre"ously, "Fine" had represented the
Manna Strand Colony II Homeowners AsSOCIation In the proceedings before the LA County Regional Planmng
Commission and the LA County Board of Supe",sors In opposing the approval of the EIR

From the outset of the lawsUl~ and at all times pnorthereto, judge Yaffe was receiVing LA County payments and
did not dlsdose such

Del Rey Shores JOint Venlure and Del Rey Shores JOint Venture North, the Epstein Family Trust, Jerry B
Epstein, PalT Epstein, DaVid 0 Le"ne (the "Chief of Staff' to Jerry B Epstein according to court documents)
and LA County, each had an Interest In remo~ng "Fine" from the case A California State Bar case entiUed In the
Matter of Richard Isaac Fine, State Bar Court Case No 04-0-14366, had commenced on February 6,2006 while
"Flne"was opposing LA County and Del Rey Shores JOint Venture and Del Rey Shores JOint Venture North, the
Epstein FamllyTrust, Jerry B Epstein, PalT Epstein, Da"d 0 LeVine before the LA County Regional Planmng
Commission

AI that lime, and dunng "Fine's" partiCIpation In the Manna Strand case, LA County had a ''finanCial relallonshlp"
With Califomla State Bar Heanng Court Judge Richard A Honn to Influence the removal of "Fine" from the Manna
Strand case through $30,000 00 of payments to the SpeCIal OlympiCS Southem Callfomla, a chanty where
JUdge Honn sat on the Board of Go...,rnors With Gerald Hlme, a representative of LA County

Dunng thiS same penod of time, Jerry B Epstein, the Epstein FamllyTrust, Pat T Epstein and Da"d 0 LeVine
had a relatlCnshlO With the California State Bar throuoh Sheldon H Sloan a Member of the Board of Go...,rnors
my.barackobama.com/.. .jgGxhb5 7/12
26/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 9 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...


had a relabonshlp with the California State Bar through Sheldon H Sloan, a Member of the Board of Governors
and then PreSident of the California State Bar who was their attomey 10 another case where they and LA County
were opposing "FIne's" dlents over LA County "lease" Issues In Manna del Rey

"Fine" left the Manna Strand case on October 12, 2007, as s result of the acbons of Calif0101 a State Bar Court
Heanng Department Judge Honn who ordered "Fine" "Inacbve"

"Fine" filed a petlbon for wnt of re"ew With the California Supreme Court In the case of FlOe v State Bar of
California, Supreme Court Case No S158326 On November 19, 2007, the California Supreme Court denied
the pebbon, but did not enter an order affirming Judge Hann's order, or enter ItS own order, makmg "Fine"
macllve as .twas reqUired to do under Cal Bus & Prof Code § 6084(a) when a I,melypetluon for wnl ofre"ew
was filed

The Callfomla Supreme Court IS the only court that can declare a person "Inactive" See In re Rose, 22 Cal 4th
430 (2000) which at Fn 7 stated

A State Bar deCIsion ordenng the In\<Jluntary macllve enrollment of an attorney 10 eJOgent CIrcumstances (§ 6007,
subd ©)) may become effecbve before we consider the matter, but only because the order IS SUbject to our
Immediate, Independentre"ew (Conway v State Bar47 Cal 3d 1107 (1989),1120-1123)

In re Rose also holdS that the denial of a pebbon forre"ew IS not a deCISion of a "cause" under the California
Consbtubon and states "only thiS court renders deCISions or orders Imposmg dlsapllne) (22 Cal 4th at 442)
and "our denial of re"ew does not render the State Bar Courfs deCISion '~nal," because such a deCISion Simply
consbtutes a recommendabon regarding the ultimate diSCIpline to be Imposed by thiS court, and no disbarment
or suspension may occur unblthls courfs entry of ItS own order 7 " (22 Cal 4th at442)

"Fine" did not return to the Manna Strand case

On January 8, 2008, Judge Yaffe ordered that "FlOe", who at that time was no longer the attorney for the Manna
Strand Colony II Homeowners Assoclabon, pay sancbons of $1,00000 and attorneys fees and costs to LA
County and "Real Parbes In Interesf', WithOUt ha"ng given "Fine" nobce of the heanng and WithOUt "FlOe" bemg
presenl at the heanng FlOe was senl notice by mail on January, 23, 2008

Shortly thereafter, "Fine" made a "Speaal Appearance" 10 the Manna Strand case, moved to dismiSS the January
8,2008 order Judge Yaffe took the motion "off calenda~' On March 25, 2008, "FlOe" served Judge Yaffe With a
CCP § 1703 "Objecllon" based upon judge Yaffe's admltllng In a heanng on March 20, 2008 that he received
payments from LA County Judge Yaffe dId not make any "response" to the "ObJection" and was "dIsqualified" on
Apn18, 2008 byoperabon of law under CCP § 170 3©)(4) JUdge Yaffe refused to leave that part of the case
relating to "FlOe" In "alation of Cal Code of C,V Proc § 170 3©)(4)

Subsequently, ,n the Manna Strand case, Judge Yaffe both preSided as the judge, and appeared as an adverse
witness In the contempt proceedmgs against "Fine" commencing November 3, 2008 With an order to show
cause contammg sixteen (16) counts, The contempt proceedmg was based upon allegations of acuons
occurring after Judge Yaffe entered the January 8,2008 order In the Manna Strand case The counts Included,
but were, not limited to, refusmg to respond to quesbons at a JUdgment enforcement heanng, makmg false
statements In pleadings, makmg mobons for reconSideration of the courfs January 8,2008 order, directly and
Indlrectlyattackmg the mtegnty of the LA Supenor Court and the court [Judge Yaffe], attackmg the mtegnty oflhe
State Bar Court, attacking the mtegnty of the Real Parbes In Interesfs counsel and holdmg yourself out to
pracbce law In "olabon of B&P Code §§ 6126 and 6127 despite the fact that you have been placed on
In\<Jluntary Inacllve status by the State Bar of California

On the first day oftnal JUdge Yaffe tesbfied, as an adverse witness called by "FlOe", that he had received the LA
County payments, that he knew that LA County had cases before him, that he dId not dlsdose the payments on
hiS Form 700 Statement of EconomiC Interests reqUired to be filed With the State of California under the Polibcal
Reform Act that he was a State of California employee and an elected state JUdge under the California
Constltubon, that he did not have any em ployment contract With LA County or agreem ent or arrangement to
pro"de se""ces to LA County, that he reported the LA County payments as "Income" on hiS tax retums, that he
did nol pulthe LA County paymenls Inlo hiS "campaign contrlbullOns accounf' for hIS JudiCIal elecbons, and that
other than makmg a deCISion regardmg the re CIrculation of the EIR 10 the Manna Strand case, he could not
name any case In the last three (3) years where he deCIded the case agamst LA County

The contempt tnal conclUded after seven (7) days oftnal judge Yaffe held "FlOe" not gUilty on fourteen (14)
counts and gUilty on two (2) counts, one of which was refusmg to answer questions at a judgment enforcement
exammabon regarding the unlawful order to pay attorneys fees and the second of hold109 him self out to pracbce
law Judge Yaffe made these rUlings despite the unconstltubonalityand Illegality of the January 8, 2008 order,
the tesbmony at tnal of counsel for Real Parbes In Interest Joshua L Rosen, that they were not relymg on the
January 8,2008 order to enforce the JUdgment and that there was no other order for FlOe to pay fees or costs In
e"dence, and the fact that the California Supreme Court had not ordered FlOe "macbve" and neither statute
relied upon "State Bar orders" A mobon to set aSide the JUdgment and enter a judgment of "not gUilty" was
subsequently filed and IS settor heanng on February 24,2009

Addlbonally, In the underlymg Manna Strand case, 10 June, 2008, Judge Yaffe, ruled against the Manna Strand
Colony II Homeowners AssoClabon on the Issue of whether the new lease With Del Rey Shores Jomt Venture
and Del ReyShores JOint Venture North Which was part of the proJect would be ofa finanCIal benefit to LA
County Mothe contempt tnal, It was shown thaI no e"dence was presented In the "record" that a poslbve
finanCIal benefit to LA Counlvwould occur R J Comer counsel for Del Rev Shores JOInt Venture and Del Rev
my.barackobama.com/.. .jgGxhb5 8/12
27/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 10 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...


finanCIal benefilto LA County would occur R J Comer, counsel for Del ReI' Shores JOint Venture and Del ReI'
Shores JOint Venture North tesbfied that he did not re"ew the new lease and could not CIte to any e"dence
shOWing a benefit to the county

The "Draft Amended and Restated Lease Agreemenf' showed at secnon 4 41 that LA County was gl"ng Del
ReI' Shores JOint Venture and Del ReI' Shores JOint Venture North an $11,050, 000 00 Lessee Credit plus
accrued Interest for the dedlcabon of fifty four (54) low and moderate Income apartments In the project Under
the wello Act, Del ReI' Shores JOint Venture and Del ReI' Shores JOint Venture North was reqUIred to dedicate
these apartments Without any lessee credit

The recel"ng of"unconstltubonal" payments by a judge from a party to a case, not disclosing such, and "olatlng
a state law "olates the "Implied nght to honest se""ces" JUdge Yaffe knew that he had "olated the "Implied
nght to honest se",ces"

JUdge Yaffe knew that the taking of the payments from LA County by him also "olaled Code of JudiCial EthiCS
Cannons 2A 2B(1), 3B(5), 3E(1) and (2), and 40(1) (4) and (5) and that not disclosing such "olated the Pollbcal
Reform Act He further knew that the entenng of the January8, 2008 order without notice to "Fine" or "Fine" being
present at the heanng and wlthoutjunsdlcnon o""r "Fine" "olated the Fourteenth Amendment nghlto due
process, that not recusing himself after he was disqualified Violated state law and the Fourteenth Amendment
nght to due process and that presiding o""r the contempt proceeding where he was Judging "Fine" for cntlClZlng
hiS [Yaffe's] actions and deadlng such, also "olated the Fourteenth Amendment nght to due process (See
Mayberryv Pennsylvania, 400 U S 455 (1971)- cnbclzed JUdge cannot preside at contempt heanng of cnbc)

C Charges Against LASupenor Court JUdge Soussan G Bruguera

JUdge Soussan G Bruguera IS another "unique case" She did not disclose that she was receiVing LA County
payments She unlawfully "struck" the CCP § 1703 "ObjeetJon" to her based upon herrecel"ng such payments,
by adm'lbng such payments and arguing the legality of such In the "Strike Order" This act "olated CCP §
170 3©)(5) Which precludes a JUdge from passing "upon hiS or her own disqualification or upon the suffiCIency
In law, fact or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party"

JUdge Bruguera then remained on four (4) consolidated cases and dismissed them pnor to tnal despite the
knowledge thatthe plaintiffs had shown "olatlons of law and the Callfomla Constltubon which would cause
them to prevail This action has cost LA taxpayers apprOlomately $910 million In lost Income from LA County's
leases of "public land" to pm..te de",,'opers In Manna del ReI' as of the present time

In 2004-2005, "Flne"filed four (4) taxpayer class acbon laWSUits, each alleging a gift of public funds to pnvate
Indl"dua's In Vlolabon of ArtIde XVI, § 6 of the Callfomla Consbtubon by the LA County Supe""sors leases to
"de",,'opers" In Manna del ReI' The laWSUits were filed against LA County, kchstone Smith Operating Trus~

Klngswood IIIllage- Manna, IIIlla Veneba, Neptune Manna and the Oakwood consolidated under Coallbon to
Sa"" the Manna and Manna Tenants AssoClabon, et al v County of Los Angeles et ai, LASC Case No BS
085898

JUdge Bruguera admitted In response to a CCP § 1703 "Objection" which she unlawfully struck, that she was
recel"ng payments from LA County, the lead defendant In the cases Judge Bruguera then dismissed the
consolidated cases before tnal

At the bme that she dismissed the consolidated cases, JUdge Bruguera knew that on June 29, 2005, her fellow
LA Supenor Court JUdge Elihu M Berle had Issued an oral Order on denymg a preliminary InjunetJon holdmg
that the County of Los Angeles does not control pnces of apartments and boat leases of a year or less undertts
"restated lease" With Manna PaCific AssoCIates In Manna del Rey; amongst other grounds stabng at pages 61
In 26, to page 62, In 15, and page 64, In 3 to 26 that the "restated lease" submitted as e"dence by plaintiffs
does not show any "control or system of control on the pnce at which accommodations may be offered for rent
or lease" which IS the baSIS to require the lessee, Manna PaCific Assoaates to offer any re developed
accommodabon [boat sllpjfirst to the then e"sbng tenant [Dr Stuart Hoffman, a legailivaboardj under
Go""rnment Code § 7060 2(B)(3) The failure to control pnces meant that the lease was a gift of public funds to
pnvate Indl"duals m "olabon of Artlde XVI, § 6 of the California Consbtutlon, under well established California
case law The case was Coalition to Sa"" the Manna, Inc, et al , v County of Los Angeles, Manna PaCIfic
AsSOCIates, a California limited Partnership, and Bellport Group, et ai, LASC Case No BS 092794 filed In 2005
alleging "olabons of the California Constltubon and parbculanythe lease between LA County and the de",,'oper
lessees

In the same Manna PaCific case, LA County argued that It did not control the actIOns of the lessee under the
lease This was also brought to the attenbon of Judge Bruguera

Judge Bene later dismissed the Manna PaCific case pnor to tnal The lease documents With LA County show
that one of the managers of the "general partne~' of Manna PaCIfic AsSOCIates IS the Epstein Family Trust, of
which Jerry B Epstein and Pat T Epstein are the '"Trustees" executing documents on behalf of Manna PaCific
AsSOCIates

One of the lawyers In the case for Manna PaCIfic AsSOCIates IS Sheldon H Sloan, who was also a memberof
the Board of Go""rnors and then President of the State Bar of California, when the State Bar of California
Imbated and pursued Its SUlttO "dlsba~' Fme Manna PaCIfic AsSOCIates, the Epstein FamllyTrust, Jerry B
Epstein, PalT Epstein, Sheldon H Sloan and LA County each had an Interest In remo"ng Fine from the Manna
PaCIfic case through Slate Bar acnon

my.barackobama.com/.. .jgGxhb5 9/12


28/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 11 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...

LA County had an Interest and a ''finanCIal relabonshlp" with Slate Bar Heanng Court JUdge Honn through the
$30,00000 payments to the SpeCIal Olympics Southern California to Influence the removal of "Fine" from the
Manna PaCIfic case "Fine" left the Minna PaCIfic case pnor to tnal due to acllons by State Bar Court Heanng
Department JUdge Honn of ordenng "Fine" Inaellva on Oelober 12, 2007 Fine did not return to the Minna PaCIfic
case after the California Supreme Court did not affirm Judge Honn's October 12, 2007 order

The rece".mg of "unoonstltubonal" payments by a judge from a party to a case, not disclOSing such, and ,"olallng
a state law ,"olates the "Implied nght to honest se",ces" Judge Bruguera knew that she had ,"alated the
"Implied nght to honest se",ces"

JUdge Bruguera knew that the taking of the payments from LA County by her also "alated Code of Judicial
EthiCS Cannons 2A, 2B(1) and (2), 3B(5), 3E(1) and (2), and 40(1) (4) and (5) and that not disclOSing such
"olated the Pollbcal Reform Pd Judge Bruguera also knew that she had ,"olated CCP § 170 3©)(5)

o Charges Against LASupenor Court Commissioner Bruce E Mtchell

Los Angeles Supenor Court Commissioner Bruce E Mtcheilis an employee olthe State ofCallfomla pursuant
to the 1997 Lockyer-Isenberg Tnal Court Funding Act LA County pays LASupenor Court Commissioners
"""'gaFlex" benefits, a professional devalopment allowance and contnbubons to their 401 (k) rebrement plan In
add,bon to the Slate set compensation

Commissioner Mtchell was, and IS, assigned to the Eminent


Domain Department of the LASupenor Court and presides as a "emporary judge" upon the sbpulabon of the
parnes Commissioner Bruce E Mtchell does not disclose the LA County payments on hiS Form 700 Slatement
of Economic Interests as reqUired under the Callfomla Pollbcal Reform Act

The Eminent Domain department deCIdes cases 1n1lO1"ng LA County and ItS agenCIes The recel"ng of
"unconsbtubonal" payments by a Judge from a party to a case, not disclosing SUCh, and "olabng a state law
"olates the "Implied nght to honest se",ces" Commissioner Mtchell knew thai the laking of the payments from
LA County "olated Code of JudiCial EthiCS Cannons 2A, 2B (1) and (2), 3B(5), 3E(1) and (2), and 40(1) (4) and
(5) and that not disclOSing such ,"olated the Pollbcal Reform Act

Commissioner Mtchell also unlawfully on Apn11, 2005 approvad the expenditure of $80,00000 to purchase all
claims of "Fine" against "Bruce E Mtchell, other judlcal officers and others" from the DI Flores Class
Selllement Fund In "olabon of the Sbpulabon of Selllement and Final Judgment In the case of D. Flores et al v
EHG et ai, LASC Case No BC 150607 (DI Flores case), and subsequent thereto paid apprmomately
$270,000 00 from the same Fund to defend hiS Apn11, 2005 action On July27, 2006, CommiSSIOner Mtchell
approvad and ordered the payment of apprmomately $1 6 million to attorneys from the DI Flores Class
Selllement Fund and the Attorneys Fee Fund In "olabon of the Sbpulabon of Selllement and Final judgment on
the oondlbon that they would Withhold 35% or approlOmately $566,6846500 to defend hiS Apn11, 2005 acbon
Such actions ,"olated vanous Slate laws

The unlawful laking of monies from the DI Flores Class SeWement Fund and the Attorneys Fee Fund IS "Theft"
Which IS defined In Cal Penal Code § 484 as ''fraudulentlyappropnate moneywh.ch has been entrusted to him
or he~' amongst other things The aebons are also "larceny" In "olabon of Cal Penal Code § 490a and may also
be obtaining money by false pretenses In ,"olabon of Cal Penal Code § 532, of mOnies entrusted to the
Supenor Court and lis JudiCIal officers, Bruce E Mtchell, Byron Maldo-the DisburSing Agen~ Bank of Amenca-the
holder of the funds and the attorneys for the class mem bers who recelvad and oonsented to such payments

The Court file In the D,Flores case shows that the Settlement and MJtual Release under which $80,000 00 was
paid from the DI Flores Class Settlement Fund to the Trustee to purchase the claims of "Fine" against "Bruce E
MtChell, other JudiCIal officers and others", manifests an "obstructIon of Justice" Penal Code § 96 5 (Obstructlon
of Jusbce) makes any act that the ')udIClal office~' or "court commlss.one~' knows to pervart or obstruct jusbce
to be punishable byup to one year In County Jail Here CommiSSioner Mtchell knew that hiS act.ons of
accepbng the "release" specific to him In elOchange for hiS approval of the SeWement and MJtual Release was
obslrucllng jusbce and Within the definlbon of a "bnbe" Cal Penal Code §§ 7, 92 and 93

Commissioner Mtchell further knew that he was accepting a gift In ,"olallon of California Code of CI"I
Procedure § 1709 and "olatlng Code of JudiCIal EthiCS Cannon 4D (1) by engaging In finanCial dealings With a
person who appears before him Commissioner Micheli, John Moe, II, and Peter Leeson, IV (the lawyers who
he appOinted as "bankruptcy counsel for the DI Flores class members and who negobated the acqUISition of the
claims against "Bruce E Mtchell, other JudiCIal officers and others"), engaged In bnbery and sollciling a bnbe by
their actions as shown by the Court file In the DI Flores case and the Settlement and MJtual Release under
which the $80,000 00 was approvad and transferred from the D. Flores Class Settlement Fund

The "olallng ofa state law ,"olates the "Implied nght to honest seNlces"

E Charges Against California State Bar Court Heanng Department judge Richard A Honn

California State Bar Court Heanng Department Judge Richard A Honn was the heanng Judge In the case of In
the Matter of Richard Isaac Fine Slate Bar Case No 04-0-14366 RAH CommiSSIOner Bruce E Mitchell was the
"Complaining Party"

The charges Included amongst others, the filing of the cases of LACAOEHS v County of Los Angeles and LeWin
USDC Case No CV.{)2.{)2190 AHMfiled In March 2002 ILACAOEHS casel a federal CI"I nohts laWSUit
my.barackobama.com/.. ,fgGxhb5 10/12
29/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 12 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...


• USDC Case No CV-{l2-02190 AHMfiled In March, 2002 (LACAOEHS case). a federal clIlll nghts lawsUit
alleging that the LA County payments to Los Angeles Supenor Court Judges "olated Arlcle VI, § 19 of the
California Consbtubon, amongst also lIIolating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U S Constltubon
and John Silva v County of Los Angeles. James C Chalfant, Kathryn 001 Todd, Bruce E Mtchell, Roger W
Boren, and Mchael G Nott. USDC Case No CV-{l2-04645 filed In June, 2002 (Silva case), a federal taxpayer
class acbon allli nghts laws Ult alleging that the LA County paym ents to Los Angeles Supenor Court JUdges
"olated Arlcle VI, § 19 of the California Consbtubon, amongst also lIIolatlng the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U S Consbtubon

The remainder of the charges related to actions of Commissioner Bruce E Mtchell and Included the filing of
one federal a,,' nghts SUIt also related to the "unconsbtubonal" LA County payments, one appeal, one pebbon
for wnt of mandate. one petlbon forwnt of supersedeas, and "disqualifications" against Commissioner Mtchell
Which he unlawfully "struck" under CCP § 170 3©)(5) and unlawfully Simultaneously "answered"

JUdge Honn did not disclose that he was a member of the Board of Go""mors of the SpeClal OlympiCS Southern
California With Gerald Hlme of LA County, and that the SpeClal OlympiCS Southern California recel""d payments
of $30.00000 from LA County from July 1. 2005-January 18,2008, while he was the trial JUdge on, and deClded
the case of In the Matter of Richard Isaac Fine Judge Honn found "Fine" gUilty of "moral turpitude" for the filing of
the LACAOEHS and Silva cases As shown above, the Sturgeon deCISion upheld "Flne's" allegabons In such
cases that the LA County payments to the LA Supenor Court jUdges "olated Article VI, § 19 of the California
Consbtubon

Addlbonally, Callforma State Bar Court JUdge Patnce E McElroy who refused to disqualify Judge Honn was a
member of the Board of Directors of the San FranClsco Child Abuse Prevention Center Another member of such
board was Jerry Roth, a Partner of Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, whose partner Jeffrey Bleich was a member of
the Board of Governors of the California State Bar and PreSident oflhe California State Bar, succeeding Sheldon
H Sloan Munger, Tolles & Olson represented LA County In the negobabons and drafling of the "Opbon to
Exlend Lease" and the "Restaled and Amended Lease"wlth Del Rey Shores JOInt Venture and Del Rey Shores
JOInt Venture North as shown by the signature page of the "Draft" documents Campaign Contrlbubon reports
showed that the attorneys and partners of Munger, Tolles & Olson contributed over$14,000 00 to the
Supe",sors of LA County The comblnabon of JUdges Honn and McElroy on "Fine's" State Bar case,
demonstrated an inordinate "unity" of LA County Inlerest In the disbarment of Fine

The San FranCISCo Child Abuse Prevenbon Center did not release or post the contrlbubons from ItS donors

Such aclion by Judge Honn "alated the California Code of JudiCial EthiCS, Cannons 21\ B(1) and (2), 3E (1) and
(2) and4C (3)(c)(I) and (II) and 40(1) (4) and (5) Judge Honn also knew that the taking of money for the chanty
where he was on the Board of Governors "olated Code of JudiCial EthiCS Cannons 21\ 2B(1), 3B(5), 3E(1) and
(2). and 40(1) (4) and (5)

The acts of being On the Board of Governors of SpeClal OlympiCS Southern California With a person from LA
County and the Speaal OlymPiCS Southern Callforma recel"ng $30,000 00 from LA County while Judge Honn
was heanng and deClding a case In;ollllng LA County and not disclOSing such made him biased and "olated
Cal Bus & Prof Code 6085(e)

The "olabng of a state law lIIolates the "Implied nght to honest se",ces"

F Charges Against Los Angeles County Supe",sors Mchael Antono"ch and Donald Knabe

Los Angeles County Supe",sors Mchael Antono"ch and Donald Knabe on May 15, 2007, ;oted for the approval
of an Enlllronmentalimpact Report (EIR) for the Del Rey Shores ProJect, afler hailing accepted campaign
conlnbubons from ItS proponents The Del Rey Shores Project was the re development of a 202 umt apartment
complex Into a 544 umt apartment complex With 1088 parking spaces

Neither Supe",sors Antonolllch nor Knabe disclosed such contnbubons pnor to, or at the bme of the heanng, or
recused lhemsel'l.es

The proponents, time ofcontnbubon and amount gl",n, as shown on the LA County Registrars Offiaal
Campaign Contributions webSite. were Manna del Rey "developers" Del Rey Shores JOInt Venture and Del Rey
Shores JOint Venture North through Jerry B Epstein (Real Estate, Jerry B Epstein Mgmt Co)- 4f24107,
Antonolllch, $1,00000, the Epstein Family Trust (Jerry B Epstein, Trustee)- 4/4107, Knabe, $1,00000, Pat
Epsteln(Arlst, PalT Epsteln)-4f24/07, Antono"ch, $1,000 00, Da"d Lelllne (Real Estate Management, Del Rey
Shores)-4f24107, Anlono"ch, $1,00000 and Da"d 0 Le"ne (Real Estale ConSUltant, Office of Jerry B Epsteln)-
4/4/07, Knabe, $1 ,000 00 The contrlbubons were made Within slXweeks pnor to the ;ote of approval of the EIR
for the Del Rey Shores JOint Venture and Del Rey Shores JOint Venture North Project

Such non disclosure, failure to recuse and ;ote lIIolated the California POlitical Reform Act. Cal Govl Code §§
81000 et seq, 87100 and 87103 (reqwres disclosure of receipt of polibcal contrlbubons of $500 00 ormore
Within the pre"ous twel,," months of ;obng on the contributor's project and prohibits ;obng on the project, See
Breaklone Billards v CltyofTorrance, 81 Cal App 4th 1205, 1227-1229 (Second App DISt, Drv 2,2000) As
"olabons of the California Pollbcal Reform Act, such acts "olate the nghllo honestse",ces

On December 16, 2008, Supe",sors Antonolllch and Knabe ;oted for the approval of the re wculated EIR for the
Del Rey Shores Project, after hailing accepted campaign contributions from Its proponents Manna del Rey
"developers" Del Rey Shores JOint Venture and Del Rey Shores JOint Venture North through Jerry B. Epsteln-
8/14108 Antonolllch $100000 Da"d 0 Le"ne-B/15108 Antono"ch $100000 and Manna Prooertles LLC·
my.barackobama.com/.. ,fgGxhb5 11/12
30/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 13 of 24

5/11/2009 Organizing for America I American H...


8/14108, fV1tonOlllch, $1,00000, Da"d 0 Le"ne-B/15108, fV1tono"ch, $1,00000 and Manna Properties, LLC-
3/18108 (an entty controlled by Jerry Epstein), Knabe, $100000, within one year of the ""te

Neither Supe",sors fV1tono"ch nor Knabe disclosed such contributions pnor to, or at the time of the hearing, or
recused themsel\les

Such non disclosure, failure to recuse and ""te "alated the California Political Refonn Act and as such was a
"alation of the '1m piled nght to honest se",ces"

G Charges against Los fV1geles County Supe",sor Glona M>llna

Los fV1geles County Supe",sor Gloria M>llna on Decem ber 16, 2008, ""ted for the approval of the re CIrculated
EIR for the Del Rey Shores Project She did so after ha"ng accepted campaign contrlbutons to the GlOria
M>lina Yes on Maasure U etc fund from Jerry 8 Epstein (Real Estate, Jerry 8 Epstein Wgmt CO)-$1 ,25000 on
1018108 and Da"d Le"ne (Real Estate, Jerry 8 Epstein Management)-$1 ,250 00 on 10/8108 within SIX weeks of
the ""te

Supe",sor Glona M>lina did not disclose such contnbutlons pnor to, or atthe tme of the heanng, and did not
recuse herself Such non disclosure, failure to recuse and ""te "alated the California Political Refonn />d and
as such "alated the nght to honest se",ces

Conduslon

The LA Supenor Court and LA County Government have been "pernlaously compromised" for apprOl(Jmately
twenty (20) years due to the "unconsttutional" payments from LA County to the LA Superior CourtJudlaal
officers This "pemlClous compnse" has expanded Into the greater California JudiCial system through the
appellate courts, Judlaal Counal and Commission on Judlaal Perfonnance's refusal to address the
"unconsttubonal payments" problem and ItS devastating effects

The time has now come to "refonn the Judlaal system" by enforang the law and thereby restoring meaningful
access to Justice to millions of people The mood of the country has now changed "Corruption" IS out
'Transparency" IS In Government IS again attempbng to be responsive to the needs of the people, Instead of
Ignoong them Public servants Will hopefully "se"" the pUbliC", Instead of "abusing their office", trampling the
nghts of the atizens, and disregarding the Consbtution and the law

Thank you for you"mm edlate attention to thiS urgent matter The atizens atlas Angeles, California and the
nation await your expeditious action on thiS matter We eagerly await the day that meaningful access to JUStice
and our constltubonal nghts are restored

Sincerely,

Richard I Fine
Enclosures

Show 1 Reader Comment Wnte a Comment on this Post Comments RSS

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and In no way should be Interpreted a$
endorsed 01' approved by the campaign.

Volunteer Pnvacy PoliCY Terms of Se",ce Contact us

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/postlAH RCwc1 /gGxh b5

my.barackobama.com/.. .jgGxhbS 12/12


31/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 14 of 24

EXHIBIT 2
z

32/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 15 of 24

4/7/2009 Full Disclosure Network@ <br> "the...


ISEARC~@f] Next Blog» 123456xyz@gmail.com I Dashboard I Sign Out

Full Disclosure Network®


lithe news behind the news"

Wednesday, March 04, 2009


Previous
Attorney Jailed In Attempt to Disqualify L.A. Judge
For Taking Bribes $24 MIllIon L A Gang Program to
BnngRedemptlon?
UPDAT1:'.MlSsl(lgIYtdlJOI1~AT ~
T , PEG Cable- Vide
WHAT HAPPENEPIOMJJLTI-
MILLIQ.N$ CAI~k.I; {k" \'1121:'0
OPER
L A Budget & Fmance Committee
Scuttl~Hearmg 0
L A)ytayor's Gang Money
Con(rolled By Anonymous Com
Ed Asner Attacks Progressive LA
Q!y ~\llJ!1cIlJm PlJ
L A City Channels 35 & 36
CENSQRFull D~cJQS!JI~P
POLITICAL POWERHOUSE TO
SAYI;PI.JBl;!!2 AITI;SS.~ABLE
I
ABC NlghtlIne Exposes Full
P~~J9sure &J>lJp[tc Ace
Richard I. Fine
Attorney At Law

Los Angeles, CA On Wednesday, March 4, 2009 the Full Disclosure


Network attended a Los Angeles Superior Court Contempt hearing in
Judge David Yaffe's Department 86 courtroom v.t1ere he sentenced
prominent Anti-Trust attorney Richard I. Fine to county jail indefinitely,
~ ..
Battle for Control of PublIc Access
Cable Channels

:nrt-,r_t."lt'l.'"

f?olon:r
Btogger
until such time as he provides to the Judge his personal financial
information. Judge Yaffe's actions came after attorney Fine pointed out
the Judge had taken illegal money from an interested party in the case

TAKEN INTO CUSTODY


Immediately following the sentencing an entourage of ten or more Sheriff
Deputies and Court personnel surrounded the slightly built, grandfatherly
69 year old attorney and placed him in handcuffs. Fine v.t10 was dressed
in a charcoal grey suit, v.t1ite dress shirt and red bow tie, readily
cooperated and did not appear to be a flight risk. However, the Court
was taking no chances as the procession led doY.11 the halls of the Los
Angeles County Court House to the prisoners exit v.t1ere the Sheriffs
Department provide transportation to the jail.

DEVELOPERS VS HOMEOWNERS

fulldisclosure.neti.. ,fattorney-jailed-i... 1/3


33/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 16 of 24

4/7/2009 Full Disclosure Network® <br> "the...


The hearing involved the case of Marina Strand Colony" Homeowners
Association vs County of Los Angeles and was prompted by attorneys
representing the Del Rey Shores Development IMlO sought to collect
legal fees awarded to them. Richard Fine challenged the credentials of
the Debtor Court Referee and JUdge Yaffe IMlO he claimed had been
receiving illegal payments, estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars from the County Board of Supervisors since 1988. The
attorneys for the developer asked Judge Yaffe to order Fine to take
dOWl his IM3bsite from the Internet, the request was denied.

EXCLUSIVE TELEVISION INTERVIEW


One day prior to the com tempt hearing, Full Disclosure conducted a one
hour exclusive interview with Richard Fine IMlO warned of the possibility
that Yaffe IMJuld likely commit another illegal act by refusing to disqualify
himself from conduclJng the hearing and that any ruling IMJuld be illegal
as 1M31!. In fact during the hearing Fine admonished the JUdge his
participation IMJuld only continue the criminal activity. The Full Disclosure
interview is to be shaWl on 40 cable systems and the Internet in April
2009. A transcript of the entire hearing will be posted on the Full
Disclosure NetIMJrk IM3bsite soon.

DISTINGUISHED LEGAL CAREER


This extraordinary judicial action of ordering the indefinite incarceration
of such a prominent attorney lMlose long and distinguished career
included service in the U. S. Department of Justice in Washington D. C
follolM3d an intensive exchange lMlere attorney Fine objected to Judge
Yaffe's failure to disqualify himself. According to Richard Fine, JUdge
Yaffe along with all of the Los Angeles County judges have each been
accepting up to hundreds of thousands of illegal dollars from the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors, that is specifically prohibited by
the California Constitution and the Canons of Judicial Ethics

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS


The fact that the Judge insisted on hearing the matter, lMlich involved
the County of Los Angeles, was challenged by Fine in a Writ of Habeas
Corpus filed with the California Supreme Court just moments before the
hearing. Fine pleaded unsuccessfully to the Judge to delay sentencing
till both the State and Federal courts had an opportunity to consider his
requests for re-hearing.

JUDGES CRIMINAL ACTS FORGIVEN BY LEGISLATURE?


In concluding his argument before Judge Yaffee's ruling, Richard Fine
noted on the record that the California Legislature, the Governor and
Judicial Council, all have admitted and recognized the illegal and criminal
acts committed by Judge Yaffe and all Los Angeles Superior Court
Judges and Supervisors lMlen the Governor signed into law the State
Budget legislation this February. Inserted Into the budget bill was a
provision granting Judges and elected officials immunity for illegal acts
specifically prohibited by the State Constitution.

fulldisclosure.net/.. ,fattorney-jailed-i... 2/3


34/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 17 of 24

4/7/2009 Full Disclosure Network@ <br> "the...

Labels: Board of~uperv§9rs, QQvermnentA.ccooolaQijity, Judicial


CSl.IT!!I!tPl1 IRs 8Jtgt;l!:LCQl!!ID', Ric,l¥.!!:(LLE~

posted by Full DISclosure Network at 937 PM ~ c:?

[j:lLN 0lJ13F'RQ9Bi\fyI§ I[ '!!JSO~.L~ I[ DESKTOP VICEOS J


[ SY f\UICATE OLR PROGRAMS 1
[ SLOG Releases J [ SUBSCRIBE TO EI£WS ALERTS 1

Full DlscfoSJre Network""ls a regIstered trademark of the Amencan AS9:loatlon of \l\bmen


and an electroniC media and teleVISion production of the
Citizens Protection Alliance, a 501(c)(3) fax exerrpt educational orgamzatlon

2008 © All Rights Reser.ed. Full Disclosure Network™


337 Washington Slid. Suite #1. Manna del Rey. CA 90292
Tel 310 822 4449 Fax: 310919.2890

News News and polItICS EducatIon Media EconomIcs Weblog Lmks B10g
Video Internet PolItIcs Current AffairS

webRellow

fUlidisciosure.netj.. .jattorney-jaiJed-i... 3/3


35/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 18 of 24

EXHIBIT 3
z

36/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 19 of 24

Gctse 2:09-cv~O·1914-JFW-CW Uocum nt 20 Filed 05/05/2009 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STA'rES DISTRICT COURT


CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER
RICHARD I. FINE,
CV 09-1914-J.t;W{CW)
I'LA1NT1FF(S}
v.
SHERIfF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et aI..
ORDER STR!KING FILED DOCUMENTS
FROM THE RECORD
Dt'I'ENDANT(S).

WHEREAS, the documents listed below were improperly filed fur the following fl;:a:;un(s)
Not signed by attorney of record or pro se litigant as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. Ruile 11 (a): See also Local Rules
11-1 , 83-2.10.2, and 83-2.10.3.

IT IS I-IERBBY ORDERED that the documents shall be stricken from the record and shall not be
considered by the Court:

Document Entitled Filed

Response to Sheriff's Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 14) April 24. 2009

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the documents shall not be retumed to the filing party; however, the
Clerk shall note nn the l':llSf" do~ket that th€' documents are stricken fi-om the record.

May 5. 2009 lsi


Date Carla M. Woehrle, UfliLcU SlH.Lt::.; Mligi:iLrlllc.: Judge

37/40
cVSOm/!l5) ORDER STRIKING 1/11.1<D DOCllMENTS FROM 'I'll" RECORD
I ' , ..
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 20 of 24

IX. CERTIFICATE
OF MAILING
ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL

38/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL
Q.~~~=~~~~~~®
Certificate Of To pay fee, affix stamps or
Mailing meter postage here.
This Certificate of Mailing provides evidence that mail has been presented to USPS® for mailing.
This form may be used for domestic and international mail.
From:

Joseph Zernik Content:


1) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
1853 Foothill Blvd

Document 4-2
ORDER TO COMPEL
La Verne, CA 91750 DEFENDANTS

Filed 05/13/2009
Postmark Here
To: See attached Addressee List for
Zernik v Melson et al.

Page 21 of 24
PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 22 of 24

MAILING LIST FOR ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL (May 5, 2009)

FROM:

Joseph Zernik
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne, CA 91750

TO:

COURT: (original +1 copy)

OFFICE OF THE CLERK


U.S. Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Ave.
N.W Washington, D.C. 20001

PARTIES:

1) KENNETH MELSON & U.S. DEPT OF 4) SAMUEL BEZEK & SEC


JUSTICE Samuel Bezek
Kenneth Melson, Director SEC Headquarters
U.S. Department of Justice 100 F Street, NE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W Washington, DC 20549
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530

2) KENNETH KAISER & FBI 5) KENNETH LEWIS, TIMOTHY


Kenneth W Kaiser MAYOPOULOS, BAC, & BAC AUDIT
Assistant Director COMMITTEE
Criminal Investigative Division T Mayopoulos-General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
100 North Tryon St
U.S. Department of Justice
Bank of America Corporate Center
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
Washington, D. C 20535-0001

6) DON LENTS, PETER VAN CLEVE, & BRYAN


3) US ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF
CAVE,LLP
COLUMBIA AU Don Lents
501 Third Street, NW One Metropolitan Square
Washington, DC 20001
211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St Louis, MO 63102-2750

40/40
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 23 of 24

l ~ (L /'1 flL IA-) rS or {IJ1/7 Ii I//t;S


CO -s Tp, If; ;M£~ f) r ;J)5 tl i/J1z--1 Tt:A-;7,1J--
t; A 1j)L-)&J/J)7~ RJI1-- OttLJUL T-eJIL t'bv(~ -/'J1/PI-

~ UNITEDSTIJTES
I!!!!/fiiII POSTIJL SERVICE" 1)
(f)
o
o !
o
From
I I
.J 7) ~"'A
I I
t~
:J
----

~
V
1)
(f)
z
--.J
();
\ (
i
:1;:..... w
"'l'1 601
a
6
<:S U1
'"
6
a
?

;d PS Form 381~p; 2007 PSN 7530:02:0-9065


CD
a
m
();

~ UNiTEDSTIJTES
Aiii POSTIJL SERVicE" -
o
o
o

0001

INnOWI::I 3:JIMJ3S lV.lSOd


S3.J.VJ.S03J.1Nn
60, 'II AI::IW
,,_.Q~L16 .~
To

PS Form 3817. April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065

~ UNITEDSTIJTES
I!!!!/fiiII POSTIJL SERVICE"
Dr,';,..,nt",,'I!, lI:-,;:::::I~)tl:,rl-'lalll'lg 0
o
o

o
To glfl
g).....
:1;:.....
601
7-~l S U1 £0-1'" 10£000

PS Form 3817, April 2007 PSN 7530-02-000-9065 ~rI$ 0001


3:JIIUJ3S 1V.tSOc/
INnOWI::I S31V1S03.lINI)
60, '11 AI::IW
OSLI6
I::IJ'3N~3A 1::11
OIl::Id
381::l1S0d 's'n
Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 4-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 24 of 24

To

I I 5
..... I /1 , •

PS Form 3817, April 200r PSN 7530-02-000-9065

5
CHARLOTTE NC 2~25~ 4.95
Zone-8 Priority Mail
• .A VERNE POST OFFICE Flat Rate Env
12.80 oz .
.AVERNE. California ========
917509998 Issue PVI: $4.95
0569390790 -0098
(909)392-4681 03:05:24 PM Certificate 1 $1,15 $1.15
Sales Receipt of Mailing
'C Sale Unit Final Total: $36.1
Qty Price Price
\~ DC 20530 Paid by:
$4.95 Cash $40.0
)r ::>rl ty Mail Change Due: -$3.4
Ie ::nv
)
Order stamps at USPS.com/shop or call
Issue PVI: 1-800-Stamp24. Go to USPS.com/clicknship
$4.9 to print shipping labels with postage.
~or other information call 1-800-ASK-USPS.
(ertificate 1 $1.15 $1.1~
[f Mai ling \i11#: 1000203428510
rASHINGTON DC 20535 $4.95 lerk: 05
20ne-8 Priority Mail
11.20 oz. All sales final on stamps and postage
======== Refunds for guaranteed services only
Issue PVI: $4.95 Thank you for your business
:ertificate 1 $1.15 $1.15 **************************************
)f Mai ling (*************************************
IASHINGTON DC 20001 $4.95 PICK UP AFREE
:one-8 Pri ori ty Mai I RECYCLING ENVELOPE
0.80 oz. Take an envelope to recycle your inkje~
::=======
cartridge. cell phone or small electronlcs
Issue PVI: $4.95 free of charge!
****************************************
:ertjficate 1 $1.15 $1.15 ****************************************
of Mai 1ing
WASHINGTON DC 20549 $4.95 ****************************************
Zone-8 Priority Mail ****************************************
10,70 oz. HELP US SERVE YOU BETTER
==:::=====
Issue PVI: $4.95 Go to: http://gx.gallup.com/pos
Certificate 1 $1.15 $1.15 TELL US ABOUT YOUR RECENT
of Mai 1ing POSTAL EXPERIENCE
SAINT LOUIS MO 63102 $4.95 YOUR OPINION COUNTS
Zone-7 Priority Mail ~~*x~*.* •• *www •• w.www •• *****************
11.10 oz.
--------
-------- ****************************************
Iss 95
UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ZERNIK, CASE NO.1 :09-cv-00805


Plaintiffs

VS.

MELSON ET AL. [PROPOSED] ORDERS


Defendants

1) REQUEST FOR LINIENCE AS


PRO SE FILER
2) REQUEST FOR
INCORPORATION BY
REFERENCE AND
3) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE
4) REQUEST FOR ORDERS TO
COMPEL DEFENDANTS

15/40
THE COURT having read and considered Plaintiff's requests [and Defendants'
opposition] [and having heard oral arguments in this matter] orders as follow:

1) Request for lenience by pro se filed Granted

Denied

2) Request for Incorporation by Reference Granted

Denied

3) Request for Judicial Notice Granted

Denied

4) Request for Order to Compel Defendant Melson, USDOJ, Kaiser,


FBI:

a. To investigate the conduct of Magistrate Carla Woehrle relative to alleged


dishonest manipulation and/or adulteration of the dockets in Pacer in cases of
Zemik and Fine.
Granted

Denied

b. To investigate the alleged relations between Judges of the LA Superior Court

z
16/40
and Magistrates of the U.S. District Court, LA, and alleged collegial and social
relations with Magistrate Woehrle that should have required her recusal.

Granted

Denied

c. To immedaitely ensure that Art Richard I Fine has access to pen and paper and is
able to file petitions in court.
Granted

Denied

SO IT IS ORDERED!

DATED: May , 2009

JUDGE OF U.S. COURT


District of Columbia

17/40

You might also like