Friday, April 23, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court Sicced on Corrupt California Judges by Richard I. Fine's "Petition for Writ of Certiorari"

Richard I. Fine's "Petition for Writ of Certiorari" was accepted by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court for docketing:
Background Summary:
"Judges for the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, who are state-elected, began receiving substantial monies, mischaracterized as 'judicial benefits”', from LA County in the late 1980s.  LA County began winning virtually all lawsuits filed against it when the same were decided by judges and not juries.  The payments were found to be unconstitutional in October 2008.  The California Legislature subsequently passed Senate Bill SBx2-11, which retroactively granted immunity from criminal prosecution for the estimated ten million felonies committed, while purportedly authorizing the payments. 

"Meanwhile, a homeowners association had sued LA County and others concerning an environmental impact report and Supervisors' illegal votes approving same.  The judge, refusing to recuse himself despite having received almost $100,000 from a defendant in the case, ultimately ruled in defendants’ favor.  Appellate judges then knowingly misconstrued the facts and protected the trial judge.

Question Presented for Review:

"Whether the trial court judge should have recused himself in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BS109420, in which the judge received illegal payments from the County of Los Angeles, a party to the case; and whether he should also have recused himself in the ancillary contempt proceeding in which he 'judged his own actions.'”
Despite the fact that Fine's Petition was received on March 23rd, Respondent Sheriff Leroy D. Baca has been granted until May 17th to file his response (see Docket), if any.

Still, the bottom line is simply this:  There is NO honest answer other than "yes" to the Question Presented, and the legal fiction of SBx2-11's immunity doesn't change that inasmuch as recusal is not one of the issues it covers, the Ninth Circuit's pretense to the contrary notwithstanding.

No comments: