8 Comments
Author: Allen
Judge David P. Yaffe — Perched on a Throne in ‘Wonderland’
Judge David P. Yaffe — Perched on a Throne in ‘Wonderland’ By ROGER M. GRACE I’m not exactly objective when it comes to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe. I can’t stand him. I’ve appeared before him in three cases. (The Daily Journal Corporation sought to wrest a City of Los Angeles contract from the Metropolitan News Company, and lost; MNC pushed for rescission of two County of Los Angeles contracts awarded to DJC, and lost.) Too, I’ve viewed Yaffe’s handling of numerous other cases with which I’ve been unconnected. I commented in a column on Sept. 15 on one proceeding I viewed while waiting for a matter to be called; Yaffe imposed a $200 sanction on a plaintiff’s lawyer for not giving notice of a status conference to lawyers for the other parties. The problem was that there were no other attorneys of record in the case. And Yaffe imposed that sanction on Aug. 24 notwithstanding that one day after he issued an OSC re sanction on July 26, the Court of Appeal, in a published opinion, invalidated a sanction meted out under identical circumstances. From what… Read More
Full Disclosure Network Dr. Richard I. Fine
RIGHT TRUMPS MIGHT Los Angeles Times Continues Silence On Subject of Corruption
Los Angeles Times Continues Silence On Subject of Corruption Savannah Winslow shares her latest email to Los Angeles Times writer George Skelton: “[California Senate President] Darrell Steinberg. Fearless proponent? Or lapdog.” “Steinberg co-authored Senate Bill SBX2-11, the ‘smoking gun’ proof of judicial corruption in Los Angeles County. SBX2-11, you’ll recall, forgave the commission of (literally) ten million felonies committed by Superior Court Judges and County Supervisors under a scheme specifically forbidden by the Constitution. The scheme involved counties illegally giving judges (who are well-paid state employees) monies under the table, hidden from the public for at least twenty years. ‘Smoking gun proof’ in the sense that there was no need to retroactively immunize an act unless a crime had been committed.” “By the end of this month, at least eight judges will have been sued, as individuals not judicial officers (meaning no immunity), as a result of their having received County monies while ruling in cases in which the County has an interest, a clear denial of due process and an obstruction of justice. Thousands of such cases will be filed before this is over. (The geniuses who crafted SBX2-11,… Read More
My Dad Tried to Right a Wrong, Now He’s Behind Bars Unjustly
My Dad Tried to Right a Wrong, Now He’s Behind Bars Unjustly My father is 69 years old and is known for his dapper bow ties and for seeing the world in strict terms of right and wrong. And since March, he has been taken a political prisoner of the L.A. County Jail System. By Victoria Fine, Contributor Program Director at The Tiziano Project Mar 18, 2010, 05:12 AM EDT |Updated Dec 6, 2017 As an editor at Huffington Post Impact, I have the honor of reporting daily the generous acts of others and the devastating issues that our communities have yet to address sufficiently to make this world a safe and healthy place for everyone. I empathize with the subjects of our articles on a very personal level. My own parents are uninsured, facing foreclosure of their house, and my father is unjustly in jail. All because of his compulsion to help others. Many of you may be familiar with California’s budget mess. Around the state, parks are being closed, tuition hiked and state workers laid off in an attempt to salvage a very bad financial situation, one that… Read More
77th Installment. The Richard Fine Story: An Objective Analysis
77th Installment. The Richard Fine Story: An Objective Analysis The wrongly decided Fine v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 651 (continued) Commissioner Bruce Mitchell’s findings of fact need not detain us. By refusing to release his death grip on Fine’s case and finding Richard Fine guilty of criminal contempt, Commissioner Mitchell deliberately acted without jurisdiction, proving his bias. Another way Commissioner Mitchell expressed his lawless subjectivity was soliciting defense counsel to respond to Fine’s appeal. (Ibid.) Mitchell’s hubris led to greater openness than wisdom would have prescribed, but the Court of Appeal’s bias in his favor outweighed the commissioner’s foolhardiness. Although the Court of Appeal admitted this was Fine’s most serious charge, the court responded with an unsupported legal conclusion: Commissioner Mitchell, when advised that Fine had appealed from the “order” purportedly made on December 1, 2000, properly suggested that a response to the appeal would be in order and that the party responding could be entitled to attorney fees. (Ibid.) How could the Court of Appeal miss the impropriety when a judicial officer exploits courtroom command to gain unfair advantage? How could it miss the commissioner’s deliberate misstatement of… Read More
