09-12-11 Judge David Yaffe was right in refusing to disqualify...

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:50:11 -0800
To: LIST HOUSE JUD FAX
From: joseph zernik
Subject: US House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee hearing re: recusal, and the case of Richard Fine.

Hi George:
I appreciate your good will, however, it is no fun repeating myself:
Judge Yaffe was correct in refusing to disqualify, since the case - Marina v LA County, was not a case of the Superior Court in the first place, and it was not litigated pursuant to the law of California or the US. It was fraud to start out - a major real estate case, with Real Parties in Interest who were two large developers, privately held, and LA County - the payer of "not permitted" payments - as Defendant. It would have been bad business practice to run it under the True Court Track. It was diverted from the start to the Equity/Enterprise Track, just like the case of Barbara Darwish.
Why don't we trade places:
Please show me the evidence to support the notions implied in your message, which I explicitly stated below, and which I hold were false and misleading:
________________________________________________
1) The caption of Marina v LA County (BS109420) - in ancillary proceedings of which Richard Fine was taken away on March 4, 2009 by the Sheriff's Warrant Squad - was a matter litigated under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, pursuant to the law of the State of California.
2) Judge Yaffe was presiding in the caption of Marina v LA County (BS109420) as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, duly assigned to the case pursuant to the law of the State of California.
________________________________________________
Seems elementary to me... Any record you want! Proving me wrong on one of the two would be enough for me... Not trying to be stickler for perfection - half is enough :)... 50% would be considered passing grade...
Until your prove me wrong - and I would be happy to be challenged - I claim that you distributed false and misleading information, which you should retract!
Joe Zernik
___________
The offending statement is marked in red. At minimum you should have stated: "involved in the purported Richard Fine proceedings..."
___________
At 18:38 11/12/2009, you wrote:

After yesterday attending the hearings on judicial recusal, I suggest all parties involved in judicial reform take time to view the complete video on the House Judiciary website.

Maybe I was wrong, the testimony heard, both from the committee members themselves and the panel of guests invited, would indicate that the judges in California, involved in the Richard Fine proceedings should have recused themselves because they were being paid off by the county.

--- On Fri, 12/11/09, joseph zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik

Subject: Request that US House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee initiate corrective actions in re: case of Ms Barbara Darwish