You are on page 1of 25

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT


DATE:
1
7
LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL, 1 TIME:
18 _ e _ t a _ l _ ' 5 DEPARTMENT:
Real Parties in Interest.
19
20
4
Respondents
1 DAVID R. HERNANDEZ
5 312 Bellingham Avenue, #3
2 Valley Village, CA 91607
(818) 448-3403
3 In Pro Pe r
5
6
7
8
9
10 DAVID HERNANDEZ, e t a l ,
11
Petitioners,
12
vs.
13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, e t al,
15
16
ORiGiNAl'FILED
J UN 10 2 011
LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT
Case No. BS 10645 6
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO VOID, ANNUL,
VACATE AND SET ASIDE ALL
ORDERS AND J UDGMENTS IN
'nus CASE, PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA C.C.P. 473
21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:
Please take notice that onzt ~, Y/, 2011at.f.')'zAM, in Department
#6, located at 111N. Hill Street, Los Angeles CA 90016, Plaintiff DAVID
24
2 5 HERNANDEZ will move and hereby moves this Court to void, annul, vacate
22
23
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
III
III
2
3
and set aside all orders andjudgments in this case, pursuant to California C.C.P.
473.
4
5
6
The reason for the Motion is that Petitioner David R. Hernandez has
recently learned that David P. Yaffe, the original judge in the case, was
receiving payments for Los Angeles County, a respondent in the case. These
payments were never disclosed to Petitioner Hernandez. As a result of these
payments, J udge Yaffe was disqualified and had no jurisdiction in the case, as
will bedemonstrated hereinbelow.
California CCP Section 473 (d) provides: "The court may ... on motion of
either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment .... "
"[T]he California Supreme Court and some courts of Appeal have held that
the orders of disqualified judges are void and must be vacated." Christ ie v. Cit y
of El Ce nt ro, 135 Cal. App. 4th 767,779 (2006).
Thus, Petitioner brings this motion to establish that disqualified J udge
Yaffe's orders inthis case" ... arevoid and must bevacated."
The Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of
Points and Authorities, the Declaration of DAVID HERNANDEZ and the
exhibits thereto, and such other evidence that may beproduced at thehearing.
7
~o
11
12
13
14
1' J
16
1/
18
19
20
z ;
22
23
24
25
1
Dated this Z- day of June, 2011
2
3
4
:3
6
7
8
9
Respectfully sUb7d,
BY: )t t M~
DA VID HERNANDEZ,
~-.--
In Pro Per
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
4
MOTION TO VOID ANDANNUL
2
3
The original Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate in this case was
assigned to the court of J udge David P. Yaffe. He presided over all hearings,
issued various orders, and ultimately dismissed the case on August 20, 2007.
During the entire course of this case, J udge Yaffe was disqualified, and
lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, because he was receiving secret payments
from a party in the case (i. e ., the County of Los Angeles) without disclosing
this information to others in the case. According to the "Report from L.A.
County Auditor Controller", over the years from 1989 through October, 2010,
J udge Yaffe received $821,613.5 4 in illegal and secret payments from the
County of Los Angeles. (See Auditor-Controller's E-mail, a true and correct
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this
reference as though set forth infull.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. Prefatory Statement
Since the 1980s, L.A. County has made illegal payments to State judges
serving on the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. These payments
amount to approximately $300 million to date, and are presently approximately
$5 7,000 per judge for each of the 430 Statejudges serving on the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles.
L. A. County is not alone in making these illegal payments. A 2009
"California J udicial Council Report" shows that approximately 90% of all State
judges received illegal payments fromcounties.
13
5
1 These illegal payments have corrupted the California judiciary and the
2 California legal system. In L.A. County, according to "County Counsel Annual
3 Litigation Reports" for FY 2005 -2006 through FY 2009-2010 (five years), only
4 three people have won cases against L.A. County when a State judge, sitting on
5 the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, made the decision.
6 Approximately 600 - 700 cases per year were filed against L.A. County during
7 those years.
8 The clear conclusion is that the illegal L.A. County payments to the State
9 judges influenced the judges and "corrupted" the California judiciary and
10 judicial system. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the L.A. County
payments were held to violate Article VI, Section 19, of the California
11
Constitution, in the case of St urge on v. Count y o[Ios Ange l e s, 167Cal.App.d"
12
630, (2008), rev. denied 12123/08.
The criminality of the L.A. County payments and all county payments to
the State judges was affirmed in California Senate Bill SBX2-11, enacted on
February 20, 2009, in response to St urge on, supra , which gave retroactive
immunity from criminal prosecution to the judges and the government officials
17
who gave the payments. Clearly, California Senate Bill SBX2-11recognized the
18
L.A. County payments to the State judges amount to "bribes" inasmuch as it
19 gave retroactive immunity fromcriminal prosecution.
20 Throughout California and United States legal history, this conduct by
21 judges of taking money "bribes" fromaparty appearing before them, or likely to
22 appear before them, has been the cause for the disqualification of judges, the
2 3 removal of judges from the judiciary, and the voiding and annulling of orders
24 and decisions by the "disqualified" judges.
25 III
14
15
16
1
II. Judicial Disqualification And Void Judgments
2
3 A judgment is void when it was rendered by a disqualified judge.
4 Disqualification occurs when the facts creating disqualification arise, not when
5 the disqualification is established. Void judgments can be attacked at any time.
6 Rochin v. Pa t Johnson Ma nufa ct uring Co. 67Cal.App.zl'" 1228 at 1239-1240
7 (1998), and cases cited thereat; Christ ie v. Cit y ofEl Ce nt ro, 135 Cal App.4
th
8 767at 776, 779-780 (2006), and cases cited thereat. See also Ca de na sso v. Ba nk
9 of It a l v, (1932),214 Cal. 5 62; TP.B. v. Supe rior Court , 66 Cal.App.3d 881, at
10 866 (1977); In Re He nry c., 161Cal.App.3d 646 at 65 2 (1985 ); and Rossco
Hol dings, Inc. v. Ba nk of Ame rica , 149Cal.App.d'" 135 3 at 1362 (2007).
11
California law has long held that undisclosed payments to ajudge from a
party in acase required the disqualification of the judge and the removal of the
judge fromoffice. See:
(1) CCP Section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii);
(2) Code of J udicial Ethics Code, Canons 2A, 3E(1) and (2), and 4D(1);
(3) California Constitution, Article VI, Section 18(d) (... conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial
office into disrepute..); and
(4) California Supreme Court case of Ada ms v. Commission on
Judicia l Pe rforma nce , 10Ca1.4th866, 904 (J uly 20, 1995 ), rehearing
denied Sept. 14, 1995 . (J udge accepted gifts, financial benefits and
favors from attorneys and a litigant appearing in the judge's court;
this required disqualification with respect to matters involving these
attorneys or their firms) pages 879, 913-914, citing Ada ms v.
Commission on Judicia l Pe rforma nce , 8Cal.4th630, 661-663 (1994)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
("Adams 1") "... conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
III.
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
7
2
that brings thejudicial office into disrepute.")
Additionally, United States law, in particular 18 U.S.C. 1346 (the
intangible right to honest services) indicates that the secret payments to J udge
Yaffe amount to abribe. Article 6, C1. 2, requires statejudges to obey mandates
3
4
5 which recognize that payments by a party in a case to a judge are
6 illegal, particularly in California, which has a"unique" bribery statute.
7 Cases decided under this concept are:
(1) Us. v. Fre ga , Us. v. Ma l kus, and Us. v. Ada ms 179 F.3d 793
(1999) (the payments, by aparty and an attorney appearing before a
judge to such judge, are bribery and violate 18V.S.C. Section 1346
(the intangible right to honest services) stating at 805 -807:
"Because no linkage of payment and specific official act is
required under California law and because the indictment
incorporates the relevant state bribery statutes, which , in
turn, state the elements of bribery offenses, the indictment
is valid inthis respect" and
(2) Skil l ing v. Unit e d St a t e s, 5 61V.S. _ (decided J une 24, 2010)
(18 U.S.C. Section 346 "criminalizes only the bribe and kick-back
core of the pre-McNally case law; page 45 of opinion.)
Judge Yaffe Has Admitted To Receiving Illegal Payments
In the case of Ma rina St ra nd Col ony II Home owne rs Associa t ion v.
Count ry of Los Ange l e s, case no. BS 109420, (still pending before this Superior
Court on a "Motion to Void and Annul All Orders and J udgments" made by
J udge Yaffe in that case), J udge Yaffe admitted to receiving payments fromLos
Angeles County, which was a party to that case. (See Ma rina St ra nd Court
Transcript, December 22, 2008, attached as Exhibit "B" hereto.)
1 That J udge Yaffe was receiving these same illegal payments made during
2 the pendency of the instant case in 2007is confirmed by an E-mail fromthe L A
3 Country Auditor-Controller and the Declaration of David R. Hernandez. (See
4 Exhibits "A" and "C" attached hereto)
5 In the Ma rina St ra nd case, supra , J udge Yaffe admitted that he did not
6 have a contract with L.A. County and did not do any work for the County. So
7 what were the payments for?
8 Since there was no contract for services between J udge Yaffe and L.A.
9 County, and the payments were not consideration for any services performed by
J udge Yaffe, the payments were simply "gifts" (or worse), in direct violation of
10
California CCP 170.9 (a), which provides: "A judge shall not accept gifts
11
from a single source in a calend lr year with a total value of more than two
12
hundred fifty dollars ($25 0)."
13
These aforesaid admissions n J udge Yaffe's part also apply to the instant
14
case, which was heard and decide in 2007, when he received $5 5 ,239.85 from
15
Los Angeles County. (See Exhibit "A", attached hereto).
16
l7
IV. Jud e Yaffe Was Dis u Iified From Hearin This Case
18
19
From the time he was assi ned to this case until the final dismissal on
20
August 20, 2007, J udge David . Yaffe violated California Code of Civil
Procedure 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) an California Code of J udicial Ethics, Canons
2A, 3E(1) and (2), and 4D(1) by n t disclosing L.A. County's payments to him,
not disqualifying himself from th case as required by law, and deciding the
issues though he was disqualifie and lacked jurisdiction on the case. (See
II ~
Declaration of David R. Hernandez, attached as Exhibit "~" hereto.)
21
22
23
24
25
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
California Code of Civil Procedure 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) and California
Code of J udicial Ethics, Canons 2A, 3E(1) and (2), 4D(1) and 6B respectively
state as follows:
CCP 170.1(a): "A judge shall bedisqualified if anyone or more of
the following aretrue: ...
(6)(A) For any reason:
(iii) A person aware of the facts that might reasonably
entertain adoubt that thejudge would be able to be
impartial. "
Canon 2A. "Promoting Public Confidence
A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all
times in amanner that promotes public confidence inthe
integrity and impartiality of thejudiciary."
Canon 3E. "Disqualification
(I) A judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding inwhich
disqualification is required by law.
(2) In all trial court proceedings, ajudge shall disclose onthe
record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of
disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170,1,
even if thejudge believes there is no actual basis for
disqualification. "
Canon 4D. "Financial Activities
(I) A judge shall not engage in financial dealings that:
(a) may reasonably beperceived to exploit thejudge's
judicial position or,
(b) involve thejudge infrequent transactions or continuing
business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to
appear before the court onwhich thejudge serves." (Emphasis
added.)
J udge Yaffe's taking L.A. County's payments inthis case violates, or fails
to honor, all of the above tenets of California law andjudicial practice.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
10
2 IV. Conclusion
3
4 As demonstrated hereinabove, there is no question that J udge Yaffe was
receiving secret and illegal payments (i.e ., "bribes") in this case from Los
Angeles County, a party in the case. Clearly, these payments were illegal,
unethical, and resulted inJ udge Yaffe being disqualified under the law before he
even started the case. Being disqualified, J udge Yaffe lacked all jurisdiction in
the instant case and any and all of J udge Yaffe's orders were null and void and
must bevacated and set aside. (See Christ ie v. Cit y orEl Ce nt ro, supra , and all
the cases, statutes, and Rules of J udicial Conduct cited hereinabove.)
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray that any and all orders of J udge Yaffe, a
disqualified judge, in the case of Da vid He rna nde z, e t a I, v. Count y or Los
Ange l e s, e t a i, (L.A. Superior Court case no. BS 10645 6) be declared null and
void and bevacated and set aside in accordance with California law.
5
6
7
8
9
16 '7
Dated: J une~, 2011
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Respectfully submitted:
18
By:
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
I amJ ohn G. Baron. I amover eighteen years of age, and not aparty to
the within cause. My address is 2309-31st Street, Apt. C., Santa Monica, CA
90405 .
On J une..8-, 2011, I served the foregoing document described as:
NOTICE OF MOTION ANDMOTION TO VOID, ANNUL, VACATE
ANDSET ASIDE ALL ORDERS and J UDGMENTS IN THIS CASE,
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA C.C.P. 473
on interested parties inthis action by depositing atrue copy thereof, which was
enclosed in asealed envelope, postage prepaid, via First Class Mail, addressed
as follows:
County of Los Angeles
Office of County Counsel
648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
City of Los Angeles
Office of the City Attorney
800 City Hall East
2 00 No. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws the State of
California, that the foregoing istrue and correct.
Executed onthis ~ day of J une, 2011, at Santa Monica, California.
~~~
J <ffi'nG. Baron
11
7
Exhibit "C"
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
LIST OF EXHIBITS
4
Exhibit "A" Auditor-Controller's E-Mail, May 16, 2011
Exhibit "B" Court Transcript, December 22,2008
Declaration of David R. Hernandez, J une 7, 2011
5
6
12
Subject~R[ ; ' : Publ i c Records Request -Urgent - 2nd request
From: drhassoc@eart hl i nk.net
Dat e: Mon, 16 May 2011 07: 50: 43 -0800 (GMT-08: 00)
To: " Iverson,Gregg M." <GIVERSON@audi t or.l acount y.gov>
Thank you,
Davi d Her nandez
- - - - - Or i gi nal Message- - - - -
IFr om: " I ver son, Gr egg M. " <GI VERSON@audi t or . l acount y. gov>
iSent : May 16, 2011 7: 41 AM
ITo: " dr hassoc@ear t h1i nk. net " <dr hassoc@ear t hl i nk. net >
ISubj ect : RE: Publ i c Recor ds Request - Ur gent - 2nd r equest
I
I Dear Mr . Her nandez:
I I sent an e- mai l on May 4, 2011 at 10: 36 am t o ' dr hassoc@ear t hl i nk. net ' wi t h t he
I f ol l owi ng i nf or mat i on:
I
f
I
I Bel ow i s
f not have
Iyou have
;
I
!
i
j
i
~
i
t

i
t he i nf or mat i on r equest ed f or LA Super i or Cour t J udge Davi d P. Yaf f e. We do . .
r ecor ds pr i or t o 1989. Pl ease e- mai l at gi ver son@audi t or . l acount y. gov i f I
quest i ons. !
I
I
~
~
MegaFl ex
Cont r i but i on
401( k) / 457
Cont r i but i ons Al l owance
Pr of essi onal Devel opment
11989 $ 6, 111. 54 $
11990 $ 7, 206. 83 $
11991 $ 15, 192. 52 $
' 11992 $ 18, 866. 40 $
1993 $ 18, 866. 40 $
1994 $ 19, 731. 22 $
11995 $ 20, 354. 56 $
11996 $ 20, 404. 08 $
f 1997 $ 20, 404. 08 $
I 1998 $ 20, 659. 16 $
I
I1999 $ 21, 594. 24 $
2000 $ 22, 627. 29 $
2001 $ 25, 114. 87 $
i 2002 $ 26, 290. 67 $
12003 $ 26, 845. 62 $
!2004 $ 27, 329. 28 $
!2005 $ 28, 256. 14 s
!2006 $ 29, 177. 76 $
'. .2007 $ 32, 965. 52 $
i 200B $ 33, 969. 96 $
~2009 $ 33, 969. 96 $
12010 $ 31, 139. 13 $
I- - - - - Or i gi nal Message- - - - -
iFr om: dr hassoc@ear t hl i nk. net [ mai l t o; dr hassoc@ear t hl i nk. net ]
I
I,sent: Thur sday, May 12, 2011 4; 29 PM
i To: I ver son, Gr egg M.
ISubj ect : Publ i c Recor ds Request - Ur gent - 2nd r equest
IThi s i s a f ol l ow up t o my pr evi ous r equest . Can you pr ovi de me wi t h t he i nf or mat i on
I or a st at us on t he r equest ?
i
IThank you,
IDavi d Her nandez
Year
3, 450. 24
3, 699. 51
4, 432. 01
5, 995. 22
4, 475. 74
2, 875. 30
7, 442. 24
7, 667. 64
7, 420. 97
5, 175. 66
5, 409. 92
8, 357. 13
11, 307. 39
9, 90B. 39
12, 377. 21
12, 600. 24
13, 027. 59
13, 452. 48
15, 19B. B3
15, 661. 92
15, 661. 92
14, 356. 76
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
1, 960. 00
4, 704. 00
5, 162. 50
5, 004. 00
5, 161. 50
5, l B4. 00
5, 331. 00
5, 352. 00
5, 499. 00
5, 520. 00
5, 814. 00
5, 856. 00
6, 150. 00
6, 192. 00
6, 528. 00
6, 838. 50
7, 075. 50
7, 366. 50
7, 404. 00
6, 478. 50
EXHIBIT "A"
,- 1
; I
\-----Forwarded Message----- l t
!! ,~
\ 1 Fr om: dr hassoc@ear t hl i nk. net j'
If Sent : May 2/ 2011 6:08 PM 1:,1
I t To: GI VERSON@audi t or . l acount y. gov .1
I Cc; Davi d Her nandez <dr hassoc@ear t hl i nk. net > "I
1 Subj ect : Publ i c Recor ds Request - Ur gent II
IIDear Audi t or : I
I I Pur suant t o t he pr ovi si ons of t he Cal i f or ni a Publ i c Recor ds Act , r equest i s her eby f:
i'.made f or document s showi ng al l payment s f r om , LACount y commonl y known as " l ocal !~
I,' j udi ci al benef i t s" t o LA Super i or Cour t J udge Davi d P. Yaf f e f r om t he commencement II
IIof such payment s bel i eved t o be f r om 1986 t hr ough t he pr esent . A year l y summar y of ~I
I I I " Me9af l ex caf et er i a pl an benef i t s" , 401( K) , 457 or ot her r et i r ement cont r i but i ons, I I
I " pr of essi onal devel opment al l owances" and any ot her LA Count y compensat i on f or each II
I f year t hat t he " l ocal j udi ci al benef i t s" wer e pai d wi l l be suf f i ci ent . (
p 1111
!I Ti ne i s of t he essence. An e- mai l r esponse t o dr hassoc@ear t hl i nk. net cont ai ni ng al l .1
I f avai l abl e r ecor ds or a summar y t her eof wi l l be suf f i ci ent . I i
IIThank you f or your at t ent i on t o t he most ur gent mat t er . II
,i ,_ ,,'!_ ',! II
!I Si ncer el y, .
II iI
!IDavi d R. Her nandez II
! !
l I
EXHIBIT "A"
Me~ 27 10 04~21p
AAW CPA FDN
310- 919- 2890 p. 1
Case 2 :09- cv- Oi 914-J Ft\i:-PW Document 1- 4
1
2
3
4
5
fi
7
8
~
10
II
12
13
14
1:1
) . 6
17
18
1.'9
20
21
22
23
:
.
I 2'1
;
j
2S
!
t
2 6
1. 7
I
2 8
I
~
Filed 03f29/~p09 Page i06 of 169
sOPE~rOR C'oU'R'.r OF THE STATE OF CJ \l.l~ORNIA
~OR 4HE COUNT~OF LOS ANGELES
ompAR~~NT NO. 86
flON. DA.VIO P. YAFl!'E/ 'J UDGE
)
)
)
)
}
)
)
}
RSSPONDEN'1' )
-~---------"~--~-~ .... --- '- - )
MAR.:.tNl\ STRAND COLON' I I
PETJ : TI ONER,
VS.
NO. as 109420
REPORTER'S
CERTl: rICA't1!:
coUN'rY OF LOS ANGELES.
SThTE OF CALXFORNI A
SB
couNTY OF LOS ~~GELES
r r CYNTHJ :A S. CRUZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER O~ THE SUPl!:RrOR
COURT OF 'tHE STATE Of' CA,LlfORNI t FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, DO tlERgBY' CERTIFY TH.1\T 'rHI:i F'O~E~OXNG PAGS. 1
THROUGH a, COMPRISE A PAflT!AL, TROl'; AND CORRl!;CT 'l"J UNSCRIPT OF
THE PROCE~D.INCS HELD IN THe: l\f}OVS- 'SNTI'I'LED MATTER ON OECEMl3B'R
22, 2008.
DATED l'HIS 23It" DAY OF OSCEM6gR, 2006.
EXHIBIT "B"
Mo~ 27 10 04: 21p AAW CPA F' DN 310- 818- 2890
. t 3
4
5
"-t
"
6
: "
7
8
9
10
11
12
1: }
14
p. 2
Case 2 :09- cv"'()1914- J P.W~CW Document ~-4
J
. ,
F\\ea 03~Ol?QQ9 P2Qi se 9f.__
1
LOS ~GELES. CALI F. ; MON. , DEC~aER 22, 2008; A. ~. SESSI ON
DtPAR.TMENT N'O. a6
HON~ DAVI D P. YAFFE, J ODGE
{THE REAL PARTXES r . NI NT~EST WXTHTHEI ~
COUNSEL, J OSHUA L. ROS~N AND R. J . COM2~,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW; lUCHARDX. FINE, XN PROPRIA
PERSONA. )
( CYNTHI A S. CRUZ, C. S. R. 9095, OFFI Ci AL
REPOltTER. )
(THE FOI,LOWJ :NG PARTI AL fROCEEDl:NGS WERE HELD IN
OPEN COURT:)
TfIE COURT l ALl:, RIGHT. rI M SOMEWHAT TROUBLED BY
E"l'lXOENCE CODE SECTION 703 (D) WltJ :CH SAYS IN TUE ABSENCE OF
15 on~ECTI ON BY A , PARTY, THE J UDGE PRESI DI NG AT THE ~RI AL OF
16 AN 1\CTION MAY TESTIFY IN THAT T.RIAL AS A WJ :'l'NESS. I DON'T
17 SEE HOW I CAN TaSTr FY I N A Tnl AL ~S A WI ~SS XN WHI CH!
18 AM THE SOLE DECIDER OF FACT I F THERE ~s. I N FACT. ANY
20 MYS~LF WOOLD BE A FACTOR. HOWEVER, TH~ FI RST PART OF THI S
19 I SSUE I N DI SPUTE WI TH RESPECT - - WH~CH MY CR~Cl aXLr TY TO
,
t
t
I
i
~
,
27
21 STATUTE SAYS THAT BEFORE I MAY BE CALLBD TO TESTI FY AS A
Z2 WI t NESS, I AM TO, I N PROCEEDI NGS HELD OUT OF THE PRESENCE
23 OF THE J URy, I NFORM TH~ PART~Ea OF THAT POSI Tr ON THAT I
24 l1:AVEON ANr MATTER .ANY FACT OR botATTER OF FACT UPON' WHICH
25 I WI LL BE CALLED UPON TO TESTI FY.
l S
l
NOW, MR. F:nn~ HAS LISTED THE MATTF;~S ON WHICH
I ' M TO BE CALLeD TO TSTI F~. X DON' T ~Hr NK THERE I S ~
DI SPUTE AS TO ANY OF THOSE MATTERS. '[-
EXHIBIT "B"
Ma~ 27 10 04: 22p AAW CPA FDN
310- 919- 2890
p. 3
Case 2 :Q9- G'V- Q1914- J ~CW Docume nt 1-4
Filed 03/20J2009 Page 99 of 169
.. ~
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l'l
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
2 6
21
29
:t HAVE RECIVEtl PAYMEN'l'S FROM THE COUNTY. 1 DID
RECEIVE THEM WHILE I WA.S tiANOLING CASES '"1'0 WHJ :CH THIS
COUNTY WAS Po. ?ARTY. I DID NOT REPORT THEM ON THI!! FORM 700
~RAT rs FI LED WI TH THE FEOERAL WZTH THS FAIR POLITICAL
i Pt..YMI!NTS l'IHICH ~ou RECEIVE "Hleu AR& MEGA FLEX PAW " " , " S. J
L_ - - - - - ~- - - ~- - ~- - - .- - - ~- .- - ~- - - - "-
i
r)t
PRACTICES COMl"XSSIOl't OF' THE STATP.: OF CALJ :FORNl:A. 1.'RI!!Y
WSRE REl?QR"rEO ON TWO STATEMENTS THAT r WAS Issueo AT TH~
EN'D OF EACH YEAR MUCH R~POItTr;:D ALL THE PAYMENTS TlIAT I
OOT FOR - - FROM SITTING AS A J UDGE FROM BOTH T1fS STArt: AND
THl!: COUNTY.
13Y THE WAY, ALl; P1l.'fMtJ :N'l"S 'l'IihT 1RECEJ ;VEO AS A
J UOQE ARE O~ A WA~nANT I SSUED BY TH CO~~Y OF LOs
ANGELES. THE STATE REIMBURSES THE COUNTY AND THE COl.TN1'Y
I SSUES A WARRANT WHI CH PAYS ME ~ ~~ OF TH~ OTHER
. 10" 0GEB.
MR. F:tNE: l!;XCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. WITH ALI,. "QUI::
RESPECT. YOUR HONOR. THAT Is 1:NCORRECT. THE STATE DOES
NOT RE:rMI3URSE 1.'HE COUNTY OF LOS AN'G~LF.S FOR THE PAYMENTS
THAT THE COUN'l'Y OF LOS ANGEL]!;S KAK.E.:;l, TJ lE cotnrrx or r..os
ANGELl'!;S MAKES THose PA~MEN'I'S OUT OF THE COUNTY' 5 GeNERA!..
F'UND, AND THERE IS NO R1l:IMBtrnSEMI:!NTS.
THE COURT; 'l"AAT'S CORRECT. TtrAT'S RIGHT. THE
COUNTY REIMBURSES ~- THE S1'ATE REIMBURSES THE COUNTY fOR
THE PORTI ON OF TH~ COUNTY Wh~~wr TRAT PAYS MY SA~ARY
OTHER THAN THS MECA F~EX BENEPI TS.
MR. F:INI!:: FURTHER CORRECTION. THAT I S UN'l'RUB. THE:
PAYMENTS THAT YOU Al't PAID OUT OF A SPECJ :A[, FUN'O, THAT IS
)-lOT r.. COUN1'Y FUND. IT r s 1\ SPF.<;:'IAL TRUST FUND.
AJ I10 THE
EXHIBIT "B"
Ma~ 27 10 04.22p AAW CPA FDN 310~919- 2890
Case 2 :09- cv- 01914- J F~W OOC\J ment 1-4
'. ,
Flied03/2Pl ~009 Page 100 of 169
p.4
1 - pnOFBss:tONJ \.L OEVELOPMENT Pl\YMEN"rS AND CON"I'RIB'lJ TIONS TO
2 YOUR - tOl- K, ARE PAID OUT 01:" THE COUNTY'S GENERAL FtJ N!>. FOR
3 WHI CH THE~E' S NO REI MnURSEM~NT F~OM THm ST~TE.
THE COUR~; ~R. F~NE, ~ SAI D T~E PORTI ON THAT
5 CONST;t:TUTt:S MY SALAR~ Wl-!tCH r GET IN A WARRJ \N't fROM THE
6 COUNT':.:' IS RE:tMtH)'RSED TO 'rHE COt]N'T'X" flY THE STATB, -
1
MR, FINE I NO, l'M CORReCTING yoO. YOUR HONOR, THERE,
8 TlJ J \T rS A S PEC:t1\L FVND. NO't' 1\ COUNTY f''OND. IT'S A SPECIAL
9 TRUST FUl- m.
10
TFfE CO"O""RT! ALL RIOHT. WHATKVl!:R.
11 NOW, IS THERE ANYT1-ING ELSE yoU HAVEN'T COVERED
12 THAT YOU W}UIT TO ASK MlJ : Aaotrr?
13
MR. Vll'tE; 'llSS. YOU HAVE NOT COVERED THE F'ACT THAT
14 yocr O"ID NOT HAVE p.N'{ Ell1PLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH 'l'J -IE COUNTY.
1:5 IS THAT CORREC'r?
16
:1.7
16
19
21
27.
23
25
26
17
THE COURT: CQRRBT,
MR. FlNE: AND 00 '[01.] NOT HAVE [J .NY ARAANG8M1::N1' T
PROV10E ~ERV~CZS ~OR THF. COUNTY?
THE COURT: OTHlSR THAN TH"S SERVICn:S THAT I P~RFORM AS
A J UDGE PRSSI DI NG I N TH! Z COURT, NO.
MR. FINE ~ OKJ \Y. /\NO SERvrc~S - rAA'r YOU PROVIDE AS 1\
J UDGE SI TT~NC I N THI S COUf l T ARE Tas ~ERVI CES AS A
CONS-r:TUT:tO:-r
AL
-eLECTED OfFlC!At. OF' t'HE STAT6 OF CALIFORNIA
PURSU.1't.NT TO THE CALIFORN!A CONS-rI-rr.rT'LON. I'\RTIClIE 16. HI
TW-T CORRECT?
1'111 COtIRT; 'tS.
AND ON Tl{E PAYMn:NTS TAAT YOU ARB
OK,A.Y.
nECE::rvrNG _ FROM TH COlrN"fY J\~E I'IOT .. LI\CI::O I.I>fTO A.N"\" - l'.IH:
3
EXl IIBIT " B"
n
Me~ 27
10 04!22p
AAW CPA FDN
310- 919- 2890
Case 2 :09- cv- 01914- J F'!fV::CW
"\ 1
3
Document 1- 4
Filed 03/2p/2P09
Page 101 of 169
TUE coua-r J CORRECT.
M~. Vl:NE 1 OKAY, A.NP '.nu:: PAYMENTS 't'H.1\'1' YOU ARB
5 RECE;rV~NG f'ROM THE COUNTt ARE NOT A SALA'S. IS TH.AT
o CORR~CT?
'J THE COURT: 4 CONst OE~ TEM ~ SA~ARY, YES.
MR. FINE I WELL, SINCE YOU DIO NOT HAVE ANY CONTRACT
9 WITH THE comny FOn. SERVICES lV'I'D YOU ARll: NO'!' AN EMPLOYEE
10 OF THE' COUN'l7, "tHESE P1\1'Mlffi"'l'S .ARE NOT A SALARY FROM TlfE
11 COUNTY, ARE THEY?
12
l 3
THE COURT; I CONS IOER THeM TO BE PART 01' 'MY ~ALAP:Y.
MR. FI NEI DUT LEGALLY SPEAKI NG, YOU ARE - .
THE COtm.T: !.'M A WITNESS HERE NOW, MR. FINE, :IO l'M
15 NO'.!' GOING TO C:HVE: ANY OPINIONS 0 THE LEGAL:ITIES OV THIS
10 STU' I 4' F.
11
J >fR. FINE I YOUR HONOR, DO yOU HAVJ ;; AN EMPLOYlf~NT
18 CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY?
19
zo NO.
21
22
25
26
THE COUR'l': r ANSrl,fiREO THAT Qt1Ii!STrON. THE ANSWER :(3
FI
"Oc"", OK1\Y. N'fO 00 YOU HAVE ANY SJ !!RV:!Cli!
MR. .'.!,:
CONTRACT wrrtt THE coUNTY?
THE COURT: NO
l'tR. Fl~E ~ OKAY'. THE - DO YOU l<NOW - DO YOO" KNOW
co
r.. 1"'T'V 15 GIVING '[OU THESE PAV'MsmS
Of' ANY REASON THAT 1'HE v'" ~
OTHER TltAN THE REASON 1' 0 rNFL{j1:!NCE YOUR DECIS10N ON COUNT1'
CASES?
ROSEN: OBJ ECT:tOl'l; CALLS FOR qfleCrJ LAT!ON.
I MR.
L- ~- . ~- - - .- - - - - ', ... - - - ~- - - -
I
------~ ......
--------------- .._ ....-~-- ..- - - '.....
EXHIBIT "B"
p.5
I
I
I
I
I
i
. ,-
Ma~ 27 10 04~23p
AAW CPA FDN
310- 313- 2890
Case 2:09-CV-01914-J Frr-pW Document 1-4
1
:l
3
4
So
G
7
B
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
15
17
;1.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~6
27
26
Filed Q3J 2 pJ 2 1009 Page 102 of 169
TH~COURTI SUSTAJ NEO.
MR. F:tNE 1 OKAY. YOU ARE THE ~- YOU AREN'T THS J UDGE
HER. YO'O'R HONOR. YOU. Cl il i' T BUSTAIN YOUR OWN TE:STZHON1'.
THE COURT 1 WHO'S TO ~ULE ON Tnl'.: 05J ECTION'. MR. FINE,
i"0t17
MR. FI~E; IT SHOULD UIi: 6".C ANOTHZR .TOOGE, YOUR HON'O~.
THE COORT: ALL R~GHT. WHAT mLS~?
MR. F'INE; NOW. YO\.1f(. HONOR. IN THIS LAST YSAR. OTKER
THAN THE CASS OF MAJ UNA STRAND COLONY I I. IS THERE ANY -
CASE WHErtE YOU'VE RULED AGAINST THE CQUNTY OF LOS ANGELES?
THB COURT: IN THE LA$'I' YEAR?
MR. FINE i YES.
AGA.INST THE: COUNT~ OF LOS l\NGEI..1!:S Wl:'1'HIN THE I..AST YEAR,
BUT I CAN' T REM~MDt R ANY PARTXCV~AR ~AS.
MR. FINE: OKAY. IN 'r'HE LAST TWO Yi;;;ARS, CAlf YO'O' Tnt.
ME ANY CASE WHERE YOU' 'IE RULSP AGAINS'l' 'l'HE COUNTY OF LOS
1\.NOBLli:S?
' t HE
COUR' I ' :
AGAl:NS'l' THE; COUN'TY?
MR. F:tNE:
AGAI NST THE
COmn' Y OF LOS I\NO!::t.ES.
7'ttE
COURT:
WELL. I 010
IN -rur s C' " SE.
MR.
FI NE:
r{o,
OTHER ' t HAN THI S
CASE.
THE:
COURT:
OH,
I ' M SORRY.
NO, I CAN' T
RE:MP.MDER TJ {E
NJ \ME OF ANY CASE IN - IN THE NAMI!: OF TI-IS PLAINTIFF OR THE
_ _ wELL. THE NAME OF THE OTHER PARTY rN ANY CASE WHICH r
RULED AGA! NST. BUT I ' M SURE 1 ~~v~_
I N TH~ LAST THReE YRARS.
CJ \.N YOU TELL ME
NJ \.M~ OF I\N'.( -C1\$t; iN wlHCH lC~r VE RU1.D AGAINST THE: I
TME ._ _ .J
L
... - ------ ,-----.- -~...- .,
-
EXHIBIT "B" .
Ma~ ?7 10 0~: 23p
flfl(J CPR FDN
310- 919- 2890
p.?
Case2:09-cv-01914-J F~W Oocum~nti-4
" 1
rUed03{Z9t4009 Page i03 of 169
2
' f HE COt J R' ! ' :
THI S 1$
!-I'D'l' ,-
WHAT 001;;$ THIS HAv!!: TO 00
1 COtJ 'N"I'Y OF LO~ l\.NaEL~S'?
'THE COUR"l'. IF I CAN'T REMEMnER WITHIN THE LAST ysAR
J Al'fO THi!! LAST n'10 YEARS, I C~R'T1\:rNL~ CAN' T REMEMB~R AlITY :tN
'1 THE LAST THREE YEARS.
I) CASZ!::. O:tD 'tOO' :r.NV:e:STIGATE -ro DETERMJ :N~ IN THE ~gCORD -
s
MR. FINE: OKA)". NOW, 'ic){j~ HONOR. IN nus PARTlCULAR
7 1\NP I'M NOT I\$~ING YOU ABOUT YOUR DECISION. I'M ASXING YOU
8 IN THIS PJ \.RTICt.1LAR CASE. DID YOU DETERMINE - - oro YOU
9 INVESTIGATE Tl-n?; RECORD TO OF,TERM:I.Nl':: IF THE MAY lS'tH VOT~ BY
10 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INVOLVING THE J l;, 1+R, W1\SA VALIt>
11 VOT~ J :N THAT THE SUPERVISORS HA.D THE AUTHORITY TO VOTE TO
13
l~ APPROVE THE ll!. I . R. 7
MR. ROSEN: OaJ ECTl o~.
14
15 MY RULING IN THE VNDEIU':CIl'lG CA1;iE liE::RE.
'J "liE COUItT! NOW, ~OU' HE GETTING INTO TliE NATURE FOR
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
25
26
MR. FINE! N'O, THE BAsts OF YOUR RULING IN TiCE
mroERLY:ING CASE WAS T!U\T soo SAID THAT THE E .I. R. HAD
NOT "BEEN CIRCULATED DU~ TO THE AMOUNT OF DIRT TIJ .AT wAS
S'O'PPOSED TO ~E 2-tOVED.
OS
""N OBJ ECTION. '{O'IJ R HON'OR " Ll\CKS FOUN!>ATION.
MR. R "":
TMT ISSUE IS NOT PRESENT!.::D HI THE CASk: IHi:FORE TOt] AT THE
' t I ME.
.".. 'I.1E _ _ MY QUESTION IS THAT IN J .,OQKING AT
MR, f'"IN.c. : ..'
THE ~ECORP XN THI S CAS~ . .
TJ - I ECOURT:
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THe: OI3J ECTION, so IT'S
6
I
I
f
I - - ~- - - - ~- - - ....- .- - - - ... _ ..' .....~- ~- - - .~
L_---------------
' 1' 7
I
~
EXIllBIT "B"-j
28
OVE~Rt1LED, SU"l'
MR. f ' : t : NE!
LET ME G~VE YOU ~ OF?ER O~ PROOF.
If }J
~
; 2<5
EXHIBIT "B'" '-
Md~ 2 7 10 04:23p
RAW CPR FDN
310- 919- 2890
Ca~e2:09-cv-01914-J FFpW Document 1-4
Filed03/Z0/~009 Page 104 of1S9
.----~-~---------~. -----~---~--------.--...
1 WITH Tl-l:IS CONTBMPT PROCEEnrNG?
2 MR ~:tNE $ - IT HAS TO DO W~J ;'HTaE l!'OLl.owl:NO TRJ :NCl.
J YOUR HONOR: 1 WILL G:rVE YOU AN OW'F~R. OF 'E'ROOF OF WHAT
4 WltL COf.!E INTO !!:VIDENCE WHICH IS ALREADY BEFORE YOU FROM
6 90TH SUPZRv:rSOn. AN'TONOVICH AND SUPltRV;rSOR !<NABS HAV~
7 RECEIVEO CON"rRlBO'l"IONS WI"nUN 12 MONTHS PRIOR ':to THl!: T:rM~
fl THAT 'l'HEY VOTED ON MAY 15
7H
~007, WHICH l'IJ \KES_ "l'HE!R vOTE
9 I LLEGAL UNPER THE POLI TI CAL REFORM ACT UNDER THE
10 BREAKSTONE CAse. MY QUES'l'ION - - ANn "I'J tAT CAN 8E SHOWN
1l FROM 'l'RE DOCOMENTS - -
12
'r}l:E; COtrRT I THEY HAVS RECEIVED CON'TRrlH)TIONS FROM
14
MR. FINE! FROt{ J SRRY EPSTEIN. PJ >.T EPSTEXN AND DAVID
rs A. LEVIN}'::, ANY
16
THE COURT 1 WlV\1' OOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WlTH ME?
MR. FINg I IT HAS 'TO DO WITH 'lOU I YOIJ R f-lONOR, TH -r rr
GOES 1'0 THE "POINT TI- fAT IN THg RECORD OF THIS PJ \RTIcut.AR
CASE rS THE l'VI.Y 15
TH
VOTE WHICH SHOWS 'I'HAT VOTE HAl) FOUR
SUPJ ::l\VISORS VOTING rN FAVOR OF THe E.I.R, J \.ND THE E.I.R.
WAS THE aAS~S OF TRI ~CA~6, ANP
THE COURT; VOTED rN ~~VO~ OF THE E. I . R. ?
17
l 6
20
21
22
THAT'S CORRECT, IN FAVOR OF THE p1I.SSAGB OF
23
MR. FI NE:
21
AND THAT THOSE FOUR VOTES J_
'I'HF.: E. I ,R
25
OURT YOU
U"'AN THY A.OOPTEO THE E. r. R. 7
THE C ! ,-,.,.
26
MH. TI NE:
'rHEt )lJ )QPTEll 'tHE E. 1. R " CORREC'I'. 8Y 10'fJ R
~7
VOTES.
TWO OF THS I~OUH VOlE!)
THl 3l COURT!
THE E. I . R- r SUBS~QUE~LY HELD WAS
7
Ma~ ~7 10 04! 24p
RRW CPR FDN
310- 919- 2890
Case 2:09-CV-01914-J F~,""'_ :CW
?Vj_ Document 10.4
Filed 03J~Ol~009 Page 105 of 16~
INOORRECT.
MR P:rN~ I ONLY FOR THJ i;~EASON THAT THE A.MOUNT o-q
Ol:RT 'rHAT WAS 6Enm 'l'RANSPORTEO ftAO NOT BEEN SHOWN' TO THE
PSOPLE.
YOU DI D NOT HOLD XT TO BE r NSUFF~CI ENT WITH
RESPECT TO WHETHER T1tE I\CT'tJ A.l" ADOPTXON OF THE VOTE WAS
lt~OI\L OR ~OT. MY QUESTXON TO 'to!J IS j Dro YOU "OOK AT THe
RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER Tl{l!: VOTE OF MAY' 15'1'H WA3 Hll1LD ~
THE COURT l ~'lHAT RECORD?
MR. FINE; 'l'RE RECORD IN THE CASE OF MARINA STRANO
COLONY I I V:ElR?-oS THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
~. ROSEN: YOUR HONOR
THE COURT; I CE'RTAINL'i INSPECTJ ;;D THE ADMl:Nl:tlTUTIVl!:
RECORD.
MR. FI NE: O~Y. TN THE I NSPECT1NO THE
ADMINISTAAT:IVE RECORD. D:!D yOU INSPECT THE lLPMIN:ISTRATIVE
RECORO TO DBTERMl:NE THE LEGALITY OF THE MAY l s'tlf VOTE?
THE COURT; I. DONt '1' THINK ~- 1: DOUBT IT :6ECA."(J Sao; t
DON'T THlNK ANYBOOY RArGEP N'f'i I SSU'E AS TO TH'1Z LEGAr,IT~ OF
'l'H!!: MAY l. S'1'" VOTE.
S
~N ~F X MAY OBJ F. CT, YOUR ~ONOn?
MR. RO ~
MR. FIN~:
r
.... TLr"1' ANSWERS MY QUESTION; YOTJ R
!" _ "",. n.l'
} t ONOR.
I 1U\VE NO l"'UR'l'HER QUEST!ONS.
( TH~ FOREGOI NG PARTI AL PROCE~Dr NGS WERE
CONCM1P~b . )
p.9
EXHIBIT "B"
4
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
1 DAVID R. HERNANDEZ
5 312 Bellingham Avenue #3
2 Valley Village, CA 91607
(818) 448-3403
3 In Pro Pe r
5
6
7
8
9
10
DAVID HERNANDEZ, e t a l ,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
vs.
13
COUNTY of LOS ANGELES,
14
CITY OF LOS ANGELES e t a l ,
15 Respondents
16
17 LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL,
18
e t a l ,
Real Parties inInterest.
19
Case No. BS 10645 6
DECLARATION OF
DAVID R. HERNANDEZ IN
SUPPORT OF:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO VOID, ANNUL,
VACATE AND SET ASIDE ALL
I ORDERS AND J UDGMENTS IN
I THIS CASE, PURSUANT TO
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J\ CALIFORNIA C.C.P. 473
)
}
)
20
<
21
22
DECLARATION
23
If called upon in this case, I can and will testify competently to the
24
following facts:
25
1. My name is David R. Hernandez.
1
EXHIBIT "C"
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2. I amaplaintiff inthe above entitled case.
3. The above entitled case was filed on December 11, 2006, and was
dismissed on August 20,2007.
4. J udge David P. Yaffe was thejudge for the entire course of the case.
5 . I contacted the L.A. County Auditor-Controller and requested and
received information on all payments made by the County to J udge
Yaffe. (See Exhibit "A" to the Motion to Void, to which this
Declaration is attached.)
6. While the above entitled case was pending in J udge Yaffe's court, for
the years 1987 through September 2010, J udge Yaffe received
$821,613.5 4 fromLos Angeles County, aparty to this case.
7. During the pendency of this case during 2007, J udge Yaffe received
$5 5 ,239.85 fromLos Angeles County, aparty to this case.
8. J udge Yaffe never disclosed to me, nor to my attorneys, the fact that
he was receiving these payments, either before or during the course of
the case.
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California, that the foregoing istrue and correct. -
Executed this ~ day of J une, 2011, at Los Angeles,
r<
/ ~/ ~
-1kt /6~ -~~--' ~
David R. Hemand~
r=:
California.
2
EXHIBIT "C"

You might also like