Sincerely,
Michael Green
Michael B. Green, Ph.D
Clinical Psychologist
Qualified Medical Examiner (1992-2006, retired)
Former Assistant Professor of Philosophy
University of Texas at Austin
Postscript: After writing this article I discovered a 2/1/9 post made by Mr. Fine on the American Home Owners Resource Center website. There, nearly a year after his first attempt to force Judge Yaffe's recusal, Fine referred to himself in the third person and argued:
...On January 8, 2008, Judge Yaffe ordered Fine to pay attorneys fees and costs to LA County and its "co applicant" for the EIR, the developer, and sanctions without giving notice to Fine of the hearing and without Fine being present at the hearing. This was an unconstitional [sic] act and Judge Yaffe did not have any jurisdiction over Fine to make such an order as Fine was not a party to the case or an attorney in the case. (Emphasis added)
Thus, Fine maintains that Judge Yaffe cannot assess a compensatory penalty against him for his having failed to file timely for a hearing when he was the attorney of record, on the grounds that Fine is now neither a party nor attorney of record. Of course, these are amongst the grounds by which Jaffe rejected Fine's demand for Yaffe's recusal, i.e., Yaffe ruled that Fine had no standing to demand Yaffe's disqualification at the time that Fine made the demand (February and again March 2008) because Fine was then neither a party to the case nor the attorney of record. So Fine is "turning the tables" on Yaffe, but in a psychotic fashion. A person who becomes personally liable for penalties for acts committed when he was the attorney-of-record -- as did Mr. Fine through his own affidavit of fault in failing to file timely -- remains liable for those penalties even though the penalties are assessed at a later time when he is not the attorney-of-record. A psychologist who has sex with a patient and loses his license for having done so cannot use the loss of license -- or its voluntary surrender -- to argue that the courts have no jurisdiction over him because he is no longer a psychologist or is no longer treating the patient that he abused. To argue otherwise reflects deranged thinking, not creative thinking or principled constitutional law as Mr. Fine asserts. Whatever one's politics, and whatever one thinks of Judge David Jaffe, friends of Richard Fine should recognize the derangement in his arguments and underlying thought process and act to further Mr. Fine's best interests insofar as they are able to do so.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
