Sunday, October 18, 2009

09-10-18 Online Petition launched, and Sheriff Baca's office informed that we may ask to exercise our Common Law rights - to inspect and to copy...

Fax was sent to the office of Sheriff Lee Baca, and staff was also noticed and informed by phone:
_______________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:24:08 -0700
To: "Sheriff Lee Baca"<13232676600@efaxsend.com>
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Please sign an online petition addressed to Sheriff Lee Baca - FREE RICHARD FINE.

October 18, 2009

Dear Sheriff Baca:

I got overwhelming support for previous email notes in this matter, and therefore started the online petition on Sunday, October 18, 2009. I realize we may not get that many signatures by Monday, but it would surely give you some indication where public sentiment stands on this matter.

Regardless, I never asked you to make your decisions based on public sentiment, but rather, based on your due authority and proper address of the rights of the inmate.

I may call your office Monday or Tuesday, to ask their advice regarding ways to amicably practice the Common Law right to access public records, to inspect and to copy the full arrest, booking, and permanent housing assignment, as well as log of inmates as used in the daily counts. Such right is founded on U.S. Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). I am informing you of this request in advance, so that office staff would not caught unprepared, hoping that your office staff would be instructed how to handle this request pursuant to your guidance in comliance with the law.

We hope to be able to thank you Monday for your actions in this matter.

Joseph Zernik

Enclosed: Text of the Online Petition @ <http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine >.
_________________________

Dear Friend:

Thanks for the overwhelming support!
I signed the petition FREE RICHARD FINE ,<http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine >. I'm asking you to sign this petition to help us reach our goal of 1,000 signatures. I care deeply about this cause, and I hope you will support our efforts.

Please do it now, we asked Sheriff Lee Baca to free Richard Fine this Monday!

[Images of the judgment, posted here yesterday, were deleted from this posting - jhz]

FALSE ON ITS FACE - the March 4, 2009 Judgment that purported to form the foundation for the arrest, booking and holding of Richard Fine in solitary confinement since March 4, 2009.
_______________________________________________________________________
The Supermarket Lemma...
1) CAN YOU GO TO THE SUPERMARKET, GIVE THEM A BLANK CHECK ON MARCH 4, 2009 AND TELL THEM:
"I'LL COME BACK ON THE 24th TO SIGN IT?"
NO WAY.
2) CAN YOU GO TO THE SUPER GIVE THEM A CHECK ON MARCH 4, 2009, WHICH IS SIGNED AND DATED MARCH 24, 2009?
NO WAY
__________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks,

Joe Zernik
at

4 comments:

  1. AnonymousOctober 21, 2009 at 3:39 PM

    Mr. Zernick, if everyone in the world had someone who stuck up for them when their rights were abused (as you have done for Mr. Fine) I bet the world would be a better place. Mr Fine is lucky to have you pushing this cause for him.

    The only thing more baffling than what is happening to Mr. Fine is the fact that the national news media is still yet to catch on to this story. The Richard Fine story may be the single most important story in the world today - at least it is shaping up that way to this point.

    Your website is the best site for Richard Fine info. There is the other site (fool disclosure) - I feel that site is unprofessional and is hurting Mr. Fine if anything.

    I would like to suggest that you put up a page that is dedicated 100% to Mr. Fine. At the top of the page you can put a counter that gives the total days of captivity, and changes each day to reflect the new total. The page should have a brief (paragraph or two) describing how we got where we now are. Please avoid any compulsion to embellish with comments such as "the corrupt ____" or "the illegal Payments". Any reader who takes the time to get the facts will learn how you feel about the payments. The fine situation is so unique that it stands on its own truth and does not require added spin. Just as the Judge wrote who granted the Cert of appealabilty, reasonable jurrists would find that the matter is worthy of debate. That is so huge. I know how we all love to throw in our two cents, or sarcasm etc. but this doesn't need it.
    The page should also state where we are now in brief synopsis, with the most up to date info and the dates for the next round of legal motions This story is very hard to follow and I have been following this story. Is this part of the reason that the national news has yet to pick up on this?

    One problem is that any web site that mentions his name at all that makes a change to any story on their page, this makes that page come up on google as if it has current info on Mr. Fine. Usually it does not. Right now when I put in "Richard I. Fine" into google I get all this stuff from years ago. Hence, a new person who is trying to the actual story in a summed up version and also with a "score card", if you will, stating just where things stand now and what we can expect in the days and weeks to come would be great.

    You can also put links to other parts of your site at the bottom. Anywho, I feel that a counter may help you get to the top of the search engines. Now at the top of all the search engines is that idiotic (fool disclosure) site that seems to be carrying new info but their story on Fine is way out of date but it comes up as new because some other story on the page was updated and there also happens to be a mention of the name Richard I Fine on that page. I feel this is hurting Fine but I feel you can get the search engines to point to you instead if you put up a dedicated page for Mr Fine that also has a day counter and/or perhaps just a litte note each day telling us all where we are with the whole mess. What is the next court date etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 21, 2009 at 4:05 PM

    Here is a mega tip for you.
    Take a look at the Ruling of the United State's Supreme Court from 1984 in a case called Summa Co. vs. Cal state lands commission.
    466 U. S. 198 (1984)
    This will blow your mind. Read (especially) the amicus curiae brief filed by the US Solicitor General on the matter:
    Brief no. 82-708
    It basically said that Calif and/or L.A. never properely paid for the land where Marina del Rey is.
    It seems that somebody made a huge mistake and assumed that that land could be taken (from the true owner(s)) as part of the Public Trust Doctrine - lands subjected to tides. However, this land was also once part of a Mexican Land Grant and the High Court had held long before through a series of cases that state could not assert Public Trust servitudes in Mexican Land Grants. The solicitor General asserts that when they realized the seriousness of their mistake they started the lawsuit to try to cover up the fact and confuse the public and the true owners.
    It seems that even the Calif Supreme Court did the unthinkable when they ruled for California - a decision that had absolutely no basis in law according to the solicitor general. The High Court reversed the Ca high court.
    The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the case remanded back down so that they finish out the matter in way not inconsistent with their ruling. That was in 1984. It seems CA ignored the US Supreme Court Ruling and didn't do anything other than to sweep it under the rug as best they could... The case was remanded all the way back down to the trial court level where it still festers today. They gave the case to a commissioner, Bruce Miller, and as far as I can tell they have still not followed the ruling of the US Supreme Court.
    By the way once the US Supreme court ruled that the Hildalgo Guadalupe treaty was the trump card in the case, is you will, I think that this should mean that the case is one of original jurrisdiction and therefore should be in federal court and not even in state court. It seems that the fox had been put in charge of the hen house - a major conflict of interest!

    Could the Summa v Cal case have something to do with Richard Fine and way all this always seems to be related to Marina del Rey? I think maybe so.

    The summa case is just the tip of the iceburg, but it is all there for you to find if you just look. I gaurantee that if you look at that case your mind will be blown. This is the biggest heist ever - committed in broad daylight, and no one has any knowledge, except those who stole the land in the first place which interestingly is both of the parties in the case.

    Stealing land from Mexican Land Grant recipiants was a virtual industry and the best, most cunning, effective way to accomplish this is to start a bogus lawsuit -something about the land. Hence both parties where trying to steal it from an unsuspecting and unnamed and unserved third party - the true owner who BTW lives in Culver City!!! I found him with a couple of phone calls.

    Note: the (Summa v. CA) case started in 1965 just as the Marina was being finished and the original name of the case is Los Angeles v. Venice Peninsula Properties.

    If you want to pluck this weed once and for all, (I believe) here is where you will find the root.

    Good Luck and God Speed

    ReplyDelete
  3. Human Rights Alert (NGO)October 22, 2009 at 9:29 AM

    Dear Anonymous:
    Thank you very much for the note... Just started studying the issue.

    In response, on different but same note, here is a choice of three subjects for discussion:
    1) What is your opinion regarding validity of action in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)?
    For argument sake I would take the position that it was never an effectual legal action of a U.S. court.
    BTW - I got permission and filed in this case on Sept 9, 2009 an Affidavit opposing the then pending Proposed Settlement, which indeed was later discarded by Judge Rakoff.

    2) What is your opinion regarding Nixon V Warner Communications, Inc(1978), landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. For argument sake I would take the position that such decision was reversed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Human Rights Alert (NGO)October 22, 2009 at 10:29 AM

    Dear Anonymous #2:

    There is no question that I need help. I hope that I know what I am doing... However, I am good only in certain range of skills. My communications are effective only with certain subset of the population... I am zero at marketing...

    On the other hand, in discussion with an executive producer of a mainstream network, I was informed that it was "corporate decision" not to cover the Fine case. I heard the same opinion from another network.

    I am sure you realize how many hours are put into this project, because I realize its significance. I have additional information that puts these issues in even higher level of significance that shows online.

    I need help in particular in marketing and PR. I got commitment for legal help from one non-profit organization, but would not turn down a powerful law-firm pro bono department,..

    If you could email me the items necessary for increasing search engine visibility, in a "for dummies" form, I would implement them immediately.

    Joseph Zernik

    ReplyDelete

All comments are welcome... especially any tips regarding corruption of the courts in Los Angeles. Anonymous tips are fine. One simple way to do it is from internet cafes, etc.