Saturday, October 17, 2009

Please let Richard Fine go...

Kitchen Monologue #1





We thank all those who responded with support... it was overwhelming this time...

We again appeal to Sheriff Lee Baca to rely on his own authority and let Richard Fine go. There is no way that a reasonable person would review the chronology and the papers - just on their faces, and would conclude that the jailing of Richard File conformed with the fundamentals of the law.

There is a group of doctors in Texas who share some stories of unusual justice over there, but the question was raised what their specialized professional problem haD to do with the case of Richard Fine. Below is the response:

____________________________________________________________

Dear Med Professionals,

Let me try to explain... I just wrote the passage below to a lady who had a colorful past, and has as a result some good connections and may be able to go on TV on Geraldo, or something like that, and she is really committed and tries her best to help:

_______________________________________________________________
HI [ redacted ]

IS THERE ANYWAY THAT YOU COULD GET YOURSELF ON TV, BRING SOME COLOR INTO A BORING PROGRAM
THREE MINUTES WOULD BE ENOUGH IN THE NEXT 48 HOURS...

YOU DONT HAVE TO BE A LAWYER. BUT YOU HAVE TO BE OUTRAGEOUS...

IT IS AS SIMPLE AS 1, 2, 3
1) YOU NEED TO HOLD IN ONE HAND THE JUDGMENT AND SAY:

THIS IS THE MARCH 4, 2009 JUDGMENT THAT JUDGE YAFFE AND THE SUPERIOR COURT FILED IN U.S. COURT AND CLAIMED WAS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR JAILING RICHARD FINE ON MARCH 4, 2009 AT THE COURT OF JUDGE DAVID YAFFE. IT IS ALSO THE BASIS FOR HOLDING HIM IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT EVER SINCE...

2) THEN YOU HAVE TO SHOW THE STAMP ON PAGE 1:

HERE, ON THE FRONT PAGE, THE STAMP SAID FILED MARCH 4, 2009...
AND HERE ON THE LAST PAGE IT SAID JUDGE DAVID YAFFE SIGNED IT ON MARCH 24. 2009...

3) THEN YOU STATE THE SELF-EVIDENT:

THIS JUDGMENT WAS FALSE ON ITS FACE.. THIS WAS NOT A TRUE EFFECTUAL JUDGMENT. BECAUSE YOU DID NOT HAVE TO BE A LAWYER, AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PAPER SAID, BY JUST LOOKING ON THE FACE OF THE PAPER YOU COULD SEE THAT IT WAS FALSE.

A. The supermarket lemma...

1) CAN YOU GO TO THE SUPERMARKET, GIVE THEM A BLANK CHECK ON MARCH 4, 2009 AND TELL THEM: "I WILL 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

B. There is no way that the paper could come to be, consistent with honest conduct...

So, come to think of it...


1) If Judge David Yaffe signed it on March 4, 2009, and endorsed it March 24, 2009, while verbally he instructed the Warrant Detail to arrest Richard Fine on March 4, 2009... I am not a lawyer, but i think it should go for review....


2) If Judge David Yaffe left it blank, while instructing the arrest of Richard Fine, and then came back on March 24 and signed it... That may be even worse I believe, but again - it should be referred for professional review...

3) In short, I could not figure out a way that the Honorable David Yaffe could sign this paper with the date of March 24, 2009 and would be deemed honest conduct... Any way you look at it, it was as crooked as he is and/or may be.

C. The most disturbing part of the whole sequence of events...

So, come to think of it...

This paper was reviewed by Judge David Yaffe and Deputy Clerk Connie Hudson, under the authority of John A Clark, Clerk of the Court at the Los Angeles Superior Court, and Clerk Terry Nafisi and Magistrate Carla Woehrle, and Judge John Walter, at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th District - by Clerk Molly C. Dwyer, and Circuit Justices Richard Paez and Richard Tallman, and on top - a brilliant jurist and champion of civil rights - Chief Justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Alex Kozinski...

So what does it mean?

That the justice system of the U.S.A. is @#$%^&* [HERE YOU HAVE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF IN ANY WAY YOU DEEM FIT...] So, come to think of it...

________________________________________________

Then to top it off - the Judgment was missing the end part - the Proof of Service, defect, which made it invalid in and of itself.

IF IN 3 MINUTES YOU COULD DELIVER THE MATERIAL ABOVE, ABOUT MARCH 4 and MARCH 24, THAT IS ENOUGH!!!

I THINK YOU COULD GET FINE OFF JAIL BY MONDAY.... AS LONG AS EVERYBODY WOULD BE TALKING ON MONDAY ABOUT MARCH 4 and MARCH 24, PAYMENT BY CHECK AT THE SUPER, THE BRILLIANT JURIST ALEX KOZINSKi, AND THE OUTRAGEOUS DRESS...

Joe Zernik

_______________________________________________________________

I think it is obvious what the relationship is... between the problems of medical professionals in Texas and the jailing of Atty Fine -- the dress...

Joe Zernik
_________________________________________________________________________

Later...

Separately, more fundamentally, the case reflects a 9th Circuit (as a geographical term) mentality prevalent among attorneys and judges. The Los Angeles Superior Court employed Atty Kevin McKormick, and it was not at all clear, what the nature of that employment was. For example -

WAS HE A COUNSEL OF RECORD?

And Atty Kevin McCormick felt at liberty to file an insufficient pleading as a Response to the Richard Fine's Habeas Corpus petition, with no declaration by Judge David Yaffe - the competent witness of facts, and evidence with no foundation - not even a docket of the originating caption was filed, and a set of records that was of dubious authenticity.

All in all it reflected the legal frame of mind of such attorneys and judges - that the Adversarial System grants you the license to steal and to lie, and to falsely imprison, as long as the opponent does not competently object.

I do not believe that the late Justice Brennan, for example, held that view of the justice system. Particularly, in the case of Habeas Corpus. According to Justice Brennan's view - the Prisoner was never expected to be a legal scholar. All he/she were required to do -- was to challenge the validity of their holding, and request to be brought before a judge in their bodily person.

Thereafter, it was the Judge's responsibility - not to conduct a full appeal - but to confirm that the holding of the Prisoner conformed with the fundamentals of the law - that all the basics were in place, and valid and effectual...

We hope that the papers that were filed by Atty Kevin McCormick on behalf of the LA Superior Court do not reflect the competence in the law of Atty Kevin McCormick, Judge David Yaffe, or the LA Superior Court. Instead, what they reflect, is the degree to which these parties are faithful to the law... It also reflected their experience and conviction, which turned out to be true, that such legal practices would be acceptable to Magistrate Carla Woehrle and Judge John Walter, and so forth...

In short - a layperson would put it this way - They knew that they could lie in order to affect the indefinite false imprisonment of Richard Fine - and get away with it... Most lay persons like me, would not know what to call it in legal terms, but would often refer to it in the imprecise common parlance as sleazy...

Joe Zernik
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)