09-11-11 What do you call an unsigned order, denying a prisoner's petition received from Chief Judge, 9th Circuit, Alex Kozinski? SLEAZE? FLIMFLAM?

Advanced Flim Flam Poll:

Please read first an encyclopedia definition, see some pics, read an article or two, all prepared for you...

We are seeking informed votes...

Please vote on Beginners Flim Flam first -

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/11/09-11-12-shell-game-schemes-and-shell.html

Should Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, Alex Kozinski, and Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Richard Tallman be considered FLIM FLAM Artists?

Please check the "Order" and then

Please enter your vote in Comments below...

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

Regardless of the fact that the prisoner happened to be an

attorney who had protested corruption of the Los Angeles judges, and is by now falsely imprisoned for

7 months, in solitary confinement, with no papers whatsoever to provide the legal foundation for the jailing. Sending an unsigned order as denial of a prisoner's petition is sleaze even if he had been guilty as hell, and his papers were all in perfect order.

_______________________________________________

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD I. FINE, Petitioner,

v.

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent.

No. 09-71692

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW

Central District of California, Los Angeles

ORDER

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. The court is in receipt of petitioner’s original petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. An application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b). Petitioner has an application for a writ of habeas corpus pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No. 09-1914. To the extent petitioner requests that this court order the district court to act on or grant his petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner’s filing is construed as a petition for writ of mandamus. We note that on June 12, 2009, the district court issued its findings and recommendations in petitioner’s case. Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). The petition is denied.

Where are the signatures?