_ - - - - - -- - 
_ - - - - - -- - _
- - - - - -- - _
- - - - - -- -
_ - - - - - -- - _ - - - - - -- - _ - - - - - -- - Judge Yaffe, Sheriff Baca, and the old Flimflam: 
Regarding the arrest and jailing of Atty Richard Fine, who in under solitary confinement for some 7 months... I am told he never gets to see the sky for months at a time,
Part I
I wrote the following in the Index posting:
Atty Richard Fine's sentencing proceeding, in Marina v LA County, was a different story altogether. It was widely reported by media, who were present in the courtroom, at Mosk- downtown LA... It purportedly took place on March 4, 2009... and Atty Fine was arrested by 11:05am... These reporters were of course all deluded... Just because media were there, witnessing Judge David Yaffe saying that he was sentencing Richard Fine to "continuous confinement", and just because Richard Fine was immediately after that arrested by the Warrant Detail, of the Sheriff Department of the County of Los Angeles, didn't mean a thing... It was an alleged "off the record" Calendar Fraud combined with little Warrant Fraud - the old flimflam... These reporters should have reviewed the list below, before reporting what they thought they witnessed to the public at large... It is obvious that the reporters were all deluded... because the computer system of the Sheriff Department shows that it indeed took place on March 4, 2009, at 11:05, ok, but not in Mosk downtown, but instead, in the Never-Existed-Municipal Dept 86, in San Pedro... As far as I am concerned - I would trust the computer systems of the Courts and the Sheriff before I trust any deluded reporter...
The last thing we need today, with the threat of terror attacks, is anybody doubting of the justice system of Los Angeles County, California... thinking that I was trying to infer that there possibly was a Warrantless Arrest, or any appearance of an illusion of a slim chance of a Fourth Amendment violation, or even False Imprisonment in the case of Richard Fine.
Doubting Thomas
Let me assure all the Doubting Thomases out there... I an not an attorney, not even by a long shot... Richard Fine was arrested after review by State of California Judge David Yaffe. That should be good enough. In addition - his Habeas Corpus Petition was taken care of in the U.S Court, LA, and on top of it, his Petition was handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District. Triple procedure, that should be good enough even for a nitpicker!
A Nitpicker
a) U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle - of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles posted a 25 page Report and Recommendations on the Habeas corpus Petition with footnotes, citations and all. Obviously it was no rush job (Report and Recommendations). True, it was never authenticated, and it therefore not a valid court paper. But let's leave that aside. In the 25 pages Report, she never even mentioned the (1) Name of the case she was reviewing for over two months- Marina Strand Colony Home Owner's Association v County of Los Angeles. Well, maybe she wasn't really sure if it were a valid case of the Superior Court... Frankly, I don't think it's a big deal, Joe, Joey, or Joseph, it's all the same to me... There are a number of cases identified in the past couple of years that are not cases of the court. For lack of better term, I call them "Equity/Enterprise Track". The general operation is referred to as the LA-JR (the alleged LA Judiciary Racket) Most - are real estate cases - which this one in essence was as well. The evidence is overwhelming - only FBI and U.S. Dept of Justice cannot see it. Myopia.
Joey Tribbiani
Some people are fussy, they say that there was no (2) Warrant for the arrest. Personally - I don't know what it's supposed to look like. I probably wouldn't know a Warrant from a Writ or a Warranty even if you dropped it on my keyboard. However, I ran a word search on "Warrant" - and I can tell you for sure it was never mentioned in the report either. [1]
A Nitpicker
Then come the nitpickers. They say that there was no effectual record for (3) Sentencing and Judgment for the jailing either. Careful review shows that Magistrate Woehrle was fully aware of the small inconveniece, but she streamlined it rather effectively.[2] And the nattering nabobs expected also a (4) Register of Actions (California docket), as if there was not enough paperwork already.
Nattering Nabob
They say that reviewing a case without a court file is like writing a book review without reading the book. However, doing it with no Register of Actions, is like not bothering to read the Cliff's Notes either...
I say: U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle did a fine job, and wrote an impressive report, which recommended - "deny with prejudice". Those who object are just placing form above substance.
b) U.S. Judge John Walter, of the U.S. District Court, took his time for additional review after receiving the Report and Recomendation, and he finally accepted the Report in the Judgment posted on July 29, 2009. (Judgment) The Judgment was never authenticated either, but that's again just technicalities...
c) Richard Fine also filed a Petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The Petition was throughly reviewed by a panel of three Judges of the Court, which is second in authority only to the U.S. Supreme Court! Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Richard Tallman. They denied the Petition on June 30, 2009:
"petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrant 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 Circ 1977). The petition is denied."(Order)
Even my Mom never called me a "brilliant jurist"... But with all due respect, it looks to me like someone copied the Bauman out of habit, into the denial of the wrong petition... This was coming from Habeas Corpus... I know I am clueless, but I thought that Habeas Corpus was for clueless guys... For prisoners, way back when... Or even today - like Richard Fine- who are denied pen and paper. I thought that in Habeas Corpus, the prisoner does not have to say much at all. Just to ask to be brought before a judge for review. In turn, the judge is not asked to do much either, only to inquire, that the confinement conformed with the fundamentals of the law. If not - to immediately release the prisoner.
A Nitpicker
What are the fundamental? It the nitpickers again!
The Chief Judge, in particular, is well-known as a brilliant jurist, and a champion of Civil Rights. The U.S. Constitution and the Amendment are what the U.S. Courts are all about. These guys split hairs about the validity of an arrest, which started under exigency, with no Warrant, while the Warrant was being written, whereas the exigency turned into non-exigency, just before the Warrant was completed. Here we have no (1) Warrant, and no (2) Judgment, and (3) No Register of Actions for a guy in solitary confinement for 7 months. I leave to them to explain their unsigned denial order.
Part II
I was curious... Also this Register of Actions sounded like something exciting... I wonder why there is no video game yet - karate, or kung fu sound best under that title...
A Register of Actions
I knew that court papers were Public Records, in fact, someone told me that the Habeas Corpus and the Right to Access Court Records were connected at the hips...I am sure he was joking... So far I have seen no Register of Actions, no Warrant, no hips, no thighs and no chicken wings, nada... And I have been on this job for at least a couple of months.
Hips by Beyonce
To make sure, I asked, a Civil Rights organization, and they told me that it was a slam dunk, you just say First Amendment, and you get the Register of Actions and Warrant from the court immediately. On top of that, they told me, in California we are ahead of pack, because even the Arrest and Booking papers are public records according to the California Public Records Act... They said that they routinely get the papers in other counties. They even gave me the code section and the subsection to put in the letters.
Regardless, I never got to see the Register of Actions... in fact, Richard Fine never got to see it either. That's how we run the business in Los Angeles, for years, both civil and criminal litigations - with secret court records. What I got was a series of long letters from a guy who said that he was "Counsel" for the court... I never knew that the court needed a lawyer...When a guy makes a trial request. But then again, I know why they would not let anybody see it. Because in cases where I did get to see the Register of Actions, it provided full documentation for the operation of an enterprise through a conduct in a pattern of racketeering activity.
With the Sheriff, it was more elaborate. I asked for the Warrant and Arrest and Booking. I faxed the requests, and receipt was confirmed, and for some three weeks, I was on the phone almost daily with Sergeant Burson, and Commander Liang. First, they sent me to the Jail'a Front Office, downtown LA. My request was denied for considerations related to the safety of the inmates. I was sent to Cindy, in the Discovery Unit, in City of Commerce. Cindy was confused, she could not figure out why they sent me to her. Then I was directed to Municipal Division 86 in San Pedro. They said that Richard Fine was arrested and booked in San Pedro, that is the official information online Inmate Information Center. The problem was- there was no such thing as Municipal Division 86 in San Pedro, and no Booking facilities there either. Then Sergeant Burson told me that the Legal Department of the Sheriff's office may allow me to see the paper, which he called "Removal Order", and I call Remand Order. [1] I also pointed out to Sheriff Lee Baca's office that the arrest was reported by media, and the data in the Sheriff system was obviously false. After that - they would not answer any more questions regarding the papers. The last I heard from Commander Liang was" The Sheriff's Department practices full transparency". And the papers? "If you want to see the paper you would have to get a court order for that".
I say it's a flimflam. All they got, and all that was ever produced in the past was that order which was no Warrant for sure.
I am surprised nobody makes fuss about the Order from the 9th Court of Appeals, the copy that was posted online in the docket looks unsigned. I was on the service list, and I got served with the Order. Mine was unsigned as well. It came with no authentication by the clerk either, just like all the papers from the U.S. District Court [3]. The LA Superior Court never entered an effectual judgment and never issued an effectual Warrant... and the Sheriff Deparatment never performed effectual Booking and is keeping Richard Fine under false registration "off the record".
Bottom Line - All four agencies of the justice system worked in perfect harmony, streamlined in deceiving and depriving Richard Fine of Liberty.
The Old Flimflam
Epilogue:
So where does it leave us? Nitpickers and nattering nabobs would ask for a Warrant, a Judgment and a Register of Actions, as "fundamentals". But since we are dealing with flimflams, I would say - if you show me any one of the three: (1)Warrant, (2) Judgment, or (3) Register of Actions, valid and effectual - that would be nice. Flimflam with 1:3 is OK, but flimflam with 0:3 is Fraud.
Alternatively - Why not just move Richard Fine to Guantanamo Bay, and "pronounce" him a Detainee?
Joe Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
We own the "C" in Corruption
[1] Regarding the missing Warrant
The word "Warrant" never appears in the Report and Recommendation. On the other hand, the word "Warrant" does appear in the code sections that Magistrate Woehrle cited as the basis for the jailing:
Cal Code Civ Proc §§ 1211-1219.
§1113 ...judge must direct, by an endorsement on the warrant...
§1219a)(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), when thecontempt consists of the omission to perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, he or she may be imprisoned until he or she has performed it, and in that case the act shall be specified in the warrant of commitment.
[2] Regarding the delusional proceeding on March 4, 2009:Careful review of the Report and recommendation reveals that Magistrate Woehrle was likely aware of the schizophrenic nature of that proceeding. In listing the ancillary proceedings that were part of the unnamed litigation under review she stated:
"Trial was held before Judge Yaffe on December 22, 24, 26, and 30, 2008, and January 8, 12, and 22, 2009." (p8)
No March 4, 2009 proceeding!
Later, when she needed to find basis for the sentencing, she stated:
"Judge Yaffe pronounced sentence on March 4, 2009." (p9)
Therefore, the sentencing was oral sentencing only, and the evidence that she brings for it was the Transcript...
[3] There were also some little issues with the paper record of the Habeas Corpus Petition, which the Supervisor of the Intake Unit said she agreed with me should be looked at. For a couple of months I tried to do it by correspondence with the Terry Nafisi, the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, but it got nowhere. So on Sept 18, 2009, I went in person, and hand delivered the letter to the clerk, asking to see the habeas corpus paper record. The Deputy Clerk on duty gave me no on the this one. He claimed that the petition was shredded. I later asked to see the records of the shredding. Never got an answer. I also asked to see the authentication of the records (NEFs) of the habeas corpus case. I got a no on this one as well, with no explanation at all.
Nothing in all of this is new. I call it the "Fingerprints of the LA-JR". We see it routinely in the cases we collect. Fraud on the entry of judgment is standard. Fraud in coercing an un-appointed referee is also common. False imprisonment - beyond real estate fraud - that the specialty. We have thousands of Rampart-FIPs who were never release in the past decade.
Welcome to the LA-JR - this is the conduct of the enterprise in the pattern of racketeering activity.
More on the LA-JR - on the blog http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment