09-11-28 Richard Fine: Immunity was moot, violations of banking accords, medical conventions, new wikipedipedia entry & what is legalese for sleaze?

Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:05:25 -0800
To: "Barbara C. Johnson"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Richard Fine: Why immunity was irrelevant or moot... Related violations of Banking Accords and Medical Practice Conventions... A new Wikipedia Entry... And what is legalese for "sleaze"?
Cc:



The Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, France

November 28, 2009

Dear Atty Johnson:

Thanks for the response. I am grateful for any comments on the issues. As noted, I am no attorney, not even by a long shot. Therefore, please bear with me for any ignorant errors. However, it seems as if you left us sometime in the previous century, and don't follow at all what I am talking about. Please wake up...

In a Nutshell
None of the proceedings that Richard Fine was subjected to was part of true, valid, and effectual judicial conduct, or part of true court actions. None of the orders and judgments was a true, valid, and effectual court order or judgment. All such conduct by judges had to be deemed extrajudicial conduct, and therefore, the issue of immunity was mute or irrelevant. Alleged computer and internet fraud in the operation of case management systems at the courts and the online posting of false dockets and false court records, combined with denial of access to court records which were the missing authentication of such records - to inspect and to copy - were integral to the alleged perversions of justice. Such conduct was likely to be deemed serious violation of Human Rights, and/or criminalities, upon review by a competent Human Rights Court of jurisdiction outside the U.S. Some of the related cases also reflected violation of International Banking Accords that the U.S. Government claimed to be good faith party to. Finally - violations were likely of international conventions of medical practice - in holding Richard Fine in solitary confinement in the Men's Central Jail's hospital, with no claim of disease or disability - the exact conventions specifically violated in such medical practices was yet to be defined.

A. The Significance of Richard Fine's Case
RICHARD FINE's case should be considered a textbook case of historic significance. Four different case management systems (CMSs) were used in concert to affect his False Imprisonment:

1. At the LA Superior Court (Sustain)
2. At the Sheriff Dept of Los Angeles County (Inmate Information Center)
3. At the U.S. District Court, LA (PACER & CM/ECF)
4. At the 9th Circuit (variant of PACER & CM/ECF)

B. Immunity was Moot or Irrelevant
Thanks to new case management systems (CMSs) at the courts, all these inter-related actions were Extrajudicial Conduct. Such proceedings must be deemed computer and internet fraud. None was a true proceeding. None of the orders, judgments, etc was an honest, true, valid, and effectual, authenticated Order or Judgment. They were all part of what must be deemed - Sham Court Actions, resulting in Sham Orders and Sham Judgments.
In other words, the judges engaged in deception. They pretended to run litigations, and then pretended to issue orders and judgments, which were obviously in contradiction with the law. However, they crossed their fingers behind their backs (used computer fraud to issue fake orders and judgments). Therefore, they pretended that there was no criminality in their conduct. It was a common phenomenon in all courts today, and ought to be deemed part of a deviant culture of judges in the U.S. today. It was one of the core underlying issues that had to be brought for review outside the U.S. It was believed that such actions, upon review by an international Human Rights Court would be deemed as holding no immunity whatsoever.

C. The Evidence is in the Courts' Records Themselves.

1. In Sanaan v Zernik (SC087400), I was subjected to exactly the same treatment as Fine in Marina v LA County (BS109420) - both were and are Sham Court Actions, at LA Superior Court. U.S. District Court, LA, and 9th circuit, followed in suit. One of the fundamental unpublished "Rules of Court" is that review of a Sham Court Action is invariably in a respective Sham Court Action by the review court, since review of Sham Court Action falls outside the true jurisdiction. Real estate fraud by the LA Superior Court in my case was opined by an FBI veteran, possibly the most decorated alive. [1]
2. In Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) I therefore sued some 10 judges at the U.S. District Court LA for Deprivation of Civil Rights under Color of Law - the parallel of Fine's Habeas Corpus - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). The litigation went on for over a year (March 2008 - April 2009) - Sham Litigation. I abandoned it after a few months, but they went on... The issue of immunity was not used to dismiss the matter immediately .
3. In Zernik v U.S. District Court LA (08-72714) I petitioned the 9th Circuit, parallel to Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) - Fine's emergency petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th circuit. In my case as in Fine's case the 9th Circuit responded in unsigned order of denial with no authentication. When Fine filed his petition, I could tell right away, by the way they posted the petition online, that the 9th was treating it as a Sham Court Action. I therefore I filed (Dckt #2) a "Request for leave to file as party in interest", promising the judges of the 9th to provide detailed explanation to them about Sham Court Actions and their propagation. You could see it posted in PACER under the 9th Circuit Court site, or a downloaded copy in my archive [2], [3] The eventual response of the 9th district was served therefore on both Fine and on me (Dckt #4) - an unsigned Sham Order of denial, with no authentication, carrying the names of Kozinski, Tallman, and Paez, but no date, no signatures, no signature box, no typed signature - NADA. [4]

D. Denial of Access to Court Records - To Inspect and To Copy - Integral to Such Fraud

1. All courts involved denied access to court records, to inspect and to copy, when I requested access to the records that would be the definitive evidence of the courts' fraud: (a) Registers of Actions at the LA Superior Court [5] and (b) NEFs at the U.S. District Court LA, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. [6]
2. I have so far documented denial of access to NEFs, and/or failure to issue NEFs in U.S. Courts at: (a) Los Angeles, California; (b) Washington, DC; (c) New York City; (d) Houston, Texas; (e) Pittsburgh, PA, and (f) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
3. Conditions such as described above amounted to repeal, with no notice on the American People, of the Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the Common Law right to access court records - to inspect and to copy - and also found such right embedded in its various manifestations in the First, Fifth/Fourteenth, and Sixth Amendments.

E. Interim Conclusions

1. Alex Kozinski must resign immediately! He was involved in fraud and deceit, perversion of justice, computer fraud, internet fraud, mail fraud, collusion in false imprisonment, and more...
2. The issue of immunity was moot or irrelevant.
3. Sham Court Actions were the most common, widespread abuse of Human Rights in the U.S. today.
4. Such abuse was routinely perpetrated on the American People by its own Government, while the same Government went to Iraq and Afghanistan to create a new court systems there, to protect Human Rights...
5. PACER and CM/ECF (at the U.S. Courts) and SUSTAIN (at the LA Superior Court [7]) are fraudulent computer programs (I have expert opinion letters to support my claims - only support, not a definitive opinions yet).

F. False and Misleading News Reports

Therefore, "News Updates" by Full Disclosure Network, or Atty Ron Gottschalk, regarding "...upcoming oral augments of an Appeal at the U.S Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit" or "...hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court" were false and misleading, constituting disinformation (probably unintentional). Such news should read "...upcoming oral arguments of a purported Appeal..." or "...purported hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court".

G. Violations of International Banking Accords
One should also note inherent in some of these cases the violations of Basel Accords on International Banking, which the U.S. claimed to be good faith party to. There was no way to address the current economic/financial crisis without establishing minimal degree of integrity in the courts.

H. Tentative Agenda for Human Rights Complaint Outside the U.S.
Therefore, the need arose for going outside the U.S. Any information about the Interamerican Human Rights Court in Costa Rica, or European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, France, or the Audiencia Nacional in Madrid, Spain would be greatly appreciated. Human Rights complaint would be founded on claims of failure of the U.S. Government to comply with Ratified International Law and abuse of Human Rights in the following Counts:

1. False Imprisonment of Richard Fine and the Rampart-FIPs
2. Coerced holding of Richard Fine - a political dissident - in solitary confinement in a jail-hospital room.
3. Real estate fraud by the Government on Joseph Zernik and Barbara Darwish
4. Denial of Access to Court Records - to inspect and to copy - as integral to the fraud in the courts that was the instrument to accomplish the perversions in 1) and 2) above.
5. Fraud in PACER and CM/ECF as failure to maintain National Tribunals for protection of Human Rights and rights pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments

Thanks again for the comments, and any additional comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. My apologies for my impatience at times.

Joe Zernik

LINKED RECORDS
1] Fraud expert opinion letter regarding real estate fraud by the LA Superior Court, with biography of the Expert - possibly the most highly decorated FBI veteran alive:
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opinion-s.pdf
2] Fasle and misleading 9th Circuit Docket, as part of the computer/internet fraud. Notice that nowhere in this docket could a valid and effectual statement be found such as: " Document A filed by Smith on behalf of Jones (Entered on , )." Also notice my false designation an "Intervenor", and the true designation of the Sheriff as "Respondent", while he never responded, in a Habeas Corpus that was denied with prejudice...
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-a-docket-09-07-04.pdf
3] June 24, 2009 Request for leave to file as Party in Interest in Sham Court Action. Notice that the Clerk's stamp was "RECEIVED", but not "FILED", and was unsigned, as part of the computer/internet fraud in posting such dockets online.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-02-zernik-ex-parte-application-for-leave-to-file.pdf
4] June 30, 2009, Sham Order denying Fine's petition - by Kozinski, Paez, Tallman - internet and computer fraud, collusion in false imprisonment. Notice unsigned "FILED" stamp. Notice that the order was not signed, and notice that there were no boxes or typed signature lines either, as part of the computer/internet fraud in posting such dockets online.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf
5] Requests to access the Register of Actions in Fine's arrest
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-00-00_09-10-19-clarke-request-to-access-court-records.pdf
6] Requests for access to NEFs, and also to the paper record of the Fine petition, where dishonest manipulations were suspected, were denied.
http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-reques-for-investigation-s.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-request-to-access-records-s.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-04-demand-clerk-nafisi-us-court-la-access-court-records-to-remove-or-mark-invalid-s.pdf
7] I read that Sustain was introduced also in the State of Georgia - would appreciate any connection with Georgia Attorneys.
____________

Extraneous Notes
1] An entry was created in Wikipedia for Richard Isaac Fine. Any edits that maintain a neutral "encyclopedic" attitude are most welcome, since they would help keep the entry as part of the permanent body of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Isaac_Fine
2] Abandoing the neutral "encyclopedic" attitude for a change- not being a lawyer, I was not sure what the legal definition would be for Sleaze, which was considered the most fitting description for the conduct of Alex Kozinski, Richard Tallman, and Richard Paez, in using false court action, false court orders, and false court judgment to respond to a falsely imprisoned Richard Fine, and affect continuation of the false imprisonment. Such conduct by the U.S. courts was commonplace in Habeas Corpus cases.
- --- ----- --- -------
-Red--- --- ----- --- ------- -Lisa Kereszi and Vik---- - --Racetrack----
The photography of Lisa Kereszi - an array of sleazy, yet curious Americana
____________
At 10:15 27/11/2009, Barbara C. Johnson wrote:

The "hang-up on immunity" is because it is the only way out of the maelstrom of corruption.
When suing judges, most courts do not find the criminal acts of judges criminal, they do not find an excess of absence of jurisdiction when there is an excess or an absence of jurisdiction.
Those are the two exceptions carved out in the common law.

Therefore we cannot tolerate the excuses so that they retain absolute immunity.
Judges are to be accountable, just like the general populace is.

Richard Fine's problem is the same. No immunity and he would be out of jail. The judges would be accountable and his problems would be over.

Computers are simply tools. They are not the solution.
Barbara

Barbara C. Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform and Attorney in Fact

Apdo #404-4013
Alajuela, Atenas, Atenas
20501-Costa Rica

veritas.johnson74@gmail.com
barbjohnson74@gmail.com

SKYPE ID: barbaracjohnson74
SKYPEIN: 978-961-0079 (Call forwarded from Massachusetts to Costa Rica)
Phone 506-2446-6724

joseph zernik wrote:

I am no lawyer, but I cannot understand the hang-up on immunity. The most common corruption in the courts today, thanks to new computer systems, is of the type practiced by Alex Kozinski in the case of Richard Fine - issuing a false and deliberately misleading, dishonest, invalid, ineffectual order in a petition that was never deemed a valid petition by the court itself. Such conduct must be deemed extrajudicial, and must not be covered by any immunity in the first place.
It is the most common form of corruption today.
Joseph Zernik

At 01:25 PM 11/26/2009, Barbara C. Johnson wrote:

I am pleased that someone finally noticed my email address had changed. So . . . I am seeing this thread for the first time.

People who want court reform (1) are not joiners, (2) are not financial contributors, (3) have enormous egos (substitutes for lack of confidence and self-esteem), and (4) are limited intellectually -- only their ideas are the correct ones. So what Elena wants -- a national organization -- is not going to happen.

All one can do is put one's ideas out there for the world to see, market them, and do more than pray like hell because no amorphous being is going to help anyone. If there is an amorphous being, that being gave each of us a brain . . . for the purpose of using it . . . and one use is to help ourselves.

For instance, I have put some of my ideas in a book, Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice. Most of you have probably not purchased the book . . . and you all are allegedly seeking court reform and the abolishment of judicial immunity. See, reasons ## 2, 3, and 4 above. They are true.

The book addresses a serious problem, the need for court reform and the abolishment of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. Marinated with the makings of sizzle, the book is filled with the courts tricks and traps for the unwary to alert the readers both why their law cases failed and what must be done to effect court reform. Each chapter introduces the background of the subject of that chapter and then presents a series of illustrative anecdotes intended to teach the readers by example how to avoid those court tricks and traps people are likely to encounter in their existing or potential court cases.

Its author (me) Barbara C. Johnson, an unconventional now-75-year-old, has long been a fierce advocate for fathers' rights in family courts. I have been an outspoken critic of the Massachusetts court system, which is rife with corruption.

In 2002, I ran a "quixotic campaign for governor, campaigning in an antique fire truck and promising to use creativity, compassion, and a willingness to listen to the People to mend an ailing government."

In 2006, I was barred from practicing law in Massachusetts. The disbarment by a kangaroo court was an effort to silence my criticism of the courts, I said. I now live in Costa Rica, where I moved a month before my whistleblowing book was published on Amazon.com.

A newspaper wrote, While we don't fully agree with either her politics or her methods, Johnson is a character in a humdrum world sorely in need of more characters. She's the thorn in the side, the thumbtack on the chair. . . . Johnson speaks her mind, and loudly.

If this thread were not so old, I'd write a lot more here. So go to my book and really learn what absolute immunity is . . . and how it precludes folks from seeking redress through the courts and certainly from finding any remedy for the wrongdoing they suffered as victims of corrupt judges.
Barbara/Barb/Ba

Barbara C. Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform and Attorney in Fact