09-12-24 Wikipedia skirmishes in re: Richard Isaac Fine...

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:50:58 -0800
To: K
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Fwd: Re: Los Angeles seeking outside help... against wikipedia's move to delete the Richard Fine story, as "local story" that was unworthy of inclusion.

Hi K:
Just to let you know my exact position on these matters.  It may be hair-splitting to you, but I consider the hair-splitting in this case of critical importance. In simple lay-person's language - the courts routinely run show trials, which are not considered true valid litigations by the courts themselves.

      

Joe Zernik

__________

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:07:50 -0800
To:
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Los Angeles seeking outside help... against wikipedia's move to delete the Richard Fine story, as "local story" that was unworthy of inclusion.
Bcc: 

Hi Juli, hi Bouldergeist, hi all:
I am grateful to both of you for your help and your entries to oppose deletion by wikipedia. I hope that it would do the job. Well written.
Anybody else who would be willing during the long holiday weekend to oppose the move to delete from wikipedia, would be appreciated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Isaac_Fine#Richard_Isaac_Fine 

• I hope that you realize that it was tricky writing to wikipedia's specs on a matter that was pending, and was ruled upon by corrupt courts. By definition, wikipedia takes court rulings in the matter to be the truth.
• Regardless, with the plethora of websites on the matter, I felt that there was a need to establish the basic indisputable facts in the matter as an easily accessible resource for the public at large.

I did not want to comment on the facts in the discussion page in wikipedia, out of concern of making the discussion there even more confusing, here it is for your information:

•  1) Your comment about "open to the public as court records" was incorrect.  The LA court denied access to the register of actions (California docket) of Fine's purported case - Marina v LA County (BS109420) - all along. I have correspondence with the court counsel on this matter.  Again - such correspondence constituted  primary records that wikipedia would not accept.
• 2) The habeas corpus, the petitions, and the appeals to the US Court of Appeals, 9th circuit, must all be deemed false procedures, if only for the fact that they were all conducted without such records that were the quintessential documents for establishing the foundation for review in any case.
• 3) The general notion that Fine was arrested and was jailed for contempt, whether it was for attempting to disqualify Yaffe, as a judge who took the illegal payment from a party to the purported litigation - as claimed by some, or whether it was for denying the authority of Murray Gross, as a commissioner with no appointment order -  as claimed by others, was incorrect as well.

The true facts in the matter:

• 1) There was and there is no way to establish that Marina v LA County (BS109420) was ever a case litigated as a matter under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The facts in the matter show that it was not.
• 2) There was and there is no warrant for the arrest of Richard Fine.
• 3) There was and there is no conviction and no sentencing for contempt in the case of Richard Fine.
• 4) Richard Fine was in fact arbitrarily arrested and was falsely confined. 
• 5) Richard Fine, and another LA attorney who filed complaints on judicial corruption, Ron Gottschalk, were both subjected to warrantless arrests, and were both falsely hospitalized.  Ron Gottschalk was released on bail.  Richard Fine was still under false hospitalization. 

Such were the routine methods of the Soviet Union for handling dissidents.

The damning silence of media and the legal profession:
I cannot write any of that in wikipedia - it would be legal conclusions that were not supported by existing court rulings or published media/expert reports.  Yet, media would not report, and legal experts would not comment on the matter.  Why major media outlets would not cover the story? Why no legal expert would comment? Why no attorney would go on the record on the matter?

• Senior Executive Producer at NBC, who was personally very interested in the story, told me he could not cover it - "corporate decision".
• I was and I am advised by the legal director of a civil rights organization from outside LA in this matter, but it was all done incognito, hush, hush.

You got to wonder regarding the nature of society, free speech, the legal profession, and the justice system of the US at this time.

Joe Zernik
At 11:54 24/12/2009, you wrote:

I posted an oppose delete.  I am on YouTube, "Your Honor", Juli Star-Alexander.

________________

The three inter-related wikipedia entries were:

1) Richard Isaac Fine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Isaac_Fine

2) Rampart FIPs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart-FIPs_(Falsely_Imprisoned_Persons)

3) Notice of Electronic Filing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_of_Electronic_Filing

III. The Usual

IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!

"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.