Hi Chris:
Thanks for pointing out to me the latest posting by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in re: the falsely jailed Att Richard Fine [i] However, I would like to caution you regarding reliance on any records of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit that may be posted by the Court in the Courts online dockets, since many of such records should be deemed false and deliberately misleading.
For additional details please see below my attempt to review the reasons that led me to the conclusion that the conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, upon review by a competent international court of jurisdiction, may be deemed as severe abuse of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified international law. Moreover - such conduct may be deemed as intended to cover up alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.
Joseph Zernik
Conduct by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, in its online dockets, is likely to be deemed false and deliberately misleading and severe violation of Human Rights, moreover - intended to cover-up alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.
1. THE ONLINE DOCKETS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, ARE REPLETE WITH INVALID RECORDS OF SHAM COURT ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PREVIOUS ACTION UNDER: FINE V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (09-71692), AND ZERNIK V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (08-72714).
The U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit may indeed have given Att Fine this time around permission to engage in an authentic procedure. However, such conclusion could not be reached by direct reliance on the online paper. There were two indirect indicators of the intent to run an authentic procedure:
a) The Court set up a schedule, and
b) The Court demanded that Att Fine pay the filing fee or file a request to file in forma pauperis.
In the previous round, in the Emergency Petition under Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692). the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit engaged in the opposite conduct. The petition was posted in the online docket in a manner that most readers would consider it as a valid petition that was going to be reviewed by the court. However:
a) The Court never set a schedule, and
b) The Court sent Att Fine an immediate refund of the filing fee.
Such conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, was self-contradictory, vague and ambiguous. Later, in the same case, the Court engaged Att Fine in a sham court action. Accordingly I filed a request to file papers as Party in Interest in sham court action,[ii] which was indeed posted on the sham docket of Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692).
2. IN BOTH FINE V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (09-71692), AND ZERNIK V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (08-72714) THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, ISSUES AND POSTED ONLINE SHAM COURT ORDERS.
a) The Court set up a schedule, and
b) The Court demanded that Att Fine pay the filing fee or file a request to file in forma pauperis.
In the previous round, in the Emergency Petition under Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692). the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit engaged in the opposite conduct. The petition was posted in the online docket in a manner that most readers would consider it as a valid petition that was going to be reviewed by the court. However:
a) The Court never set a schedule, and
b) The Court sent Att Fine an immediate refund of the filing fee.
Such conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, was self-contradictory, vague and ambiguous. Later, in the same case, the Court engaged Att Fine in a sham court action. Accordingly I filed a request to file papers as Party in Interest in sham court action,[ii] which was indeed posted on the sham docket of Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692).
2. IN BOTH FINE V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (09-71692), AND ZERNIK V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (08-72714) THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, ISSUES AND POSTED ONLINE SHAM COURT ORDERS.
Such sham court action in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA came to their appropriate conclusion, with two sham June 30, 2009 Orders by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
a) The first of the two orders remained concealed from public view. [iii]
b) The second of the two orders, should be deemed a false and deliberately misleading court record, [iv] possibly even mail fraud. It was posted in the online docket, and it was also mailed by USPS to parties, including Party in Interest Joseph Zernik
Such order carried a blue header stamp:
Such order was pronounced in the names of:
The docketing text that accompanied such order stated:
Moreover, such docketing text failed to make the critical statement that the June 30, 2009 Order itself was ever entered. Instead, it stated only "Order filed".
Furthermore, if one compared such docket to a similar docket, in Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA (08-72714), one could find the docketing text of an additional similar order - denying received but not entered Emergency Petitions which was by far more explicit: [v]
In Haddick v US Dist Ct LA the docketing text stated:
3. ALREADY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE IV, I, AND U.S. CONGRESS IN ACT OF MAY 26, 1790 CONCERNED THEMSELVES WITH DEFINING THE AUTHENTICITY OF COURT PAPERS. [vii]
a) The first of the two orders remained concealed from public view. [iii]
b) The second of the two orders, should be deemed a false and deliberately misleading court record, [iv] possibly even mail fraud. It was posted in the online docket, and it was also mailed by USPS to parties, including Party in Interest Joseph Zernik
Such order carried a blue header stamp:
- Case: 09-71692 06/30/2009 Page: 1 of 2 DktEntry: 6974360"
- FILED
- JUN 30 2009
- MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
- U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Such order was pronounced in the names of:
- KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The docketing text that accompanied such order stated:
- 06/30/2009 4 Order filed (ALEX KOZINSKI, RICHARD A. PAEZ and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) The court is in receipt of petitioners original petition...
- 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. [6974360] (KKW)
Moreover, such docketing text failed to make the critical statement that the June 30, 2009 Order itself was ever entered. Instead, it stated only "Order filed".
Furthermore, if one compared such docket to a similar docket, in Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA (08-72714), one could find the docketing text of an additional similar order - denying received but not entered Emergency Petitions which was by far more explicit: [v]
- 06/25/2008 3 Order filed (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON and MILAN D. SMITH, JR.) 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).
- ...
- No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order shall be filed or entertained. [Denied; Terminated on the merits after submissions without oral hearing; Written, reasoned, unsigned, unpublished;]
In Haddick v US Dist Ct LA the docketing text stated:
- 07/14/1999 27 FILED MEMORANDUM OPINION: DISMISSED (Terminated on the Merits after Submission Without Oral Hearing; Dismissed/Frivolous; Written, Unsigned, Unpublished. Jerome FARRIS; Michael D. HAWKINS, author; Susan P. GRABER. ) FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [97-50090] (SW)
3. ALREADY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE IV, I, AND U.S. CONGRESS IN ACT OF MAY 26, 1790 CONCERNED THEMSELVES WITH DEFINING THE AUTHENTICITY OF COURT PAPERS. [vii]
The question what was or what was not an authentic court paper, was a fundamental one, since court orders and judgments were the law of the land. Civilized societies, going back several thousand years attempted to document the law in written authentic records.
Accordingly, already the U.S. Constitution in Article IV, I says:
Accordingly, already the U.S. Constitution in Article IV, I says:
- Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
- That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records are, or shall be taken.
The record at hand are not by any of the several states, but by a U.S. Court. Regardless, one may conclude that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, busied itself in constructing an online docket, and in issuing papers that were published on such docket, which lacked the basic elements of authenticated court papers certification by a judge and attestation by a clerk.
5. THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, IMPLEMENTED A VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS ONLINE DOCKET SYSTEM.
5. THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, IMPLEMENTED A VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS ONLINE DOCKET SYSTEM.
There is no way to make any clear conclusions regarding the nature of such papers as you pointed out to me. which originated from the online docket of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District regarding its dockets must be deemed vague and ambiguous hence - severe abuse of Civil Rights for Due Process and Human Rights for Fair Tribunals and Fair Trial. The court must not conduct its business in the style of the Oracle of Delphi.
6. THE U.S. COURTS, INCLUDING THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, IN PACER AND IN CM/ECF, IMPLEMENTED DUAL DOCKETING SYSTEMS, WHICH WERE SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL, WHERE PARTIES WERE SEGREGATED, AND WHERE ATTESTATIONS BY CLERKS WERE CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. SUCH CONDUCT AND SUCH SYSTEMS ARE LIKELY TO BE DEEMED FRAUDULENT UPON REVIEW.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, has recently completed the implementation of CM/EFC, in parallel to Pacer, and with that it joined other U.S. Courts in practices that are likely to be deemed upon review as fraudulent.
The authentication of court records in the system is founded today on attestations by the clerks that are implemented as digital signatures. Such attestations are displayed in records as long strings of alphanumeric characters that are encrypted digital signatures of the clerks of the courts. Such digital signatures are typically displayed as part of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEFs).[viii]
Accordingly, requests dated July 28, 2009, were filed with the U.S. Court Appeals, 9th Circuit, for an order to serve on parties the NEFs in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692) [ix], and also in Zernik v U.S District Court, LA (08-72714) [x] No response whatsoever was received so far.
7. THE CONDUCT OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, RELATIVE TO ITS ONLINE DOCKETS, ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE CONDUCT OF A COURT THAT OPERATED WITH NO ADEQUATE, PUBLISHED RULES OF COURT.
U.S. Court are required to operate by such published Rules of Court pursuant to the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC 2071 2077.
The Rule Making Act 28 USC 2071 states:
Rule-making power generally
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.
(b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.
Overall, the online docket of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit provided ample evidence of a court that operated with no adequate published Rules of Court, including, but not limited to the following concerns:
a) In and of itself the inexplicable common practice in the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, of concealing its records from the public in various ways, failed to be founded in any law or published Rules of Court, and appeared arbitrary and contradictory to basic notions of Due Process and the operations of an honest court.
b) The inexplicable common practice in the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, of publishing unauthenticated records, which are most likely invalid false and misleading records, could never be founded in any published Rules of Court.
c) The latest court action by Att Richard Fine in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA was designated the number (09-56073). However, the previous action of Att Richard Fine in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA was designated the number (09-71692). It was inexplicable what Rules of Court were the basis for strange numbering practice of court actions at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
In contrast, the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79 says:
Combined, such conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, as described above, demonstrated the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, like other U.S. courts, was a court that was operating with no published Rules of Courts pertaining to one of the most critical aspects of the operations of any court - maintenance of court records.
8. FOR ALL THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE CONDUCT OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, UPON REVIEW BY A COMPETENT INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JURISDICTION, MAY BE DEEMED AS SEVERE ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS RATIFIED INTERNATIONAL LAW. MOREOVER SUCH CONDUCT MAY BE DEEMED INTENDED TO COVER UP ALLEGED WIDESPREAD CRIMINALITY AT THE LA SUPERIOR COURT.
Upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is likely to be found as severe violation of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified International Law.
The fact that the U.S. District Court engaged in such dishonest manipulations were of particular concern, since in Fine v U.S. District Court LA, underlying matter was false imprisonment of civil rights activist, Att Richard Fine, now a political prisoner, base on purported March 4, 2009 Judgment by the LA Superior Court in and of itself a court record that bears false and deliberately misleading certification by Judge David Yaffe. Similarly, in Zernik v U.S. District Court LA, underlying matter was wrongful displacement of a person from his home under the threat of force, and the subsequent taking of a persons property for private use with no compensation at all. Such actions that were matters underling Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA were based on purported August 9, 2007 Judgment by the LA Superior Court in and of itself false and deliberately misleading record by Judge Jacqueline Connor.
One must also recall Judge Jacqueline Connors performance in derailing the first Rampart Trial (2000).[xi] Such conduct of the LA Superior Court resulted in the ongoing false confinement of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) a decade after the investigation into the corruption scandal was concluded.[xii]
In sum: Conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is likely to be viewed as severe violation of human rights in and of itself. Moreover such conduct may be deemed as intended to provide cover-up for alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.
[i] At 10:40 AM 8/16/2009, you wrote:
Look what I found:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18502225/9thCircuitCOAGranted081209
[ii] Request to File papers as Party in Interest in Sham Court Action, filed 6/129/09, listed as "served 06/19/09", Dkt #2:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-a-docket-09-06-30-2.pdf
[iii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-03-order-denying-s.pdf
[iv] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf
[v] Docket of Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA (08-72714):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor-a-docket-08-06-27-s.pdf
[vi] Docket of Haddick v US Dist Ct LA (97-50090):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-haddicks-v-us-dist-ct-la-97-50090-docket.pdf
[vii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-us-_authentication_%20defined-&-explained.pdf
[viii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-nef-w-digital-sig-louisiana.pdf
[ix] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-09-07-28-request-nefs-s.pdf
[x] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor_09-07-28-req-nefs-s.pdf
[xi] On December 22, 2000, Judge Jacqueline Connor reversed jury conviction of 3 LAPD police prosecuted following the Rampart corruption scandal investigation:
http://inproperinla.com/00-11-17-la-times-on-rampart-connor.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-23-rampart-verdicts-voided-los-angeles-times.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-los-angeles-judge-overturns-convictions-of--police-in-scandal-nyt.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-the-judge-s-decision-los-angeles-times.pdf
[xii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
The authentication of court records in the system is founded today on attestations by the clerks that are implemented as digital signatures. Such attestations are displayed in records as long strings of alphanumeric characters that are encrypted digital signatures of the clerks of the courts. Such digital signatures are typically displayed as part of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEFs).[viii]
Accordingly, requests dated July 28, 2009, were filed with the U.S. Court Appeals, 9th Circuit, for an order to serve on parties the NEFs in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692) [ix], and also in Zernik v U.S District Court, LA (08-72714) [x] No response whatsoever was received so far.
7. THE CONDUCT OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, RELATIVE TO ITS ONLINE DOCKETS, ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE CONDUCT OF A COURT THAT OPERATED WITH NO ADEQUATE, PUBLISHED RULES OF COURT.
U.S. Court are required to operate by such published Rules of Court pursuant to the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC 2071 2077.
The Rule Making Act 28 USC 2071 states:
Rule-making power generally
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.
(b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.
Overall, the online docket of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit provided ample evidence of a court that operated with no adequate published Rules of Court, including, but not limited to the following concerns:
a) In and of itself the inexplicable common practice in the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, of concealing its records from the public in various ways, failed to be founded in any law or published Rules of Court, and appeared arbitrary and contradictory to basic notions of Due Process and the operations of an honest court.
b) The inexplicable common practice in the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, of publishing unauthenticated records, which are most likely invalid false and misleading records, could never be founded in any published Rules of Court.
c) The latest court action by Att Richard Fine in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA was designated the number (09-56073). However, the previous action of Att Richard Fine in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA was designated the number (09-71692). It was inexplicable what Rules of Court were the basis for strange numbering practice of court actions at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
In contrast, the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79 says:
- Rule 79 (LII 2007 ed.). Records Kept by the Clerk
- (a) Civil Docket.
- (1) In General.
- The clerk must keep a record known as the civil docket in the
- form and manner prescribed by the Director of the Administrative
- Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial
- Conference of the United States. The clerk must enter each civil action in the docket. Actions must be assigned consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket where the first entry of the action is made.
Combined, such conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, as described above, demonstrated the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, like other U.S. courts, was a court that was operating with no published Rules of Courts pertaining to one of the most critical aspects of the operations of any court - maintenance of court records.
8. FOR ALL THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE CONDUCT OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, UPON REVIEW BY A COMPETENT INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JURISDICTION, MAY BE DEEMED AS SEVERE ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS RATIFIED INTERNATIONAL LAW. MOREOVER SUCH CONDUCT MAY BE DEEMED INTENDED TO COVER UP ALLEGED WIDESPREAD CRIMINALITY AT THE LA SUPERIOR COURT.
Upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is likely to be found as severe violation of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified International Law.
The fact that the U.S. District Court engaged in such dishonest manipulations were of particular concern, since in Fine v U.S. District Court LA, underlying matter was false imprisonment of civil rights activist, Att Richard Fine, now a political prisoner, base on purported March 4, 2009 Judgment by the LA Superior Court in and of itself a court record that bears false and deliberately misleading certification by Judge David Yaffe. Similarly, in Zernik v U.S. District Court LA, underlying matter was wrongful displacement of a person from his home under the threat of force, and the subsequent taking of a persons property for private use with no compensation at all. Such actions that were matters underling Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA were based on purported August 9, 2007 Judgment by the LA Superior Court in and of itself false and deliberately misleading record by Judge Jacqueline Connor.
One must also recall Judge Jacqueline Connors performance in derailing the first Rampart Trial (2000).[xi] Such conduct of the LA Superior Court resulted in the ongoing false confinement of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) a decade after the investigation into the corruption scandal was concluded.[xii]
In sum: Conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is likely to be viewed as severe violation of human rights in and of itself. Moreover such conduct may be deemed as intended to provide cover-up for alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.
[i] At 10:40 AM 8/16/2009, you wrote:
Look what I found:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18502225/9thCircuitCOAGranted081209
[ii] Request to File papers as Party in Interest in Sham Court Action, filed 6/129/09, listed as "served 06/19/09", Dkt #2:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-a-docket-09-06-30-2.pdf
[iii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-03-order-denying-s.pdf
[iv] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf
[v] Docket of Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA (08-72714):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor-a-docket-08-06-27-s.pdf
[vi] Docket of Haddick v US Dist Ct LA (97-50090):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-haddicks-v-us-dist-ct-la-97-50090-docket.pdf
[vii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-us-_authentication_%20defined-&-explained.pdf
[viii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-nef-w-digital-sig-louisiana.pdf
[ix] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-09-07-28-request-nefs-s.pdf
[x] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor_09-07-28-req-nefs-s.pdf
[xi] On December 22, 2000, Judge Jacqueline Connor reversed jury conviction of 3 LAPD police prosecuted following the Rampart corruption scandal investigation:
http://inproperinla.com/00-11-17-la-times-on-rampart-connor.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-23-rampart-verdicts-voided-los-angeles-times.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-los-angeles-judge-overturns-convictions-of--police-in-scandal-nyt.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-the-judge-s-decision-los-angeles-times.pdf
[xii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
