Count the Frauds:
1) How many fraud instances were alleged in the case of Richard Fine as narrated below?
2) What was the minimal number of individuals who at least at this time knew that the arrest was based on false/non existent records?
Winner will be arrested, but not booked, yet jailed for a 2 weeks stay in solitary confinement at Twin Towers Jail - world- famous retreat destination since it hosted celebrity Inmate #1824367 - Ricahrd Fine...
No papers required...
Forget about Elvis and Graceland... Be part of today's Urban Myth - stay at Twin Towers, where Atty Fine was hosted by Sheriff Lee Baca...
Seven months in solitary confinement... Off the count... Off the record...
Does it count as a criminal record?
JAILING OF ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVIST, ATTY RICHARD FINE - ALLEGED AS THE PRODUCT OF A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY BY THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
Los Angeles, November 2. RICHARD FINE- 70 YEAR OLD FORMER U.S. PROSECUTOR, EXPOSED WIDESPREAD CONDUCT OF THE JUDGES OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, which was ruled in October 2008 "not permitted" by California Court of Appeal, and which led to the signing into law of wholesale pardons for the judges on February 20, 2009. Less than two weeks later - on March 4, 2009, Atty Fine was jailed by the Warrant Detail of the LA Sheriff Department, at the end of proceedings in the Central Courthouse in downtown LA. He has been held by the Lee Baca - Los Angeles County Sheriff in solitary confinement ever since. On October 13, 2009, Joseph Zernik, not a party to the case, submitted to Sheriff Lee Baca an open appeal - alleging that the Sheriff had no papers whatsoever to support the confinement of Atty Fine, and that the Sheriff held both the authority and the duty to review the matter and, if the confinement failed to conform to the fundamentals of the law - to immediately release the prisoner. In parallel, Zernik requested to inspect and to copy the arrest and booking papers of Inmate Fine, pursuant to the California Public Records Act. In the three weeks that passed since the submission of the appeal, it became clearer by the day that the claim of no papers was very likely to be the fact in the matter. While the Sheriff's office in fact retracted the data posted online regarding the arrest and booking, which Zernik claimed all along was false and misleading, the Sheriff continues to this date to deny the right to access the arrest and booking papers, but never admits that none existed.
Litigation Chronology
Richard Fine exposed secret payments by LA County to all ~425 judges of the LA Superior Court - the largest in the nation - for over a decade, at about $45,000 per judge per year. None of the judges listed such payments on their annual Outside Income Disclosure Forms, and none disclosed the payments to parties in litigation involving LA County. Atty Fine also demonstrated that it became practically impossible to win a case against LA County at the LA Superior Court during those years. Such payments were labeled by media "Bribes". The pardons signed in February into law passed in record speed, at the urging of the California Judicial Council, out of concern that all LA Superior Court judges were liable. The passage of the bill was the end result of high-priced lobbying (claimed to be $60,000 for a week's efforts) paid for by the judges, in violation of California Senate rules - with no debate on the floor and with no referral to committee. It was inserted in the last minute into the much larger budget bill.
The arrest took place at the end of proceeding in Marina v LA County (BS109420), where Atty FINE represented Marina Del Rey Homeowners Association - Plaintiff, who sought injunction against LA County - Defendant, for permitting Del Rey Joint Venture and Del Rey Joint Venture North - Real Parties in Interest, the development of high density dwellings on a land parcel near the Marina that had been previously an open space. Atty Fine repeatedly sought the disqualification of Judge Yaffe in this litigation, since Judge Yaffe took payments from Defendant - LA County. Judge Yaffe ignored such demands, and imposed on Atty Yaffe serious sanctions - exceeding a total of $50,000. Subsequently, Atty Fine was ordered to appear before Commissioner Murray Gross - Debtor Examiner, to provide information regarding his financial assets for collection of such sanctions/judgment. Atty Fine appeared, but refused to respond to questions by Commissioner Gross. Later, Atty Fine stated the reason: Gross failed to obtain an Appointment Order, as required by law, and therefore, was void of authority. In contrast, on March 4, 2009, in open court, Judge Yaffe ruled that it was sufficient that he referred Atty Fine to Dept 1A, pursuant to the latest version ofLocal Rule of Court 2.5(d) to construe the authority of Commissioner Gross as Referee/Debtor Examiner, since Gross was assigned to Dept 1A since January 2008.
Media largely reported the case as an example of extreme bias by Judge David Yaffe, who refused to disqualify, insisted on not issuing an Appointment Order, and attempted to force Fine to obey Gross nevertheless. The case was also represented as retaliation against Fine for his role in exposing the payments to LA Superior Court judges. The case was characterized by further peculiar traits - Fine was held in solitary confinement for the whole period since his arrest, in a hospital room that was separate from the central jail facility. He was also denied access to pen and paper in the first couple of months, and hardly allowed any contact with the outside world, which undermined his ability to file a habeas corpus petition at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, and later the Emergency Petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Both of these actions were filed by dictations by phone to friends, who were not attorneys, and who then committed the dictation to paper, without Atty Fine's final review of the papers or endorsement of such papers with his signatures.
On March 19, 2009 the habeas corpus petition Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) was filed. The petition rightly named the Sheriff - who held Fine jailed - as Respondent. In an unprecedented turn of events, the Sheriff refused to respond. Instead of immediately releasing Fine, the U.S District Court in LA delayed the proceedings, till on May 1, 2009, the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe filed a response through Att Kevin McCormick. By June 12, 2009 Magistrate Carla Woehrle recommended denial of the habeas corpus petition, with prejudice, and Jude John Walter, who presided after several recusals, adopted the recommendations into a judgment on June 29, 2009. Finally - by June 30, 2009 Atty Fine's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) then pending, was denied under the names of a panel of three - including Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and Circuit Judges Richard Tallman and Richard Paez.
Alleged Fingerprints of the LA-JR
With all that for a backdrop, now, new allegations were raised by Dr Joseph Zernik - who had no formal legal education at all - that Richard Fine's jailing was the product of a pattern of racketeering activity by Judge David Yaffe, Clerk John Clarke, and the LA Superior Court. The alleged activity involved the deliberate issuance of false and misleading papers by Judge David Yaffe, or at times by Atty for Real Parties in Interest - Joshua L Rosen, which were rulings, orders, and judgments that were false on their faces, and the deliberate and wrongful filing of such papers by clerks. Consequently, Judge Yaffe, Atty Rosen, and Clerk Clarke, deliberately caused the execution of such invalid papers, albeit - consistently keeping all such proceedings and procedures off the record, and always keeping a plausible deniability through the claim of naive errors.
Dr Zernik demonstrated that all eight (8) executable orders, judgments and writs in Marina v LA County, including the purported Order and Judgment for sanctions, and the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine were false on their faces court records - invalid based on superficial defects that required no real knowledge of the law - e.g. wrong signature, wrong date, incomplete or mismatched records. Zernik claimed that such pattern of activity could be deemed the "Fingerprints of the LA-JR" - (the alleged LA Judiciary Racket). He claimed that the very same pattern could be readily documented in a series of cases that were claimed to be subjected to racketeering by the LA-JR: (a) most of them involving real estate matters, like the case at hand, and all of them involving (b) false on their faces judgments and orders, (c) the wrongful execution of false judgments and orders, and (d) presiding by of Judicial Officers with no Appointment Orders and with no authority at all to affect judicial acts that were contrary to the law - as pretending judges, referees, receivers, or debtor examiners.
. . . 
Zernik alleged that such conduct by Judge Yaffe and others, effectively generated "double books" - false trial court litigation records. On the one hand - Judge Yaffe's pronouncements in open court, as recorded by media, and also in Reporter's transcript, clearly reflected sentencing of Atty Fine on March 4, 2009, to continuous confinement by the Sheriff. However, such records, with no written, effectual orders and judgment were void, not voidable. Also the false on its face Judgment for jailing of Fine could be seen as part of the false record for jailing of Fine. On the other hand, Judge Yaffe generated equally invalid written records to the opposite effect - reflecting no sentencing of Fine on March 4, 2009. Albeit - none of it was served or noticed. Judge Yaffe (a) deleted the whole March 4, 2009 proceeding from the official records of the litigation, (b) he issued a March 4, 2009 Minute Order that was invalid - but read as if no sentencing at all took place, and (c) he issued a false on its face Judgment for jailing - endorsed in multiple copies as dated March 24, 2009, but stamped "FILED" by Clerk Connie Hudson with the date of March 4, 2009. Both the minute order and the judgment were also invalid for missing their end portion called Proof of Service, absent which, orders and judgments were not effectual for any purpose by California law. The alleged pattern of racketeering activity that was the Fingerprints of the LA-JR therefore involved the consistent production of double books - therefore false litigation records - that were on the one hand vague and ambiguous, but could also be used in dual, opposite capacities. which were sufficiently convincing to deceive the victims in most cases.
Appeal to Sheriff Lee Baca
Zernik alleged that the Sheriff was fully aware of the circumstances, although probably only after the fact, and for such reason the Sheriff refused to respond to the habeas corpus petition. Zernik also demonstrated that the Sheriff's case management system (CMS) held false and misleading entries regarding Fine's arrest and booking - placing them at a fabricated San Pedro agency. Such entries were contradicted by media reports and were factually impossible - there were no booking facilities such as listed in San Pedro at all. The Sheriff's procedures called for arrest and booking papers to be held by the booking agency. Zernik contended that the fabricated booking agency was a convenient place to hold no arrest and booking papers at all.
On October 13, 2009, Zernik filed an open petition with Sheriff Lee Baca, calling upon him to respect the Human Rights of Atty Richard Fine, and review the arrest and booking papers in his possession. If none existed, Zernik claimed that the Sheriff held both the authority and the duty to immediately release the prisoner. Zernik also requested to obtain copies of the arrest and booking papers per california law. Moreover, Zernik alleged that the strange holding conditions - in solitary confinement in a hospital room - separate from the main jail facility, stemmed from the fact that Atty Richard Fine was never duly booked. He was therefore held off the record that was the inmate count list, and off the three times a day inmate mandatory counts at the Twin Towers and Central Jail facilities. The Sheriff's office never responded in writing, but in daily phone calls, first tried to convince Zernik that the papers were held in San Pedro. Then - that the papers could not be released out of concern for the inmate safety. Finally, the Sheriff's office abandoned the claims of arrest and booking in San Pedro, but would not answer where, when, and by whom the arrest and booking took place.
Denial of Access to Sheriff's Public Records
Dr Zernik was supported in his efforts by a civil rights organization which advised him that the arrest and booking records were public records by California law - the California Public Records Act, and that Sheriffs in other California Counties indeed compiled with the law on this matter. LA Superior Court records were public records also pursuant to Common Law rights - older than the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, which were affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). In the historic 1978 Nixon Tapes ruling, the Court re-affirmed the public's right to access court records to inspect and to copy.
The Sheriff office's final position was that the Sheriff practiced "full transparency" and "if you want to obtain copies of the arrest and booking papers you would have to get a court order for that".
Denial of Access to LA Superior Court's Public Records
Similarly - the LA Superior Court refused to allow Zernik to inspect and to copy the Register of Actions (California docket) of Marina v LA County the definitive litigation record that was never produced in the habeas corpus petition. Such records are integeral part of the LA Superior Court's CMS - Sustain. Repeated requests to access the record, or provide explanation for the denial generated no response at all. The Counsel for the Court - Frederick Bennett sent Dr Zernik a letter stating that his requests constituted "ex parte communications" and would therefore not be answered.
In addition - Zernik alleged that the appearance of Atty Kevin McCormick on behalf of the LA Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe in Fine v Sheriff at the U.S. Court was founded in fraud. McCormick was not authorized by Yaffe and the Court as Counsel of Record, but conveniently appeared and filed false papers, under his own signature - with no authority at all, Therefore - he absolved Yaffe and the court for any accountability for such fraudulent filings at the U.S. Court. He also filed a declaration that he was not authorized to sign - since he was no competent witness of the facts in the matter. Zernik claimed that through such fraud the habeas corpus petition was denied. He directly approached Judge Yaffe, the Presiding Judge of the court, and McCormick with such allegations, but none would answer at all.
Denial of Access to U.S. District Court, Los Angeles Public Records
On top of all that, Zernik alleged dishonest manipulation of Fine's papers by the Clerks of the U.S. Court in LA. In August 2009 he raised concerns with the Clerk's Intake Room Supervisor - Sharon McGee, who supported such concerns. Subsequently, Zernik filed with the Clerk of the U.S. Court a request for investigation of such concerns. No response was received. Therefore. on September 18, 2009 Zernik attempted to exercise his right to access the record of the petition - to inspect and to copy. Deputy Clerk denied the request, stating that the Fine paper records had already been shredded.
Dishonest CMSs Linked to Denial of Access - Proposed Solution
Zernik alleged that his claims were founded on analysis of the LA Superior Court's computerized case management system, which he alleged was fraud by design and by operation, as was the case management system of the Sheriff. Zernik claimed that the public had to insist on the right to inspect such systems, which were the root cause of racketeering at the court, by the court. Further measures were contemplated, in effort to obtain the access prescribed by law to the arrest and booking papers of the sheriff, the Register of Actions of the LA Superior Court, and the petition papers at the U.S. District Court - access to all these papers was repeatedly denied. Zernik held that the right to access public records, more fundamental than any of the Civil Rights in the Amendments, was under siege in the U.S. today, and he provided examples from California, New York State, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania, two state courts, on county sheriff, four U.S. District Courts, and One U.S. court of appeals who denied him access to specific records he requested to inspect and to copy.
The root cause of such conditions according to Zernik, was in the introduction of computer systems that lack elementary validation (logic verification). Zernik suggested that the solution could be found in regulation of such systems through public oversight, based on the rule making enabling laws. Such law should be promulgated to affect public regulation of computers at the courts. Computer programs were assembly of rules by definition, and case management systems of the courts were assemblies of Rules of Courts.
