10-07-29 Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court, in re: Richard Fine // Evidencia adicional para el fraude en los EE.UU. Corte Suprema, in re: Richard Fine

William Suter
Clerk of the US Supreme Court
Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court, in re: Richard Fine 
Los Angeles, July 29 - Human Rights Alert (BGO) released additional evidence of fraud at the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine v Lerory Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) - application for stay of execution of ongoing solitary confinement.  Records recently retrieved from the US Supreme Court file in the case failed to discover any valid court records supporting the purported denial of the Application in the Supreme Court Conference either on April 23, 2010, as scheduled, or on April 26, 2010, as noted in the online Supreme Court docket. [1] Court records also failed to show any record of service and notice to the parties of the purported denial.  Information obtained from the imprisoned former US prosecutor Richard Fine, likewise, indicated that he had never received any notice and service at all of the purported denial.

The Application was first submitted to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The online Court docket noted denial by Justice Kennedy on March 12, 2010, and Richard Fine received a notice to that effect as well.  However, the notice was by Counsel Danny Bickell, who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk. Moreover, the notice was unsigned, and the copy in Court file was never stamped "FILED". Furthermore, there was no valid record of denial by Justice Kennedy to form the legal foundation for such notice. [2]
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine then re-submitted the Application to Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who in turn referred it to the US Supreme Court conference, scheduled for April 23, 2010.

Prior to the April 23, 2010, Mr Danny Bickell, again - with no authority at all, eliminated from the court file records filed in the case, which included evidence, including, but not limited to details of his March 12, 2010 invalid notice of denial by Justice Kennedy.  Mr Bickell's conduct relative to the March 12, 2010 notice and the consequent elimination of records from the Court file was subject of a complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Washington DC. [3]
On April 23, 2010, outcome of the conference remained unknown.  However, an April 26, 2010 note in the US Supreme Court online docket, [1] indicated denial of the Application.  The records, which were obtained on July 26, 2010 from the Court file, showed no legal foundation at all for the April 26, 2010 denial note in the online Court docket.

Therefore, it was alleged that the case documented the repeated publication of false and deliberately misleading notes in the online US Supreme Court docket, the issuing of false notices by unauthorized US Supreme Court staff relative to the purported March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy, and failure of the US Supreme Court Justices to dispose of matters before them.

Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing on February 20, 2009 of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.  Since March 4, 2009, he has been imprisoned in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California.  Albeit, no warrant was ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing was ever entered in his case.

The case of Richard Fine documented a pattern of publication of false records in online public access systems, and denial of access to true judicial records:
1)      The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case.
2)      The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine.
3)      The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court.
4)      The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal.
5)      The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 and April 23/26, 2010 denials, which were not supported by the Court records in the case.  Access to true dockets in the case management system of the Supreme Court was yet to be permitted.

Notice of the newly discovered records of the US Supreme Court was also submitted to the US State Department and the United Nations.  Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert as part of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States in the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.  The April 2010 UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems.

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
LINKS[1] 10-07-28-RE-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Additional-Evidence-for-Fraud-at-the-US-Supreme-Court-pertaining-to-purported-denial-of-the-Application-in-Confe
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/
[2] Alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records in Fine v Baca (09-A827)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/
[3] Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

Joseph Zernik, PhDHuman Rights Alert (HRA), NGO 
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?*     "Innocent people remain in prison"*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
*   "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
*   "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."     Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339
2010 UPR OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES
April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
b) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
d) UPR Tool Kit by the Urban Justice Center:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/