Laurence Tribe_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Richard Fine
10-08-27 RE: Richard Fine - request for restoration of access to justice, and for corrective actions re: publicly and legally accountable validation of case management and online public access systems of the courts, jails, and prisons
Executive Summary
Los Angles, August 27 – request [1] was filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, for restoration of access to justice in the case of the imprisoned, 70 year-old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine. The request was filed with Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative.
Richard Fine, had exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by California judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (“pardons”) for all judges in Los Angeles County, California.
Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, “Sentencing Proceeding” for contempt was conducted on Richard Fine at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, which was never validly recorded by the Court. Instead, the Court published false and deliberately misleading online records. The request claimed that the March 4, 2009 “Sentencing Proceeding” was only a pretense, which was never deemed a valid court proceeding by the Court itself.
On March 4, 2010, Richard Fine was arrested in open court by the Warrant Detail of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – albeit with no warrant at all. Richard Fine has been held ever since in solitary confinement – albeit no judgment/conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department insisted on holding him under false and deliberately misleading online inmate registration records, stating that he was arrested and booked on location and by authority of the non-existent “Municipal Court of San Pedro”.
The request detailed Richard Fine’s attempts to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court – Central District of California, through the US Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States. In all United States courts involved, no valid judicial records were ever entered by the courts. Court minutes, judgments, mandate, decisions were either not signed by the judges and/or not authenticated by the clerks of the respective courts. Concomitantly, false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online by all courts involved, which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid judicial review, and that his petitions, appeal, and applications to the various US courts were duly denied. Therefore, the request claimed that Richard Fine was denied access to justice, and was instead subjected only to pretense judicial review at the US courts – National Tribunals for Protection of Rights.
The request further provided documentation and/or expert opinions regarding the inherent invalidity of case management and online public access systems of all courts involved, as well as the Sheriff’s Department. Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of invalid court records, as part of pretense of judicial review:
a) Online public dockets were implemented at the courts, where the authority of the clerk was never invoked, and where the clerks were unaccountable for validity of the records;
b) Online prisoners’ registration systems were implemented in the jails, where authority of record supervisors was never invoked, and where records supervisors were unaccountable for validity of the records;
c) All agencies involved in the matter published online false and misleading records, while public access to public records was denied, and
d) All courts, which were inspected, failed to publish local rules, establishing procedures governing the implementation, validation, and use of case management and online public access systems at the courts.
Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to accord due process in acceptance, review, and response on the request for restoration of Richard Fine’s access to justice. With it, Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to initiate corrective actions through comprehensive review and publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons.
The request claimed that any action by Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe to affect the restoration of Richard Fine’s access to justice and to establish by law the validation of case management and online public access systems of the courts, would affect substantial impact on restoration of access to justice in the United States, the rule of law in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond, and the safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the United States.
LINKS:
[1] 10-08-27 Request for Restoration of Access to Justice Filed With Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe in re: Richard Fine s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36516113/
0 comments:
Post a Comment