Sunday, June 28, 2009

Message to Eric Sheptock- Homeless in Washington DC

Mr Sheptock is likely to be the victim of sham litigation in U.S. Court...

Eric Sheptock, from what I gather, is a homeless person in Washington DC. Of the group of homeless persons, whose names appeared on the complaint in Sheptock v Fenty, he is the only one whose name remained in the Pacer docket.

I could not find any other way to contact him, except for the blog he runs on homelessness in Washington DC, at:

Below is the message I left him as a comment on his most recent posting:

"DC Mayor Thinks Homeless Woman "CHOSE" To Die In Front Of Shelter"

Found at:

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr Sheptock:
We have never met, and I know almost nothing about the facts related to the litigation that seems to go on in U.S. District Court in Washington DC, under the name Sheptock et al v Fenty et al.
I am also not an attorney, not even by a long shot.
Finally - the older I get the more I realize how clueless I am.
That said, I am writing t let you know that I looked at the records of this litigation online, in the court's Pacer system. There are some unusual feature in the litigation, which are likely to qualify it as "sham litigation". I believe that sham litigations are the most common severe abuses of human rights in the U.S.A. today.
Joseph Zernik
Cell 310 435 9107
Please support our petition:



1) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from Guild Practitioner

2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006)

3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15,000 by criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001, updated 2005)
4) Full Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine from jail

June 28, 2009 8:29 PM

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Double Books at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit?

An Attempt to Disambiguate the State of the Records of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Relative to Petition Docketed Online Under the Name of Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine


A) Background

The request below was sent to the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit, and it pertains to petition posted on the docket of the court, Fine v U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, No 09-71692, originating from Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County, No 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW. Such petition is posted as representing the putative Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandate and/or Prohibition of jailed Att Richard Fine, alternatively - his putative Habeas Corpus Petition.

The petition looks nowhere like the work product of an experienced attorney like Richard Fine. One couldn't even figure out what type of petition it was. Examples of Habeas Corpus Petitions filed and argued by Att Richard Fine before the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit, can be seen under xxx

The court records themselves reveal an inherent conflict in figuring out what type petition it was - a Habeas Corpus Petition, or an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandate and/or Prohibition: In the docketing text the petition is twice referred to as a Habeas Corpus Petition. However, in the letter by the Clerk of the Court (page 1 in Doc #1 in the docket) it is referred to as a Petition for a Writ of Mandate and/or Prohibition.

The main concern regarding the docketing of such petition is that careful review of the records of the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit must lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that the petition was in fact rejected, and that it was never accepted by the Court as a valid record, and therefore, it was never Filed and it was never Entered into a valid Court File in the records of the Court. Appearance of such petition in the online docket, with the letter from the Clerk of the Court acknowledging receipt (but neither Filing nor Entering of the petition), is surely going to mislead many to believe the contrary - that such petition was accepted by the Court as a valid record, that it was Filed and that it was Entered, and therefore - that it was/is going to be reviewed and considered by the Court in its capacity as a review panel.

Of yet greater concern is the fact that in similar situations in the past, the U.S. Court of Appeals- 9th Circuit issued orders on the matter, that were ambiguous as well. Such orders could be seen by some as recognition of the invalidity of the records. However, such orders could be claimed by others as reflecting a denial proper of a valid petition upon review and consideration. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Zernik v U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, No 08-72714, and (2)

This writer's opinion is that allowing such ambiguity to stand is uniquely harmful for the cause of Att Richard Fine. and also for public understanding of any rulings that may be issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit on this matter - and therefore - to the appearance of Justice being done by the Court of Appeals-9th Circuit. The public may not be able to understand the nuances of such situation.

Therefore, attempts are being made to disambiguate that which should have been made crystal clear had the public gained access to a Register of Actions of the Court, where it must state clearly relative to each and every record : Filed, and/or Entered, with clear identification of the Party or Counsel who transacted the filing, the Date of Filing, the Date of Entry, and valid Verifications of each and every one of the statements regarding filing and entry by a duly authorized Clerk of the Court.

All of these critical features are missing from the "Docket" provided for public access online. Therefore, there is no way for the public (including parties and counsel) to tell what the state is of such strange and unusual record as the petition posted in case No 09-71692 Fine v U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.

Let's hope that the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit, realize that allowing any such ambiguity to remain on such matters as whether a given record was filed and entered with the court, or not, amounts to compromised Due Process for Att Richard Fine, and that the state of such records must be disambiguated BEFORE any ruling is issued on the matter, not AFTER.


B) June 25, 2009 Email to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit: A Request for Disambiguation.
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:03:23 -0700
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Urgent: Re: Request for leave to file papers in sham litigation at U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

The matter is urgent, and time is of the essence.
Mr David Paris
Office of the Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit.
Mr Paris:
Thanks for the note.

A couple of questions:

1) As the text of the paper I sent for filing in court itself states, the term "Received" is an ambiguous one.
I request to know whether the paper was stamped "Filed" by the court,

2) Will I get my conformed copy? I enclosed an extra copy and a stamped, self addressed envelope.

3) In case the paper was stamped: "Filed", I also request to know how I may be able to tell if it will ever be "Entered", since the online docket on display to the public seems to consistently avoid the proper use of the term "Enter" relative to the papers received by the U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit.

4) In case it was "Filed" and "Entered", is there any idea when the request may be addressed? I would like to file a couple of other papers in this case, and I was hoping for a quick answer on the matter of leave to file.

5) Based on all the above, I must assume that the court has its own register system, where it clearly marks for internal use the status of each file. I cannot see how any court could work off the information the way it is displayed on the Pacer online. Assuming that such is the case, I believe that such register would be deemed court record, subject to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the right to access court records to inspect and to copy.
I therefore would like to know what it would cost and what method of payments are acceptable to copy the entire court register and all court papers listed as filed or as received in the following caption - - Fine v U.S. District Court, LA, 09-71692; Originating from: Fine v Sheriff Dept: CV 09-1914-JFW(CW)

I would be grateful for your response on the issues above.

Joseph Zernik

C) June 23, 2009 Email from the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit, Acknowledgement of Receipt of Paper in Fine v U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
At 06:12 23/06/2009, you wrote:
Return Receipt
  • Request for leave to file papers in sham litigation at U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
was received by:
  • David Paris/CA02/02/USCOURTS
  • 06/23/2009 09:12:54 AM EDT

Denial of the Right to File Papers in U.S. Court, Washington, DC


June 25, 2009

Ms Nancy Mayer-Whittington

Clerk of the Court

RE: Case #1:2009cv00805, Zernik v Melson et al.

Dear Ms Mayer Whittington:

I received the yesterday a pager call on my cell phone, marked from Mr David Scott in your office. I am grateful for his attempt to call me. However, I believe that at present I need to receive a written response, which could be of more than one kind, from the Office of the Clerk, as described below.

Mr Scott had previously talked with me by phone a couple of times. He claimed that all my papers were stamped “Filed”. He explained to me that as a rule, all papers filed on paper are scanned and docketed within 24 hours. He also explained that “…that is not always the case”.

He also eventually agreed that my papers were delayed as a routine, as a result of their forwarding to the chambers of Judge Richard J Leon prior to docketing. I assume that the Clerk’s Office would do so only in response to a directive of some sort received by the Clerk from chambers of Judge Richard J Leon. Albeit – no record of such directive was ever served and/or noticed to me, neither is any such directive recorded in the Pacer online records, in what may be deemed as violation of my Due Process rights.

Mr Scott refused to respond to repeated requests that he explicitly state the name of the procedure,, the section of the code, or the rules of court, pursuant to which my papers were and still are denied entry into court file – for over a month. Such delays with no end in sight may be deemed as violation of my rights pursuant to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Mr Scott later referred me to a Court Staff Counsel, who advised me of a routine of the Washington DC U.S. District Court, outside of any published Rules of Court, whereby if the Clerk doubts that a given paper should be filed, the Clerk may send it to chambers with a note of the relevant concerns. According to such unpublished procedure, as described to me by the Court’s Staff Counsel, the judge would then write by hand on the face of the record:

Leave to file Granted/Denied” and endorse the directive with his/her hand–signature.

Needless to say, such critical procedure that was never published as part of Rules of Court, may be deemed in violation of the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC §2071-2077.

However, it is obvious that my papers were not and still are not subjected to such unpublished procedure, since: (a) There is no writing on the face of the records that were eventually entered into the court file. (b) I never received any notice of rejection of the filing of the records that the court effectively is denying me the right to have entered into court file. (c) Neither have I received any Discrepancy Notice of any other notice explaining the disposition of the papers. (d) Neither is there any note to such effect in the Pacer online records.

Please be advised that such conduct may be deemed as violation of my Due Process rights pursuant to the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Please also note, that in this particular case, the papers that are denied entry into the court file, are papers holding critical evidence of alleged real estate fraud committed against me, as well as perversion and obstruction of justice in the Los Angeles Courts, by Countrywide, Bank of American Corporation, Bryan Cave, LLP, and others.

The case in its essence is a repeat on a grander scale of wrongdoing in the courtrooms by Countrywide, which was rebuked by the U.S. Courts in Houston Texas – by the Honorable Jeff Bohm in the case of Borrower - William Allen Parsley, No #05-903-74; Filed: 10/13/2005, (e.g. Document #248), and also at the U.S. Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – by the Honorable Thomas P Agresti in the case of Borrower - Sharon Diane Hill, No. #01-22574. Such wrongful litigation practices by Countrywide were also found to be pervasive throughout the U.S. during the current financial crisis in a study conducted by the U.S. Trustee – also reported in the case from Texas cited above.

Therefore, through such effective denial of my First Amendment rights you may also be deemed as denying me Fair Trial, Access to the Courts, and Equal Protection.

I pray that my papers be accorded fair treatment and that I be accorded a fair hearing in a fair tribunal at the U.S. District Court, Washington DC. I hope and expect that the U.S. Court in Washington DC conduct its business in accordance with the Human Rights prescribed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles #2,7,8,10,11, & 12, part of ratified International Law.

I would be glad to receive your written notice in re: nature of the procedure(s) undertaken by the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Washington DC relative to my papers, alternatively – a notice of the date and place for hearing on ex parte applications for orders, meant to address such issues, so that I may notice all parties.



Joseph Zernik

CC: Parties per mailing list.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Request for leave to file papers in sham litigation at U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

Richard I Fine
Sheriff of Los Angeles County

Case No 09-71692


Pro Se Filer, Dr Joseph Zernik, hereby requests that the Court grant him leave to file papers as Party in Interest in matter received from jailed Att Richard Fine now appearing in the Index of Cases of the Court, as Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County,No.09-71692. The Court itself surely holds the matter invalid, since it has already determined that it originated from a null action in District Court, LA. If allowed, Pro Se Filer would present the Court with detailed data regarding the prevalence, extent, and ways that Sham Litigations and Sham Court Actions are propagated in California today, of which such petition is an example. Pro Se Filer claims that Sham Actions are one of the most common severe abuses of Human Rights in California today.
Allowing such filing will further the cause of justice, but must not be construed as any admission of the validity of such petition. Pro Se Filer prays the Court make a clear and unambiguous pronouncement on the matter at bar, so that abuse of jailed Att Richard Fine will not have been in vain.

Date: June 18, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,
Joseph H Zernik,
Pro Se Filer

By: Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se


Monday, June 8, 2009

Surprisingly Quick Response by the U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit...

Another day in the trenches...
The U.S. Appellate Court 9th Circuit was surprisingly quick to respond to my newsletter... I distributed it in the early morning hours, and by afternoon the court corrected the irregularities in the docketing of Richard I Fine's Emergency Petition...[1]

I wish I was my own side-kick when I filed my own emergency petition with the 9th Circuit last year...

Regardless, my advice to Att Richard I Fine, had I ever talked with him, would have been not to build up any expectations for relief by the 9th Circuit Court... If he is positively surprised, that's great. But for me it was one of the worst points in the whole ordeal - the way I was treated by the 9th Circuit Court - because I had falsely exagerated expectations...
In a way it was also the "moment of clarity" - which comes after you "hit rock bottom" - using the Big Book of AA terminology...
Also filed today was a 2-page complaint by fax to Steve Goldman, Chief, White Collar Crime Squadron, FBI Los Angeles - against Magistrate Carla Woehrle, her law clerk Donna Thomas, and pro se clerk Chris Sawyer, all at the U.S. district court, LA, for their handling of trial court litigation records in the cases of Richard I Fine...
It was almost a copy of the letter I filed with Mr Goldman exactly a year ago regarding the handling of my own litigation records in Zernik v Connor et al by the same team... It looks like they are running out of new tricks... It is like deja vu all over again... as Yogi Berra used to say...

Also had an intersting discussion with the Pacer technical team in Texas... It always comes to me as a surprise, since I have never considered myself as a technical/computer expert... Yet, I must admit it is in my blood- both my brothers and two of my cousins are PhDs in Computer Science... With it came some interesting findings... It always surprises me when I realize that I am telling technical people about problems that they should be concerned about, but are not...

The Pacer technical team felt that the system was as secure as can be... After all, it is presumably under the wings of the DOD. I guess that such security arrangements protect Pacer against a surprise attack by Osama Bin Laden from his cave where he sits and plans with his wi-fi internet connection...

But they forgot to place some critical safeguards against the Carla Woehrles, Donna Thomases, and Chris Sawyers... Because just as is the case in the mortgage/banking industry - most or all of the frauds in the dockets are inside jobs...
[1] Now Att Richard I Fine's Emergency Petition is posted online in Pacer:
[2] The Big Book of AA, page 42
[3] Complaint letter to Chief of the White Collar Crime Squadron, Steven Goldman:

Jailed Human Rights Activist Att Richard I Fine’s 9th Circuit Court Petition Demonstrates Vague and Ambiguous Filing Procedures...

The petition itself was denied the leave to be posted in the Pacer docket, albeit - neither the respective ruling, nor of its legal foundation were recorded. Reported refund of the filing fees was similarly neither recorded nor reasonably explained, resulting in a vague and ambiguous court filing…


Los Angeles, June 8, 2009, payments of ~$45,000 per judge per year, were taken by ALL Los Angeles Superior Court judges for years. Such payments were ruled in October 2008 as “Not Permitted”,[i] pursuant to the California Constitution, and would be called by a lay person “Bribes”.[ii] As part of alleged retaliation for his role in exposing such payments accomplished anti-trust attorney, former U.S. Prosecutor, human rights activist Att Richard I Fine was disbarred, and more recently - on March 4, 2009 - indefinitely jailed.[iii] Such jailing - for contempt - by Judge David Jaffe, came at the end of proceedings where Att Richard I Fine sought to disqualify Judge David Jaffe for a cause, since the judge was among the judges who took such payments…

Although the matter is of the highest public policy significance, major news outlets consistently fail to report on developments in this case. As reported by Full Disclosure Network, the ONLY consistently reliable news source in this matter, the ruling to jail Att Richard I Fine and conditions of his incarceration demonstrated alleged severe abuses of human rights in LA County, California, by judges of the LA Superior Court. Other ongoing human rights abuses of historic proportions by judges of the LA Superior Court were alleged in the continued incarceration of the estimated 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) - a full decade after the onset of the 2-year (1998-2000), 200-investigator probe that demonstrated that they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced.[iv]

Records and dockets of complaints, filed by Att Richard Fine at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, in attempt to restore his rights, evidenced further alleged abuses of Due Process rights, including, but not limited to setting of incarceration conditions that deliberately compromised Att Richard Fine’s ability to physically file his papers in court, and the failure to hear, to this date, his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on March 19, 2009.[ii] , [v]

On June 3, 2009, Att Richard I Fine therefore filed a petition with the U.S. Appellate Court, 9th Circuit. [vi] Data from the U.S. courts’ case management system Pacer of Att Richard I Fine’s and two other detainees’ petitions filed on or around the same date were copied below. Such records demonstrated the differential treatment and the vague and ambiguous nature of the docketing and filing of Att Richard I Fine’s petition.[vii]

Petitions of both other detainees were posted in full in the online docket, 44 pages in one, and 8 pages in the other. Only in the case of Att Richard I Fine, the petition itself was NOT posted online. Therefore the Pacer docket would not allow others to follow whatever takes place in this action.[viii] In addition, since the petition itself was not posted in the Pacer docket, one couldn’t tell with certainty: Was it a habeas corpus petition per se, or was it a petition for a writ of mandate, pertaining to the conduct of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles? What specific claims were made? What specific relief was sought by Att Richard Fine?

Furthermore, the 9th Circuit Court Pacer docket did not allow to ascertain who signed the petition. Was Att Richard I Fine himself? Was it his counsel? Was it another unknown party? Such questions were pertinent here, since part of the abuse cited in the Full Disclosure Network report was: “Since incarceration on March 4, 2009 Petitioner has been denied all access to writing materials and to all written materials and legal documents.” Moreover, regardless of the fact that such obstacles were deliberately set up by the LA County Sheriff’s Department, papers that Att Richard I Fine had filed with the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, were consequently stricken off the record of that court – at the request of the LA County Sheriff’s Department - for failure to bear signature of pro se petitioner or his counsel…

In fact, it was left unclear whether the 9th circuit court accepted this filing either. Such ambiguity was enhanced by the failure to state any schedule for proceedings, although the docket claimed "ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PETITIONER". Furthermore, the Full Disclosure Network reported a refund of the filing fees, which could indicate denial of the leave to file the petition as presented to the clerk. However, such refund was noticed by phone only, and no record was provided in the Pacer docket of the unusual decision to refund the fees, neither was any reasonable explanation provided for such decision.

Upon review, as a whole, the Pacer record of Att Richard I Fine’s petition may therefore be deemed as: (a) Substantially deficient, departing from the standards for docketing of other detainees’ petitions; (b) Demonstrating denial of the leave to post the petition itself in the docket, with no record of such ruling, or its reasons; (c) Possibly also demonstrating denial of the leave to file the petition in its current form – as reflected by the refund of the filing fees and failure to set up schedule – again – with no explicit recording of such ruling, if any, and its reasons, and (d) Overall - vague and ambiguous docketing and filing procedures.

Instant petition, like other cases, previously described [ii], demonstrates various alleged abuses of Due Process and First Amendment rights, all stemming from the failure to formulate standard, basic court procedures - pertaining to Pacer filing and docketing - as Rules of Court. Proposal was filed with the U.S. Congress over a year ago, to enforce the Rule Making Enabling Act on all case management systems in the courts – an essential measure for the safeguard of the integrity of the courts[ix].

[i] October 10, 2008 ruling by the California Court of Appeal, 4th District:

[ii] Review of the case of “not permitted” payments, taken by the LA Superior Court judges:

[iii] Overview of the case of jailing Att Richard I Fine for contempt

[iv] May 1, 2009 complaint filed in U.S. Court, District of Columbia: Zernik v Melson at al.(1:2009cv00805) alleging widespread corruption and racketeering by LA Superior Court judges and others:

[v] The Habeas Corpus petition and related dockets and papers can be viewed under :

[vi] June 6, 2009 Full Disclosure Network report of the 9th Circuit Court petition filed by Att Richard I Fine:

[viii] 9th Circuit Court Pacer docket for Att Richard I Fine says only:
06/03/2009 1 1 pg, 128.65 KB

The Pacer docket of petition by another Pro Se detainee on the same day provides the full 44-page petition and the following Pacer docket text:
06/03/2009 1 44 pg, 1.7 MB
COUNSEL. Pursuant to G.O. 6.4 (c)(1)(3) A TEMPORARY STAY OF
REMOVAL IS IN EFFECT pending further order. Petitioner detained: Yes.
The schedule is set as follows: Certified Administrative Record due
07/29/2009. Response to motion for stay due 08/26/2009 for Eric H. Holder
Jr., Attorney General. (GR)

The Pacer docket of petition by another detainee on the previous day provides the full 8-page petition and the following Pacer docket text:
06/02/2009 1
8 pg, 277.83 KB
COUNSEL. Pursuant to G.O. 6.4 (c)(1)(3) A TEMPORARY STAY OF
REMOVAL IS IN EFFECT pending further order. Petitioner detained: Yes.
The schedule is set as follows: Certified Administrative Record due
07/28/2009. Response to motion for stay due 08/25/2009 for Eric H. Holder
Jr., Attorney General. (BY)