Saturday, October 24, 2009

09-10-23 It was/is as simple as this- Richard Fine was/is the victim of alleged racketeering by the LA-JR...

Judge, LA Superior Court
Alleged central figure in the LA-JR
(Additional information below)


Marina v LA County(BS109420):Orders, Judgments, Writ Applications were all False on Their Faces... With date mismatches and defects in POS, which were the fingerprints of the LA-JR (Alleged LA Judiciary Racket)... In a case where LA County was named Defendant and two large privately held construction companies - Real Parties in Interest... Clerk JOHN CLARKE and Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY Continue to deny access to public records... Regardless, sufficient evidence was available to conclude that Marina v LA County was an ET (Enterprise Track) case of the LA-JR.




CHARLES MCCOY: Your immediate resignation from your position as Presiding Judge is demanded for alleged complicity with racketeering, among others - by members of your former law-firm - SHPPARD MULLIN.

JOHN A CLARKE:Your immediateresignation from your position as Clerk is demanded for alleged central role in the LA-JR.


Evidence of racketeering activity by judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court was nothing new…The news here was in the statistical strength of suchseries ofeight consecutive executable orders, judgments and writs… Alleged repetitive obstruction/perversion/corruption of justice in such a long series, generated evidence that was far beyond anyreasonable doubt… IN SHORT- LIKELY TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS…


Each and every one of the eightexecutable orders and judgments in thepast 2 years was False on Its Face with the dates/signatures and Proof of Service defects that were the LA-JR fingerprints...

All were issued by Judge DAVIDYAFFEwith Atty in JOSHUA ROSEN; All required collusion by Clerk-DeputyCONNIE HUDSON and Clerk of the Court - JOHN CLARKE; All were beneficial to large private buildersDEL REY JOINT VENTURES & NORTH, And all intentionally harmedRICHARD FINE...


Such investigation must include also the conduct of Att KEVIN MCCORMICK, Judge DAVID YAFFE, and PresidingJudge CHARLES MCCOY, relative to the filings of false and deliberately misleading papers in theHabeas Corpus petition. Regardless of being reliably informed, none of theminitiated any corrective actions that we know of!


Immediate comprehensive investigation of such alleged criminality must bedemanded by all who live in LA County,California!


Presiding Judge of the CourtCHARLES MCCOY – was reliablyinformed, but refused to initiate corrective action. In view of the ongoingfalse jailing of RICHARD FINE, such conduct by thePresiding Judge must be deemed misprision ofcriminality…


CHARLES MCCOY's immediate resignation from his position as Presiding Judge is demanded for alleged complicity with racketeering, among others - by members of his former law-firm - SHPPARD MULLIN !

JOHN A CLARKE's immediateresignation from his position as Clerk is demanded. He is alleged as one of the central figures of the LA-JR.



The five (5) indivituals above, KEVIN MCCORMICK, JOSHUA ROSEN, DAVID YAFFE, JOHN CLARKE, and CHARLES MCCOY had direct responsibility for the alleged racketeering that led to the false jailing of Att RICHARD FINE. They were all notified of false papers filed by them, or in their name, or by their authority, and they were all requested to initiate corrective actions. There is no evidence of any corrective actions by any of them.
The following Judges and Judicial Officers of the LA Superior Court are alleged as participants in racketeering:
1) JACQUELINE A CONNOR, Judge 2) JOHN A CLARKE - Clerk of the Court
3) DAVID YAFFE, Judge 4) GERALD ROSENBERG, Supervising Judge
5) J STEPHEN CZULEGER, former Presiding Judge 6) CHARLES MCCOY - Presiding Judge,
9) LISA HART-COLE, Judge 10) PATRICIA COLLINS, Judge (since retired),
11) ALLAN GOODMAN, Judge, 12) RICHARD NEIDORFF, Judge (since retired)
13) DAVID PASTERNAK. Judicial Officer 14) GREGORY O'BRIEN, Judicial Officer
15) MURRAY GROSS, Commissioner


Atty, Court Officer

Alleged central figure in racketeering under the guise of real estate litigations..



Judge, LA Superior Court.

Racketeering under the guise of court litigation was alleged. In Galdjie v Darwish, he ran a purported bench-trial in a real estate matter, on Defendant who was misled to appear in the Culver City Municipal Court for a purported case of the Superior Court of California. He remained anonymous in court records, listed only as - “Muni Judge.” was entered.


09-10-24 What we mean when we talk about Human Rights...


You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face… Do the thing you think you cannot do.

Elenor Roosevelt

See full size image

Why we talk about Human Rights, and what we mean by Human Rights...

Our attempts to protect ourselves from abuse by alleged racketeering judiciary through U.S. Courts and the Civil Rights in the Amendments were a disappointment and a disgrace!

Therefore, it became irrelevant to talk about Civil Rights in the U.S. at this time...

However, luckily, largely through efforts of the U.S. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created, which eventually became part of ratified International Law... Certain courts around the world are more active than others in this area.

We would seek probably first to have a group appear in one of these courts, and file are testimonies regarding the conditions of the U.S. Justice System today, and the disregard for Human Rights by those who were charged with upholding them.

Beyond that - we would explore ways to restore our rights at home through litigation in such courts. Surely, none of the allegedly racketeering judges would like to be under conditions where their travel would be restricted, because of concern that they maybe stopped for Human Rights abuses... I am describing just one of the ways that such courts may have powers and influence...

What surprised me the first time Iread the Universal Declaration, was the large number of articles that are devoted to prescribing the various aspects of integrity in the justice system... It obviously was seen as a critical part of the system by the drafters of the Declaration.

Since I got involved in this area only through necessity and only a few years ago, I am missing the perspective... The question on which I am seeking any comments, is what was the general change in Human Rights compliance in the U.S. in California, in Los Angeles County. Particularly, if anybody has hard data of any kind...

There were some comments on the subjects in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006), which I consider mandatory reading for anybody who lives in LA or California, or for that matter in the U.S. It took me a couple f readings before I figured out what it was all about... I remember clearly, it was the second time I was reading it... and I hit that line about the justice system that harbors a "subcult of criminality in its ranks". I paused for a minute... digested it, and after that, it was easy and simple... If there is anything I would fault the report for - is the fact that they described it as "subcult" It is and it surely was by 2006 the dominant cult of the justice system. In 2007, in he West District of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 out of 10 judges were eager to participate in alleged racketeering. There was only one judge who recused without agreeing to touch the file-1) Joseph Biderman in West LA ...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

On 10 December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and
proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the full text of which appears in the
following pages. Following this historic act, the Assembly called upon all Member
countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated,
displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions,
without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the
highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to
rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights
of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life
in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance
for the full realization of this pledge,
OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to
the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in
mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms
and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among
the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal
charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees
necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission
which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time
when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was
applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right
to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of
each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his
(incomplete copy)