Monday, November 2, 2009

09-11-03 Jailing of Atty Richard Fine - Evidence for the conduct of an enterprise in a pattern of racketeering activity.

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?

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.

Dated: March . . .
The false on its face Judgment for jailing of Richard Fine - Filed - March 4, 2009, endorsed - March 24, 2009

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.

be (-iyX2 O{ted 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.
At the end it always boils down to the same thing... California? or Texas?
Los Angeles, County, California
Would win a corruption pageant any day of the week...

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:03 AM, joseph zernik <> wrote:

Mr Mellen:

I realized that the story you sent me regarding the habeas corpus petition was not the only alleged perversion of justice in your county, in Texas. It is the same pattern in Los Angeles County - false imprisonments - and alleged real estate frauds by the court go hand in hand.

False imprisonments in Los Angeles County are on a large scale - PBS program FRONTLINE estimated in 2000 the number of those who were falsely imprisoned in what came to be known as the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) between 8000-16,000 - the Rampart- FIPs. Hardly any of them were released (less than 200 by estimate), although the evidence was conclusively generated in the investigation that they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to long prison terms. It is an ongoing Human Rights disgrace of historic proportions, which still awaits its resolution.

More recently - we have the false jailing of Att RICHARD FINE - with no papers whatsoever to support his arrest or booking - over half a year in solitary confinement - off the inmate count, and off the records...

At the same time - we alleged racketeering of the Los Angeles Superior Court in real estate in the past 25 years - enabled through its case management systems, which the court wrongfully declared "privileged", With it - it concealed for the past 25 years the Registers of Actions (California dockets) in both civil and criminal litigation, the Books of Judgments - in both civil and criminal litigations, and also - it concealed the Rules of Courts pertaining to Entry of Judgment! To me - it sounds unbelievable every single time I write it.

I allege that the Los Angeles Superior Court managed an unprecedented feat, The traditions of Books of Judgment, and court records as Public Records go back to the early post medieval period. Through the introduction of digital technology, the court took the liberty of ceasing to comply with such ancient laws, and with that - took the court into the deep past. I recite all of these facts as a warning to all residents of the U.S. - because in my research I could not find a single computer system in the courts that was adequately validated (logic verified). It appears that what the Los Angeles Superior Court did 25 years ago, in various forms, and to various degrees was repeated in courts across the U.S. For example- in California there are over 70 such systems, each created by a court with no supervision. I was told that in Texas - the state courts may use more than 100 different case management systems - none of them, according to what I was told, was developed or installed following reasonable public scrutiny. You cannot underestimate the power of such systems in allowing alleged perversion of justice.

I recently sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court, JOHN CLARKE and to the Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY, and kindly asked that they finally, after a quarter century, disclose to the public the Rules of Court in re: Entry of Judgment.

I also pointed out to them a number of alleged Fraud on Their Faces records issued by the court - to deprive one person of Liberty, and another - of his home. I requested that they remove such records from the court files. It is obvious that the court treated such records as invalid on their faces, but by placing such records in court file - they allowed others to abuse the records to inflict harm, with the court's full knowledge and cooperation.

I also noticed the Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY and Judge DAVID YAFFE of the alleged fraud in their representation in the Habeas Corpus Petition of RICHARD FINE. Att KEVIN MCCORMICK appeared and filed false and deliberately misleading papers, evidence, and a declaration, on behalf of Judge DAVID YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT under his own signature with no signature of Judge DAVID YAFFE or any Officer of the Court - while he was Attorney, but NOT Attorney of Record, and had no authority to file such papers, evidence and declaration under his signature. Through such alleged fraud - Judge DAVID YAFFE, the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, and Atty KEVIN MCCORMICK deprived RICHARD FINE of his Liberty.

Countrywide, the Los Angeles-based sub-prime-lender, who shares with the LA Superior Court the "Spirit of Los Angeles", was caught in 2007 in Houston Texas engaging in the same alleged fraud - allowing appearance in court by Attorney who was not Attorney of Record, and then felt at liberty to file false papers in court. In a March 2008 Memorandum Opinion, the Honorable JEFF BOHM, U.S. Judge, Houston, Texas, said of that scheme:

Countrywide and their counsel "have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system."

However, in Los Angeles County, such alleged fraud is legitimized and routine. The Los Angeles Superior Court, allows Countrywide - now a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation to continue such alleged fraud to this very day - through the appearances of BRYAN CAVE, LLP - Attorney - but not Attorney of Record, who has appeared under the false and deliberately misleading Party Designation "NON PARTY" for over two years before judges of Los Angeles Superior Court, purported to file motions, to enter judgments, etc. However, in the Habeas Corpus Petition of RICHARD FINE - it was not Countrywide- an alleged corrupt corporation - but the Los Angeles Superior Court itself, and Judge DAVID YAFFE, who were parties to the litigation - and who engaged in the same scheme - to deprive RICHARD FINE of Liberty.

In my recent letters - I addressed the Presiding Judge a and the Clerk of the Court in their administrative capacities, Similarly, I addressed Judge Yaffe and the Presiding Judge regarding their conduct in the Habeas Corpus petition of RICHARD FINE - as parties to litigation, not as judges in any case.

The Clerk - JOHN A CLARKE - the Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY and Judge DAVID YAFFE refused to answer. Instead - they send me a letter by Counsel for the Court - FREDERICK BENNETT - stating that my letters amounted to "ex parte communications". It reminded me of the response I got last year from Mr ROBERT REED - Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee - he compared complaining about the alleged widespread corruption and racketeering of the Los Angeles Superior Courts - to "politization of the courts".

I usually disregard the letters for CARL BENNETT - the counsel for the court - since they are routinely false and deliberately misleading - simply a way to cover up the refusal of the Clerk of the Court and the Presiding Judge of the Court to be held accountable.. Here the issues were too heavy to ignore - I allege that the hiding of the Book of Judgments and the Rules of Court in re: Entity of Judgment and the Registers of Actions, in fact turned the court into an alleged racket, with ample evidence for conduct of an enterprise in pattern of alleged racketeering activity.

Case Management Systems of the Courts Must be the Center of Attention

The reason I state all of this is because I believe we need to start a site where readers would be able to rank of alleged corruption in different courts, based on the different reports. I claim Los Angeles is leading the pack leaving all others in the dust, but the stories form Texas are not far behind...

Of note - the former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of our neighbor San Bernardino County - former member of the California Judicial Council, was also tied in a recent newspaper report to numerous real estate fraud cases. I believe that San Bernardino County is very close to LA County in the qualify of justice prevailing in it, but in general it suffers from under-reporting. I did receive several informal accounts - 2 cases regarding the family courts, and one regarding civil matters. If there is any truth in these accounts, then San Bernardino County is definitely up there as well.

Creating a Competitive Site - for Ranking Corruption of the Courts - Getting More Voters Involved

A site that would bring the true American tradition of Beauty Pageants to Court Corruption... would encourage people to report their cases, and it would allow readers to engage in an interactive manner. It will also create a database of individuals who are willing to make a statement and take a stand and probably also vote based on representatives responsiveness - or lack thereof - regarding alleged corruption of the courts. It is not meant to slight any of the cases, it is just a way to allow many more readers in California and Texas to become involved, and also in other states- it would greatly enlarge the group of identified voters of hold court corruption as a key issue in the U.S. today.

Request for a Special Counsel for Los Angeles County Public Records/Rules of Court/Integrity of Court Records

Otherwise - we are planning on sending a formal request to Attorney General Eric Holder in the very near future - to appoint a Special Counsel - to enforce in Los Angeles County the law pertaining to Access to Court Records, and Published Rules of Court,

Linking Alleged Court corruption to the Current Financial Crisis - which in fact is an Integrity Crisis.

The current "Financial Crisis" is in fact Justice System Crisis/Financial Crisis or simply stated - INTEGRITY CRISIS. Until the issue of integrity of the justice system would not be addressed in a meaningful way, the current malaise is not likely to be relieved. If Countrywide can continue today to appear in the Los Angeles Superior Court for the third year in a row as "NON PARTY", purport to file motions and enter judgments, which obviously demonstrates that the litigation as a whole is racketeered - with wholesale production of false and deliberately misleading court records, while SEC continues to refuses to investigate any complaints against Countrywide or Bank of America Corporation for the third year in a row, in this regard, then obviously not much changed in re: Banking Regulators and integrity of the U.S. banking system. Such conduct is also out of compliance with international Banking Accords that the U.S. claims to be good faith party to;

Going Abroad - International Human Rights Court

If there would be no response on that matter - we are in the process of trying to identify a group of 10 cases of the Los Angeles Superior Court, where alleged racketeering can be unequivocally demonstrable - based on routine creation of false and deliberately misleading court records by the court - by comparing the paper file and the hidden Registers of Actions and Electronic Minute Orders. It is a double/triple books system - which is why the Registers of Actions are hidden. We are getting close to the that target number. With 10 cases in place, we would try to identify an International Human Rights Court that would be willing to hear the case against the U.S. .Government - relative to allowing alleged abuse of the residents of Los Angeles County for over quarter century.

Establishing and maintaining fair and impartial tribunals, and also national tribunals for protection of Human Rights and Rights founded in the Constitution of the Country (and its Amendments in the case of the U.S.) are essential Human Rights pursuant to ratified International Law, binding the U.S., who in fact was the driving force behind the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - through Elenor Roosevelt.. We allege severe deprivation of Human Rights in LA County,. California. Obviously - allowing large scale false imprisonment - of the Rampart-FIPs - a decade after the investigation ended - would be a major part of such allegations. However, alleged racketeering by the LA Superior Court would be inseparable from that story as well - we allege that had the Registers of Actions and Book of Judgment been public records, as required by law, we would have been able to speedily identify the Rampart-FIPs, and take up their cases with the U.S. Courts. As things stand - they are all anonymous.

Mr Mellen - I hope to hear your comments on the agenda above.

Joseph Zernik

09-11-02 Richard Fine (CJ Inmate#1824367) - Access to Public Records and Integrity of Case Management Systems.

U.S. Attorney General

Dear Sheriff Lee Baca, Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court -John Clarke, Judge David Yaffe,

Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court - Charles McCoy, Clerk of the U.S. Court, Los

Angeles - Terry Nafisi, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court, Los Angles - Audrey Collins, California Attorney

General - Jerry Brown, and U.S. Attorney General - Eric Holder:

I am writing to you today at the end of a period of about three months of looking in the matter of the

jailing of Atty RICHARD FINE, and attempting to address the issues with officials of the Los Angeles

County Superior Court, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Sheriff Department.

I am writing also in response to requests, which I received from others -- to clearly summarize my

perspective in re: chronology of events in the jailing of RICHARD FINE and allegations of widespread

corruption of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, The denial of a public access to

public records, and the alleged criminality in the design and operation of case management systems is

viewed as the inter-related root causes of the problem. Requests are accordingly stated below to local

officials and officers of local branches of federal agencies. However, such requests were repeatedly

denied in the recent months. Therefore, California Attorney General - JERRY BROWN, and U.S.

Attorney General - ERIC HOLDER are requested to take notice and enforce the law in matters that

pertain to the deprivation of Liberty of an individual - RICHARD FINE, and the fundamental rights of 10

millions residents of Los Angeles County, California. The common law rights to access court records

were recognized for many generations as key to Liberty and to integrity of the courts. It was previously

indicated that case management systems in both state and federal courts, which are today's

counterparts - and just as critical in securing the rights of the people, were left entirely unregulated. It

was suggested that regulation could be promulgated and enforced though state and federal rulemaking

enabling laws. Such systems, as computer programs - are by definition assemblies of rules,

and as court systems - are assemblies of Rules of Courts.



Any part of the case at hand, when carefully examined, revealed a justice system that transformed

itself into a system that routinely operated in severe abuse of the Human Rights of all who reside in

Los Angeles County. Special emphasis in this regard was placed on the denial of access to public

records by both the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County,

and the alleged criminal nature of the case management systems of both of these Los Angeles

County justice system agencies. Those systems clearly document both prevailing conditions and

furthermore - the intents of those who designed and installed them.

One must recall that the jailing of Atty RICHARD FINE was only the latest, well-publicized case, but

the affair as a whole must be viewed as direct extension of the Rampart-scandal (1998-2000). At the

end of that massive corruption investigation the blame was placed entirely on the LAPD, and the

judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were officially deemed to have been "duped" by corrupt

police. Legal scholars voiced even then an altogether different opinion:

judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not


How could so many participants in the criminal justice system have failed either to

recognize or to instigate any meaningful scrutiny of such appalling and repeated perversions of


...we felt a particular obligation to ensure that no aspect of the Los Angeles criminal justice

system, including the lawyers and judges, escaped scrutiny.

Dean David W. Burcham and

Prof Catherine L. Fisk,

Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, Rampart Symposium, 2000

Any analysis of the Rampart scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous

nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators

and police states.

...and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.

Erwin Chemerinsky,

Dean of Irvine Law School, University of California, 57 Guild Prac. 121 2000

A reasonable person, upon review of a collection of more recent cases that we have assembled from

the civil courts, where no police was involved, whatsoever, would find the exoneration of the judges in

the Rampart-scandal investigation as far-fetched at best.

Likewise, upon review, the conduct of Federal agencies must be a reason for grave concerns - for

their failure to respond to such revelations - both then and now... Such agencies, including U.S.

Courts, U.S. Justice Department, FBI, and all the way to Banking Regulators, allowed the travesty of

justice in Los Angeles County to continue through the past decade... even today - after the collapse of

Los Angeles County-based Countrywide at enormous cost to the U.S. Taxpayer.

One must view also events related to the Countrywide's collapse as a unique product of Los Angeles

County and its justice system. After all, even before the current Crisis FBI reports described Los

Angeles County as the "epicenter of an epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud that is a high

national priority to fight.". It is alleged that the Los Angeles County Superior Court was and is

primarily responsible for such distinction of this County, and numerous cases of fraudulent

conveyance of tittles on behalf of the courts by a Court Officer were identified. The litigation underlying

the jailing of Richard Fine was real estate-related as well - it involved two large construction

companies and LA County, as Real Parties in Interest and Defendant, respectively. How could the FBI

- after arriving at such conclusions regarding Los Angeles County - never find out the causes? After

all, it was practically "in your face" conduct of the Los Angeles County Superior Court judges...

Similarly, at the end of the Rampart-scandal investigation, it became abundantly clear that thousands

of persons, almost exclusively black and Latinos, were falsely imprisoned, as the outcome of framing,

false convictions, and false sentencing for long terms by the Los Angeles Superior Court. PBS

Frontline program in 2001 quoted an estimate of the number of Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned

Persons) at 8,000 - by sources at the District Attorney's office! Others estimated the number at up to

30,000! Regardless, Federal agencies allowed such massive corruption scandal and such Human

Rights disaster of historic proportions to remain a local matter - where the local justice system

investigated, prosecuted, and judged itself. The outcome was and is that to the best that could be

ascertained - the total number of the Rampart-FIPs, which have been released in the past decade -

was under 200!

An official report commissioned by the LAPD - the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) cited

various official reports that preceded it. All - without exception - had the same finding - that many

innocent persons were falsely imprisoned by the Los Angeles Superior Courts. The Blue Ribbon

Review Panel Report (2006) added to it the next chapter - it carefully documented that the judges of

the Los Angeles Superior Court were among those who inexplicably, but adamantly, prevented the

release of Rampart-FIPs. Even today - when federal courts review overcrowding and other Human

Rights abuses in California correction facilities, and when release of thousands of California prisoners

is debated, release of the Rampart-FIPs was never even contemplated. How could the U.S.

Department of Justice avoid seeing any of it? After all, a Federal Overseer for Civil Rights was in office

in Los Angeles from 2001 to 2009...

Complaints regarding alleged racketeering by judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were

forwarded to the office of California Attorney General, JERRY BROWN - now running for Governor -

over two years ago. His Assistant - TOM GREEN - purported to review the matter, and reported that it

was "a private matter", which the California Attorney General should not address. The TOM GREEN

report must be deemed upon review as fraud on the people of California, and failure on a critical

matter by JERRY BROWN as Attorney General. Complaints regarding alleged racketeering by judges

of the Los Angeles Superior Court were also forwarded starting over two years ago to local FBI

offices. To his credit, Chief of the local White Collar Crime Squadron never denied the allegations.

STEVEN GOLDMAN only claimed that "If the allegations are true - they are well above my head".

Complaints were then forwarded to U.S. Attorney General - MICHAEL MUKASEY. The Honorable

DIANNE FEINSTEIN and the Honorable DIANE WATSON followed up with congressional inquiries -

after FBI and U.S. Department of Justice failed to respond. The responses provided in August-

September 2008, by KENNETH KAISER - FBI Assistant Director for Criminal Investigations, and

KENNETH MELSON - Dept of Justice Director, included claims such as "...insufficient facts to

demonstrate a violation of federal law within our investigative jurisdiction..." and "Mr. Zernik's

claims are currently pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of

California in civil action 2:08-cv-01550. The action names Superior Court judges and clerks as

defendants..." must be deemed upon review as fraud on U.S. Congress and on the people of the

United States. As was clearly documented in the records at that time, there was no pending litigation -

since the Deputy Clerk of the U.S. District Court CHRIS SAWYER adulterated summons and refused

to issue valid summons... Even the case number was alleged as fraud by the Clerk of the U.S. Court -

the case was falsely linked to an unrelated criminal litigation of the same number.

In contrast, the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2003-2006) concluded already in its 2006 report that an

"External Investigation" of the Los Angeles County justice system was required. It also singled out

the Los Angeles Superior Court as requiring an examination. We believe that the circumstances

surrounding the jailing of RICHARD FINE demonstrated better than ever the need for an external

review of the Los Angeles County Superior Court - be it Federal agencies, or International Human

Rights courts.

The complete record can be viewed at: