Monday, November 16, 2009

09-11-16 Hips by Beyonce, Joey Tribbiani's smile, the LA-JR ( LA-Judiciary Racket), and False Imprisonment of Richard Fine

I woke up this morning and realized that what I did yesterday was inadequate. I was restricting myself with no reason at all. When judges allow themselves to engage in professional errors of sending Richard Fine to jail, I must not falsely hold myself to standards which I have no right to assume.

I am not a legal professinal and my speech and my writing must never be held to legal professional standards. Therefore:

The following individuals, who happen to be JUDGES & CLERKS are held by me as CRIMINALS for their part in the false jailing of Richard Fine. Had I been in position of authority, I would have considered them worthy of penal sentences of jauling or imprisonment:
  1. David Yaffe
  2. John Clarke
  3. Carla Woehrle
  4. John Walter
  5. Terry Nafisi
  6. Richard Tallman
  7. Richard Paez
  8. Alex Kozinski
  9. Molly C Dwyre
And after that moment of insight, This is how it was emailed out:

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
The piece below relates to you and the Hawaii club in more than one way.
1) You better check my new catalogue of court frauds, on the blog. You are definitely deficient in that area.. I am available for remedial, even in the middle of the school year. If you don't pass, you don't play!
2) It singles out Alex Kozinski as a player. You are in the Circuit as well.
3) It speaks about the judiciary-financial institutions connection, Until that is addressed there is no chance for real banking regulation, or restoration of confidence which underlies current economic malaise. Restoration of regulatory laws, undone under the Bush administration is a prerequisite, but insufficient remedy.
4) It speaks a bit, and gives reference to the central place of corrupt large computer systems in this situation.
5) The article you distributed by Nomi Prins, implied that we were back to Great Depression Era. I would argue that we see signs of Robber Barons Era, and the case of Richard Fine demonstrates that we are getting into a unique niche in time-space - the Medieval-Digital Era. False computers are used to take us back to medieval court standards.

______________ ____
Welcome to LA - Home of the LA-JR
Subscribing to conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity
_ - - - - - -- - []_ - - - - - -- - _[] - - - - - -- - _[] - - - - - -- -
_ - - - - - -- -
Lee Baca- - - - -- -_ - - - - - -- - Richard Fine- - - - -_ - - - - - -- - - - - - David Yaffe- - -_ - - - - - -- -

Hips by Beyonce, Joey Tribbiani's smile, the LA-JR (alleged LA-Judiciary Racket), and False Imprisonment of Richard Fine (lay-person's language)
Alternatively - the old flimflam:

Richard Fine, 70 yo, former U.S. prosecutor, anti-judicial corruption activist, is in under solitary confinement for 7 months...and never gets to see the sky for months at a time,

Part I - Joey Tribbiani's smile, and catering to the LA-JR in false denial of Richard Fine's Habeas Corpus Petition
This is a clarification of notes in the Index posting
[1]: The last thing we need today, while we are in the midst of the War on Terror, and while we are busy building the court system in Iraq, is some smart alecks doubting of the justice system of Los Angeles County, California... Any suggestion that there was any inference to a possible Warrantless Arrest, or any appearance of an illusion of a slim chance of a Fourth Amendment violation, or even False Imprisonment in the case of Richard Fine, was surely never intended. Anyway, it's all lay-person's writing in lay person's language, If inference was found it must be disregarded, as having no legal meaning at all.
Smart Alecks
Let me assure all the Doubting Thomases out there... I an not an attorney, not even by a long shot... Richard Fine was arrested and is jailed by State of California Judge David Yaffe. That should have been good enough on its own. In addition - the job on his Habeas Corpus Petition was done by the U.S. Court, LA, If anybody wanted more - his Petition was a taken care of by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Triple whammy. That should be good enough for any nitpicker!
A Nitpicker
1) Magistrate Carla Woehrle - of the U.S. District Court, LA posted a lengthy Report and Recommendations on the Habeas corpus Petition with footnotes, citations and all. Obviously it was no rush job. In the 25 pages of the Report, she never even entered the Caption of the case she was reviewing for over two months- Marina Strand Colony Home Owner's Association v County of Los Angeles. Frankly, I don't think it matters, Joe, Joey, or Joseph, it's all the same to me... She simply wasn't really sure that it was a true case of the Superior Court. It's not that simple nowadays... It is not the only case, and Carla Woehrle did the job on them before. They cases were not of the Superior Court at all. For lack of better term let's call them "Equity/Enterprise Track" cases, and the general operation - the LA-JR (LA Judiciary Racket). Calling the child by name makes it easier. Most civil cases are real estate cases - which this one was as well. The criminal cases involved false imprisonments. The evidence showed that the LA-JR controlled the LA Superior Court for years. That was the story of the Rampart scandal a decade ago. FBI and U.S. Dept of Justice couldn't see it - severe myopia.
The case of
Richard Fine was one of them as well. The Report demonstrated that Magistrate Carla Woehrle was fully colluding with the LA-JR. And the false imprisonment of Richard Fine for 7 months, showed that FBI and U.S. Dept of Justice did just the same (in lay-person's language).
We need a U.N. Resolution, and help from the Multinational Coalition, to help the U.S. Government gain control of Los Angeles County again...

Joey Tribbiani's smile
Some people are fussy, they say that there was no Warrant for the arrest. Personally - I don't know that it was that important, or what it was supposed to look like. I probably wouldn't know a warrant from a writ or a warranty even if you dropped it on my keyboard. However, I ran a word search on "Warrant" - and I could tell you for sure the word was never mentioned in the Carla Woehrle Report. [2]

Another Nitpicker
Then come the nitpickers. They say that there was no effectual record for Sentencing and Judgment for the jailing either. Careful review showed that Magistrate Carla Woehrle was fully aware of the conundrum, but "streamlined" it effectively[3]

The Nattering Nabob
The nattering nabobs expected also a Register of Actions (California docket), as if there wasn't enough paperwork already.
They said that reviewing a case without a court file was anyway like writing a book review without reading the book. Doing it with no Register of Actions, was like not bothering to read the Cliff's Notes either... just flying blind. Well - Magistrate Carla Woehrle knew the story of the LA-JR already, She did it before. Therefore she did not need the Register of Actions to write her Report...
Cliff's Notes
U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle did a fine job for the LA-JR - an impressive Report, which recommended "deny with prejudice". OK - the Report was never authenticated, and it therefore was an invalid court paper. Those who objected to this practice were simply placing form over substance. It was Carla Woehrle's way of delivering the goods for the LA-JR, while pretending that her conduct was not of criminal nature.... It's like eating the cake and having it too... (I am not a dietitian, not even by a long shot) Why not? If she could get away with it that easy, time after time... By now she was a groupie...

2) U.S. Judge John Walter, of the U.S. District Court, took his time for additional review after receiving the Report and Recommendation, and he finally accepted the Report in the Judgment posted on July 29, 2009 in Pacer, which dismissed the case. The Judgment was never authenticated either, and that again invalidated it... So, the Honorable John Walter, U.S. Judge followed, the same flimflam as Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca and Magistrate Carla Woehrle - his conduct in posting this paper could be seen by some lay-persons a criminal - aiding and abating the LA-JR in false imprisonment of Atty Richard Fine, or maybe misprision of felonies. That was why lay-persons were not judges! The assignment of code sections should be left for professionals prosecutors... The practice was too common though... Judge Walter was surely convinced that it was OK. You cheat, but you cross your fingers behind your back. The judiciary and legal profession in the U.S. developed this deviant mentality that saw it as more benign than illegal parking. International Courts on the other hand - were likely to view it as severe, widespread abuse of Human Rights, pursuant to ratified International Law, of the American people by its own government. Together with the directly related overcrowding of the prisons - these are the most common abuses of Human Rights in the U.S. today - by the courts that were charged with their safeguard. The bottom line - Judge John Walter also catered to the LA-JR. Why not? If you could get away with it that easy...

3) Chief Judge Alex Kozinski - widely recognized as a brilliant jurist - of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - and Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Richard Tallman were named on the Petition, which Richard Fine also filed from the Habeas Corpus. This Court is second in authority only to the U.S. Supreme Court! The June 30, 2009 Order was posted in Pacer, the court's case management system:
"petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrant the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v United States Dist Court 557 F 2d 650 (9th Circ 1977). The petition is denied."(Order)
Mom never called me a "brilliant jurist"... But with all due respect, it looked like someone copied the Bauman out of habit, into an order of denial of the wrong petition. OK, I am clueless, but Habeas Corpus was meant for the clueless... for prisoners, way back when... Or even today - like
Richard Fine - who was denied pen and paper. In Habeas Corpus, the prisoner did not have to say much at all. Just to challenge the confinement, and ask to be brought before a judge. In turn, the judge was not asked to do much either, only to inquire, that the confinement conformed with the fundamentals of the law. If not - to order the immediate release of the prisoner. A fundamental consensus of the international civilized human community today, one of the cornerstones of the U.S. Constitution, and most likely - the quintessential contribution of the English speaking courts to mankind in over half a millennium. Establishing in the law - as the protection of individual Liberty.
A Nitpicker
What are the fundamental? It's the nitpickers again!
We should leave it to the Circuit Judges, who split hairs on such questions day in and day out: What's the validity of an arrest, which started under exigency, with no warrant, while the warrant was getting written, but the exigency turned into non-exigency, before the warrant was completed... Tough cases...That's their specialty.
Here we have a man in solitary confinement for 7 months with no (1) Warrant, and no (2) Sentencing/Judgment, and (3) No Register of Actions. The Circuit Judges owe us also an explanation of their unsigned denial Order. Just to make it clear: I was on the service list, and I was served with the Order. The one served on me, was unsigned as well, and it came with no authentication (NEF) by the court either, just like all the papers from the U.S. District Court
[3]. Unsigned orders by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, are nothing new either. They may justify such inexcusable practice to themselves as necessary in response to the burden of "frivolous prisoner's petitions", The legal profession remained dumb on the unsigned denial by the prominent court, as it was all along. It was left for lay-persons to spell out the disgrace.

To Sum It Up-
  • The LA Superior Court never entered effectual Sentencing/Judgment and never issued an effectual Warrant...
  • The Sheriff Department never performed effectual Booking and was keeping Richard Fine jailed under false registration and "off the record".
  • The U.S. District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued court papers, that looked to lay-persons like Orders and Judgments, but lacked authentication, and in the case of the Court of Appeals also lacked endorsement by the Judges. Therefor such papers were ineffectual for any purpose, moreover - they were false and deliberately misleading.
  • None of it was news. It was a widespread practice in the U.S.
  • Here - such practice was applied in catering to the LA-JR.
All four justice system agencies worked in concert through false court records and deceptive case management systems to cater to the LA-JR and to deprive Richard Fine of Liberty (lay-person's language).

Part II - Hips by Beyonce, and denial of access to Court Records.
The Register of Actions sounded cool and exciting... I wondered why there was no video game yet - karate, or kung fu could be best with that title. I was resolved to do my best to get a copy of this critical record, which was never seen even by
Richard Fine himself!
The Register of Actions
Court papers were Public Records - I knew. The right also originated in English Common Law, and dates hundreds of years back, as essential for the public's ability to supervise the integrity of the courts, and prevent undocumented imprisonments and other abuses. In fact, it was said that the Habeas Corpus and the right to Access Court Records were connected at the hips. I am don't know about that. I have been working at it for several months, but so far I have seen no records, no hips, no thighs and no chicken wings, nada...
Hips by Beyonce
To make sure, that I got it right, I called a Civil Rights organization, which kindly told me that it was a slam dunk, guaranteed by the First Amendment relative to Court papers. On top of that, they told me, in California we were ahead of pack, because even the Arrest and Booking papers were public records thanks to the California Public Records Act. They said that they routinely got the papers produced in other counties of California. They even gave me the code section and the subsection to put in the letters.

1) Denial of Access to Records by the Sheriff's Department
Regardless, access to the Arrest and Booking papers from the Sheriff Department was denied. In fact, I was convinced that it was a flimflam, and there were no papers at all. The last I heard from Commander Liang was "The Sheriff's Department practices full transparency". And the papers? "If you want to see the paper you would have to get a court order for that". In addition, the information that was provided regarding Richard Fine in the official online Inmate Information Center, was false and deliberately misleading.[4]
The Old Flimflam
2) Denial of Access to Records by the LA Superior Court
I was also denied the right to access the Register of Actions by the LA Superior Court, That's how we run the business of Justice in Los Angeles, For years, both civil and criminal litigations are conducted with the quintessential litigation records being hidden from the litigants, but secretly shared with review courts. What I got in response to pressing my requests was a series of long letters from a guy who said that he was "Counsel" for the court... I never knew that the court needed a lawyer to answer such simple request.

3) Denial of Access to Records by the U.S. District Court, LA and elsewhere
The U.S. District Court denied requests for access to records in recent months as well. There were substantial concerns regarding dishonest manipulation of the paper records that were filed on behalf f Richard Fine from jail, while he was denied access to pen and paper, and could not review the paper, either before or after the filing.
Most alarming was the fact that the U.S. Courts, in a way were following the practice of the LA Superior Court, with the completion of the installation of the courts' case management systems,
Pacer & CM/ECF, which are opined here as inherently abusive and in violation of the law. The denial of access to NEFs was inexplicable. However, it was not unique to the U.S. District Court in LA, it was seen directly in the District Court in Washington DC, and also in the U.S. District Court in NYC, and in both cases - in was related to dishonestly, or worse. Experience with two other U.S. Courts, in two additional states, suggested the same, although the last two were never carried all the way to denial of explicit requests.
The only plausible explanation of the facts, and experiences beyond those described here, was that there was a concerted instruction, most likely originating from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which trained the various courts to deny access to NEFs, which was seen as inherently fraudulent, and undermining the court system from its core.

4) Denial of Access to Records by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District
The experience was repeated at the U.S. Court of Appeals, which denies to this date the NEFs, if they ever existed.

5) Denial of Access - prerequisite for widespread judicial corruption; Restoration of access - to immediate remedy.
There was no plausible explanation why an honest court would establish such practices. More specifically - in cases where the Registers of Actions of the LA superior Court were obtained, these records were the most direct evidence of the conduct by the enterprise of a pattern of racketeering activity of the
Already over a a year ago it was recognized that the U.S. government had no power to directly confront the powerful LA-JR. However, it was also recognized that the operation of the LA-JR was entirely dependent on the denial of access to computerized records in case management systems. Therefore, requests were forwarded to the U.S. Attorney General, then Michael Mukasey to restore public access to public records in LA County, as quintessential Equal Protection. We believe that capturing the case management system of the LA Superior Court and allowing public access could be easily accomplished, almost overnight, at minimal cost, and large positive impact. There was no way to explain the refusal of the U.S. government to restore public access to court records.

We are also confident that restoration of public access would lead to speedy release of the thousands of
Rampart FIPs- left falsely imprisoned over the past decade.

When no response was received, the Honorable
Dianne Feinstein, Senator, and the Honorable Diane Watson, Congresswoman filed Congressional Inquiries. Responses that were then received from Kenneth Melson- Director, U.S. Dept of Justice, and Kenneth Kaiser - FBI Assistant Director, Criminal Investigations, were false and deliberately misleading. Combined with other evidence they demonstrated patronizing of the LA-JR by such senior U.S. Officers. Evidence likewise demonstrated the intimate relationship between the LA-JR and Countrywide - a corrupt organization that the FBI refused to investigate. More alarming, was the fact the Countrywide, now as a subsidiary of Bank of America, was continuing activity that amounted to racketeering even today.

In short -
1) Refusal by U.S. Government to restore public access to court records was inexplicable and amounted to denial of Equal Protection and various other Human Rights pursuant to ratified International Law.
2) Restoration of Public Access to Court records would result in immediate inactivation of the
LA-JR, release of those who were falsely imprisoned, and restoration of Human Rights.
3) There was no chance to restore banking regulation while corruption of the courts was allowed to continue unchecked.

The Old Flimflam

Epilogue in Re: Richard Fine
So where does it leave us?
We must insist on the immediate release of Richard Fine, since none of the fundamentals of the law were ever produced in this case - a Warrant, a Judgment, or a Register of Actions.

Alternatively - Why not just move
Richard Fine to Guantanamo Bay, and "pronounce" him a Detainee?

Joe Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
End Notes:
Additional evidence found in blog:
Records are archived at:

Recent review papers inclued:

[1] Atty Richard Fine's sentencing proceeding, in Marina v LA County, was a different story altogether. It was widely reported by media, who were present in the courtroom, at Mosk- downtown LA... It purportedly took place on March 4, 2009... and Atty Fine was arrested by 11:05am... These reporters were of course all deluded... Just because media were there, witnessing Judge David Yaffe saying that he was sentencing Richard Fine to "continuous confinement", and just because Richard Fine was immediately after that arrested by the Warrant Detail, of the Sheriff Department of the County of Los Angeles, didn't mean a thing... It was an alleged "off the record" Calendar Fraud combined with little Warrant Fraud - the old flimflam... These reporters should have reviewed the list below, before reporting what they thought they witnessed to the public at large... It is obvious that the reporters were all deluded... because the computer system of the Sheriff Department shows that it indeed took place on March 4, 2009, at 11:05, ok, but not in Mosk downtown, but instead, in the Never-Existed-Municipal Dept 86, in San Pedro... As far as I am concerned - I would trust the computer systems of the Courts and the Sheriff before I trust any deluded reporter...
The missing Warrant
The word "Warrant" never appears in the Report and Recommendation. On the other hand, the word "Warrant" does appear in the code sections that Magistrate Woehrle cited as the basis for the jailing:
Cal Code Civ Proc 1211-1219.

1113 ...judge must direct, by an endorsement on the warrant...
1219a)(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), when thecontempt consists of the omission to perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, he or she may be imprisoned until he or she has performed it, and in that case the act shall be specified in the warrant of commitment.
However, in the case of Richard Fine, there was no (a) warrant, there was no (b) endorsement,by a judge there was (c) no specification in the non-warrant of the act to be performed, and there was (d) no reference to any other record which provides the authority for the confinement, or specifies the act to be performed. Instead, the Deputy Clerk issued a Remand Order. That too, much later in the afternoon, it was faxed at 4:31pm, while the arrest took place at 11:05am, and the false booking was falsely listed as if it took place at 12:23pm at San Pedro. No exigency either...
[3] Back to the Delusional Proceeding on March 4, 2009:
Careful review of the Report and recommendation reveals that Magistrate Woehrle was aware of the schizophrenic nature of that proceeding. In listing the ancillary proceedings that were part of the unnamed litigation under review she stated:
"Trial was held before Judge Yaffe on December 22, 24, 26, and 30, 2008, and January 8, 12, and 22, 2009." (p8)
The was March 4, 2009 proceeding as part of it!
Later, when she needed to find the basis for the sentencing, she stated:
"Judge Yaffe pronounced sentence on March 4, 2009." (p9)
Therefore, the sentencing was oral sentencing only, and the evidence that she brings for it was a Transcript...
[4] Denial of Access to Records by the Sheriff Department
Attempts to access the Sheriff's records were more elaborate. I asked for the Warrant and Arrest and Booking. I faxed the requests, and receipt was confirmed, and for some three weeks, I was on the phone almost daily with Sergeant Burson, and Commander Liang. First, they sent me to the Jail's Front Office, downtown LA. My request was denied for considerations related to the safety of the inmates. I was sent to Cindy, in the Discovery Unit, in City of Commerce. Cindy was confused, she could not figure out why they sent me to her. Then I was directed to Municipal Division 86 in San Pedro. They said that Richard Fine was arrested and booked in San Pedro, that is the official information online Inmate Information Center. The problem was- there was no such thing as Municipal Division 86 in San Pedro, and no Booking facilities there either. Then Sergeant Burson told me that the Legal Department of the Sheriff's office may allow me to see the paper, which he called "Removal Order", and I call Remand Order. I also pointed out to Sheriff Lee Baca's office that the arrest was reported by media, and the data in the Sheriff system was obviously false. After that - they would not answer any more questions regarding the papers. All they got, and all that was ever produced in the past was that order which was no Warrant for sure.
[5] Office of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles
Both the offices of the Clerks - John A Clarke of LA Superior Court, and Terry Nafisi - U.S. District Court, LA, are key to the operations of the LA-JR, which are based on creating false litigation records, which are falsely represented as true court records.
a) There were also some additional issues related to concerns of dishonest manipulation of the paper records of the Habeas Corpus Petition of
Richard Fine, Sharon McGee - Supervisor of the Intake Unit at the U.S. District Court, LA, a brave woman, said that she agreed with me regarding my concerns, and that she took the initiative to raise it with the Court of Carla Woehrle herself. For a couple of months I then tried to correspond with Terry Nafisi, the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, on the matter, but it got nowhere. So on Sept 18, 2009, I went in person, and hand delivered s letter to the duty clerk, asking to see the habeas corpus paper record, which was filed on behalf of Richard Fine. The Duty Clerk gave me a NO on the this one. He claimed that the petition had been shredded. I later sent a written request to access, inspect, and copy, the records of the shredding. Never got an answer.
b) I also asked to see the authentication of the records (NEFs) of the habeas corpus case. I got a NO on this one as well, with no explanation at all.

[6] The Fingerprints of the LA-JR
Nothing in all of this is new. I call it the "Fingerprints of the LA-JR". We was the most common feature in the cases we collected.
a) Issuance of invalid ineffectual court papers, which were then used as valid and effectual in fraud on the people.
b) Fraud in the entry of judgment was standard procedure, it was likely to be seen as the trademark of the LA-JR - based on eliminating the Book of Judgments.
c) Fraud in coercing an un-appointed referee to execute such false judgments was also common.
d) Most civil cases were real estate related. That is where the money was.
e) False imprisonment - were th
e true speciality of the LA-JR. We have thousands of Rampart-FIPs who were never release in the past decade.
More on the LA-JR - on the blog

2.2.1FINE V SHERIFF (09-71692) ALL-CRIM,
2.3.1FINE V SHERIFF (2:09-CV-01914),
3.3.4MARINA V COUNTY (BS109420),