Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:25:16 -0700
To: joseph zernik
From: joseph zernik jz12345@earthlink.net
To: joseph zernik
From: joseph zernik jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: Richard Fine: Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court - seeking counsel for filing Amicus Brief. Time is of the essence!
Dear All:
Fine v Baca (09-A827) application by Richard Fine, which was submitted to Justice Anthony Kennedy, was claimed denied on March 12, 2010. The US Supreme Court docket now shows that the application was resubmitted by Richard Fine to Justice Ginsburg, and was scheduled for a conference on April 23, 2010. Fine, as usual, based his arguments on issues of "not permitted" payments, disqualifications, and judicial authority, or lack thereof.
I have in my possession unique records, which I recently obtained in the case, and which were not even mentioned in the application by the imprisoned Richard Fine. I do not believe that he had any knowledge of them. I believe that such records are critical for the review of the case by the US Supreme Court. Such records provide an entirely alternative approach to the case, following the late Justice Brennan's writing in Fay v Noia (1963):
Fine v Baca (09-A827) application by Richard Fine, which was submitted to Justice Anthony Kennedy, was claimed denied on March 12, 2010. The US Supreme Court docket now shows that the application was resubmitted by Richard Fine to Justice Ginsburg, and was scheduled for a conference on April 23, 2010. Fine, as usual, based his arguments on issues of "not permitted" payments, disqualifications, and judicial authority, or lack thereof.
I have in my possession unique records, which I recently obtained in the case, and which were not even mentioned in the application by the imprisoned Richard Fine. I do not believe that he had any knowledge of them. I believe that such records are critical for the review of the case by the US Supreme Court. Such records provide an entirely alternative approach to the case, following the late Justice Brennan's writing in Fay v Noia (1963):
"The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a civilized society... if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release".
The records detailed below demonstrate that there never were any records that conformed with the fundamental requirements of the law as foundation for the imprisonment of Richard I Fine. Therefore - he was and is entitled to his immediate release.
The Rules of the US Supreme Court allow the filing of Amicus Brief only by attorneys admitted to that court. I therefore seek your help in finding an attorney who would be ready, willing, able to immediately file the records listed above with the US Supreme Court.
Time is of the essence, your help would be appreciated.
Truly,
![[]](file:///C:/Users/DRZ~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/02/clip_image001.jpg){kind=small}
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
FINE V BACA (09-A827) - RECORDS OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT WERE NEVER PRESENTED AT THE US SUPREME COURT
Such records show that at every level, the case of Richard Fine was compromised by false and deliberately misleading records, and that there was and there is no valid record to provide the legal foundation for his confinement.
The matter has significance far beyond the case of Richard Fine himself. It demonstrates the fundamental compromised integrity of case management and public access systems in all agencies involved in the case, denial of the right to Access Court Records - to inspect and to copy, discrimination against pro se filers - in denial of the right for Notice and Service of NEFs and NDAs, and failure of the three courts involved to establish their practices related to case management and public access systems in Local Rules of Courts, in compliance with State of California and US Rule Making Enabling Acts.
RECORDS:
a) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - Civil litigation on real estate matter at the Los Angeles Superior Court: Review of the records in the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, demonstrates false and deliberately misleading records for the purported judgment and sentencing of Richard Fine, which were never entered as required by California law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24738673/09-10-13-Richard-Fine-Petition-filed-with-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-of-Los-Angeles-County-to-free-Richard-Fine
b) Marina v LA County (BS109420): Correspondence with the Los Angeles Superior Court, which to this date denies access to the Register of Actions (California Docket) in Marina v LA County (BS109420) the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, and the related case of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - a request for injunction against the "not permitted" payments by LA County to the judges. Therefore, the habeas corpus and the appeal were both incredibly reviewed with no access to the record that would have provided the foundation for any other record in the case of Richard Fine's arrest and imprisonment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29603035/09-07-28-30-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Correspondence-with-senior-Deputy-Clerk-Gregory-Drepac-denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602633/09-07-28-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-Bennett-Response-Denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602878/09-07-29-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-Bennett-Response-No2-Denial-of-Access-to-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340297/09-07-31-Richard-Fine-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Request-to-Access-Court-Records-s
c) Inmate Richard Fine (1824367): Arrest and Booking Records of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - Correspondence between Sheriff Baca to Supervisor Antonovich, in response to inquiry on my behalf - Why Sheriff Baca would not provide access to the true arrest and booking records, and why he would not correct false records, posted online, stating that Richard Fine was arrested and booked by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro.
In his response, the sheriff's "Risk Reduction Unit" simply repeated the mailing of the false records, and claimed that California Public Records Act did not require that it produce records which did not exist.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/10-01-08-Supervisor-Antonovich-Los-Angeles-County-repeat-mailing-of-January-8-2010-response-from-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-in-re-Richard-Fine-papers-inclu
Sample of true Los Angeles County Booking records, and the various manipulations of such records by the Sheriff's Department:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29383730/10-04-03-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-s-Department-Multiplicity-of-False-and-Deliberately-Misleading-Booking-Records-s
d) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Habeas Corpus Petition at the US District Court, Los Angeles - Correspondence with the California Judicial Council, documenting false and deliberately practices in retaining of counsel - Kevin McCormick, and refusal of the Council to review the alleged fraud in appearance and papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28787678/10-03-22-Richard-Fine-Final-Response-by-Mr-Carrizosa-California-Judicial-Council-Re-Case-Caption-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28821400/10-03-23-Richard-Fine-Request-Chief-Justice-Ronald-George-Investigation-Corrective-Actions-in-Conduct-of-Attorney-Kevin-McCormick-on-Behalf-of-the-Ca
e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): False declaration and records filed by Attorney McCormick, falsely appearing, in response to the habeas corpus petition
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26609353/09-03-04-Fine-v-Sheriff-2-09-cv-01914-False-Fine-Judgment-Records-filed-May-1-2009-by-LA-Superior-Court-as-purported-response-in-US-District-Court
e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) from US District Court, showing the invalidity of the June 29, 2009 Judgment of the US District Court and the February 12, 2010 Mandate of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525744/10-03-25-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-CM-ECF-case-management-system-of-the-US-Dist-Court-Los-Angeles-s
f) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Correspondence with the Clerk of the US District Court, LA - Terry Nafisi, who refused to state that the docket was honest, valid and effectual, or to explain why a person who was not a Deputy Clerk constructed such docket.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340585/09-08-01-Complaint-and-Request-for-Investigation-Filed-with-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-Court-Regarding-Dishonest-Manipulation-of-Records-of-the-Hab
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24776792/10-01-04-Request-Clarifications-by-US-District-Court-LA-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-in-re-PACER-CM-ECF-and-denial-of-access-to-records-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25329054/10-01-17-Req-Responses-by-Clerk-of-Us-Court-Terry-Nafisi-Re-Integrity-of-Dockets-in-Zernik-v-Connor-and-Fine-v-Sheriff-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25442978/10-01-19-Office-of-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-US-Court-still-researching-whether-the-dockets-of-the-court-were-honest-valid-and-effectual-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28342152/10-03-14-Richard-Fine-Repeat-Complaint-Filed-With-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-US-Court-Los-Angeles-re-Alleged-Fraud-and-Abuse-in-Records-of-Fine-v-S
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28866417/10-03-16-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Response-to-Zernik-s-Request-for-Clarifications-re-NEFs-and-Complaints-re-Tampering-wit
g) Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) - Appeal at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - unsigned orders and an invalid NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity) for the February 12, 2010 Mandate from US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/10-03-27-Addendum-1-to-Request-for-Opinions-Re-CM-ECF-case-management-system-of-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-as-reviewed-in-orders-in-Fine
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/10-04-05-Addendum-2-to-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-Case-management-system-NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s
Such records show that at every level, the case of Richard Fine was compromised by false and deliberately misleading records, and that there was and there is no valid record to provide the legal foundation for his confinement.
The matter has significance far beyond the case of Richard Fine himself. It demonstrates the fundamental compromised integrity of case management and public access systems in all agencies involved in the case, denial of the right to Access Court Records - to inspect and to copy, discrimination against pro se filers - in denial of the right for Notice and Service of NEFs and NDAs, and failure of the three courts involved to establish their practices related to case management and public access systems in Local Rules of Courts, in compliance with State of California and US Rule Making Enabling Acts.
RECORDS:
a) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - Civil litigation on real estate matter at the Los Angeles Superior Court: Review of the records in the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, demonstrates false and deliberately misleading records for the purported judgment and sentencing of Richard Fine, which were never entered as required by California law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24738673/09-10-13-Richard-Fine-Petition-filed-with-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-of-Los-Angeles-County-to-free-Richard-Fine
b) Marina v LA County (BS109420): Correspondence with the Los Angeles Superior Court, which to this date denies access to the Register of Actions (California Docket) in Marina v LA County (BS109420) the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, and the related case of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - a request for injunction against the "not permitted" payments by LA County to the judges. Therefore, the habeas corpus and the appeal were both incredibly reviewed with no access to the record that would have provided the foundation for any other record in the case of Richard Fine's arrest and imprisonment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29603035/09-07-28-30-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Correspondence-with-senior-Deputy-Clerk-Gregory-Drepac-denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602633/09-07-28-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-Bennett-Response-Denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602878/09-07-29-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-Bennett-Response-No2-Denial-of-Access-to-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340297/09-07-31-Richard-Fine-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Request-to-Access-Court-Records-s
c) Inmate Richard Fine (1824367): Arrest and Booking Records of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - Correspondence between Sheriff Baca to Supervisor Antonovich, in response to inquiry on my behalf - Why Sheriff Baca would not provide access to the true arrest and booking records, and why he would not correct false records, posted online, stating that Richard Fine was arrested and booked by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro.
In his response, the sheriff's "Risk Reduction Unit" simply repeated the mailing of the false records, and claimed that California Public Records Act did not require that it produce records which did not exist.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/10-01-08-Supervisor-Antonovich-Los-Angeles-County-repeat-mailing-of-January-8-2010-response-from-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-in-re-Richard-Fine-papers-inclu
Sample of true Los Angeles County Booking records, and the various manipulations of such records by the Sheriff's Department:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29383730/10-04-03-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-s-Department-Multiplicity-of-False-and-Deliberately-Misleading-Booking-Records-s
d) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Habeas Corpus Petition at the US District Court, Los Angeles - Correspondence with the California Judicial Council, documenting false and deliberately practices in retaining of counsel - Kevin McCormick, and refusal of the Council to review the alleged fraud in appearance and papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28787678/10-03-22-Richard-Fine-Final-Response-by-Mr-Carrizosa-California-Judicial-Council-Re-Case-Caption-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28821400/10-03-23-Richard-Fine-Request-Chief-Justice-Ronald-George-Investigation-Corrective-Actions-in-Conduct-of-Attorney-Kevin-McCormick-on-Behalf-of-the-Ca
e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): False declaration and records filed by Attorney McCormick, falsely appearing, in response to the habeas corpus petition
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26609353/09-03-04-Fine-v-Sheriff-2-09-cv-01914-False-Fine-Judgment-Records-filed-May-1-2009-by-LA-Superior-Court-as-purported-response-in-US-District-Court
e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) from US District Court, showing the invalidity of the June 29, 2009 Judgment of the US District Court and the February 12, 2010 Mandate of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525744/10-03-25-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-CM-ECF-case-management-system-of-the-US-Dist-Court-Los-Angeles-s
f) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Correspondence with the Clerk of the US District Court, LA - Terry Nafisi, who refused to state that the docket was honest, valid and effectual, or to explain why a person who was not a Deputy Clerk constructed such docket.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340585/09-08-01-Complaint-and-Request-for-Investigation-Filed-with-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-Court-Regarding-Dishonest-Manipulation-of-Records-of-the-Hab
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24776792/10-01-04-Request-Clarifications-by-US-District-Court-LA-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-in-re-PACER-CM-ECF-and-denial-of-access-to-records-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25329054/10-01-17-Req-Responses-by-Clerk-of-Us-Court-Terry-Nafisi-Re-Integrity-of-Dockets-in-Zernik-v-Connor-and-Fine-v-Sheriff-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25442978/10-01-19-Office-of-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-US-Court-still-researching-whether-the-dockets-of-the-court-were-honest-valid-and-effectual-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28342152/10-03-14-Richard-Fine-Repeat-Complaint-Filed-With-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-US-Court-Los-Angeles-re-Alleged-Fraud-and-Abuse-in-Records-of-Fine-v-S
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28866417/10-03-16-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Response-to-Zernik-s-Request-for-Clarifications-re-NEFs-and-Complaints-re-Tampering-wit
g) Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) - Appeal at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - unsigned orders and an invalid NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity) for the February 12, 2010 Mandate from US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/10-03-27-Addendum-1-to-Request-for-Opinions-Re-CM-ECF-case-management-system-of-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-as-reviewed-in-orders-in-Fine
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/10-04-05-Addendum-2-to-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-Case-management-system-NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s
Para:
Asunto: Richard Fine: Fine v Baca (09-A827) en la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. - que buscan un abogado para la presentación de Amicus Brief. El tiempo es esencial!Queridos todos:Fine v Baca (09-A827) la aplicación por Richard Fine, que se presentó al juez Anthony Kennedy, se alegó negó el 12 de marzo de 2010. Suprema de los EE.UU. Corte de expediente pone de manifiesto que la solicitud fue presentada nuevamente por Richard Fine a la Jueza Ginsburg, y estaba programado para una conferencia el 23 de abril de 2010. Bien, como siempre, basó sus argumentos en cuestiones de "no permitidos" pagos, penas privativas de derechos, y la autoridad judicial, o falta de ella.
Tengo en mi poder los registros únicos, que obtuvo recientemente en el caso, y que ni siquiera se mencionaron en la solicitud por los encarcelados Bellas Richard. No creo que él tenía conocimiento de ellos. Creo que estos registros son fundamentales para la revisión del caso por la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU.. Estos registros proporcionan un enfoque totalmente alternativo al caso, a raíz de la escritura a finales Brennan Justicia en Fay v Noia (1963):"El principio básico de la Escritura de los Grandes del hábeas corpus es que, en una sociedad civilizada ... si la prisión no se puede demostrar que cumplen los requisitos fundamentales del derecho, el individuo tiene derecho a su liberación inmediata".Los registros detallados a continuación demuestran que no ha habido ningún registro que se ajustaban a los requisitos fundamentales de la ley como base para el encarcelamiento de Richard I Fine. Por lo tanto - que era y tiene derecho a su liberación inmediata.
El Reglamento de la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. permitirá la presentación de Amicus Brief sólo por los abogados admitidos en los tribunales. Por lo tanto, solicito su ayuda para encontrar un abogado que sería estar listo, dispuesto, capaz de presentar inmediatamente los registros antes mencionados con la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU..
El tiempo es la esencia, su ayuda sería apreciada.
En verdad,
José Zernik, PhD
Alerta de los Derechos Humanos (HRA), ONG
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
FINE V BACA (09-A827) - RECORDS OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT WERE NEVER PRESENTED AT THE US SUPREME COURT
Such records show that at every level, the case of Richard Fine was compromised by false and deliberately misleading records, and that there was and there is no valid record to provide the legal foundation for his confinement.
The matter has significance far beyond the case of Richard Fine himself. It demonstrates the fundamental compromised integrity of case management and public access systems in all agencies involved in the case, denial of the right to Access Court Records - to inspect and to copy, discrimination against pro se filers - in denial of the right for Notice and Service of NEFs and NDAs, and failure of the three courts involved to establish their practices related to case management and public access systems in Local Rules of Courts, in compliance with State of California and US Rule Making Enabling Acts.
RECORDS:
a) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - Civil litigation on real estate matter at the Los Angeles Superior Court: Review of the records in the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, demonstrates false and deliberately misleading records for the purported judgment and sentencing of Richard Fine, which were never entered as required by California law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24738673/09-10-13-Richard-Fine-Petition-filed-with-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-of-Los-Angeles-County-to-free-Richard-Fine
b) Marina v LA County (BS109420): Correspondence with the Los Angeles Superior Court, which to this date denies access to the Register of Actions (California Docket) in Marina v LA County (BS109420) the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, and the related case of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - a request for injunction against the "not permitted" payments by LA County to the judges. Therefore, the habeas corpus and the appeal were both incredibly reviewed with no access to the record that would have provided the foundation for any other record in the case of Richard Fine's arrest and imprisonment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29603035/09-07-28-30-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Correspondence-with-senior-Deputy-Clerk-Gregory-Drepac-denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602633/09-07-28-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-Bennett-Response-Denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602878/09-07-29-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-Bennett-Response-No2-Denial-of-Access-to-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340297/09-07-31-Richard-Fine-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Request-to-Access-Court-Records-s
c) Inmate Richard Fine (1824367): Arrest and Booking Records of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - Correspondence between Sheriff Baca to Supervisor Antonovich, in response to inquiry on my behalf - Why Sheriff Baca would not provide access to the true arrest and booking records, and why he would not correct false records, posted online, stating that Richard Fine was arrested and booked by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro.
In his response, the sheriff's "Risk Reduction Unit" simply repeated the mailing of the false records, and claimed that California Public Records Act did not require that it produce records which did not exist.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/10-01-08-Supervisor-Antonovich-Los-Angeles-County-repeat-mailing-of-January-8-2010-response-from-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-in-re-Richard-Fine-papers-inclu
Sample of true Los Angeles County Booking records, and the various manipulations of such records by the Sheriff's Department:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29383730/10-04-03-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-s-Department-Multiplicity-of-False-and-Deliberately-Misleading-Booking-Records-s
d) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Habeas Corpus Petition at the US District Court, Los Angeles - Correspondence with the California Judicial Council, documenting false and deliberately practices in retaining of counsel - Kevin McCormick, and refusal of the Council to review the alleged fraud in appearance and papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28787678/10-03-22-Richard-Fine-Final-Response-by-Mr-Carrizosa-California-Judicial-Council-Re-Case-Caption-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28821400/10-03-23-Richard-Fine-Request-Chief-Justice-Ronald-George-Investigation-Corrective-Actions-in-Conduct-of-Attorney-Kevin-McCormick-on-Behalf-of-the-Ca
e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): False declaration and records filed by Attorney McCormick, falsely appearing, in response to the habeas corpus petition
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26609353/09-03-04-Fine-v-Sheriff-2-09-cv-01914-False-Fine-Judgment-Records-filed-May-1-2009-by-LA-Superior-Court-as-purported-response-in-US-District-Court
e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) from US District Court, showing the invalidity of the June 29, 2009 Judgment of the US District Court and the February 12, 2010 Mandate of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525744/10-03-25-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-CM-ECF-case-management-system-of-the-US-Dist-Court-Los-Angeles-s
f) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Correspondence with the Clerk of the US District Court, LA - Terry Nafisi, who refused to state that the docket was honest, valid and effectual, or to explain why a person who was not a Deputy Clerk constructed such docket.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340585/09-08-01-Complaint-and-Request-for-Investigation-Filed-with-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-Court-Regarding-Dishonest-Manipulation-of-Records-of-the-Hab
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24776792/10-01-04-Request-Clarifications-by-US-District-Court-LA-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-in-re-PACER-CM-ECF-and-denial-of-access-to-records-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25329054/10-01-17-Req-Responses-by-Clerk-of-Us-Court-Terry-Nafisi-Re-Integrity-of-Dockets-in-Zernik-v-Connor-and-Fine-v-Sheriff-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25442978/10-01-19-Office-of-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-US-Court-still-researching-whether-the-dockets-of-the-court-were-honest-valid-and-effectual-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28342152/10-03-14-Richard-Fine-Repeat-Complaint-Filed-With-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-US-Court-Los-Angeles-re-Alleged-Fraud-and-Abuse-in-Records-of-Fine-v-S
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28866417/10-03-16-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Response-to-Zernik-s-Request-for-Clarifications-re-NEFs-and-Complaints-re-Tampering-wit
g) Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) - Appeal at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - unsigned orders and an invalid NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity) for the February 12, 2010 Mandate from US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/10-03-27-Addendum-1-to-Request-for-Opinions-Re-CM-ECF-case-management-system-of-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-as-reviewed-in-orders-in-Fine
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/10-04-05-Addendum-2-to-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-Case-management-system-NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s
Such records show that at every level, the case of Richard Fine was compromised by false and deliberately misleading records, and that there was and there is no valid record to provide the legal foundation for his confinement.
The matter has significance far beyond the case of Richard Fine himself. It demonstrates the fundamental compromised integrity of case management and public access systems in all agencies involved in the case, denial of the right to Access Court Records - to inspect and to copy, discrimination against pro se filers - in denial of the right for Notice and Service of NEFs and NDAs, and failure of the three courts involved to establish their practices related to case management and public access systems in Local Rules of Courts, in compliance with State of California and US Rule Making Enabling Acts.
RECORDS:
a) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - Civil litigation on real estate matter at the Los Angeles Superior Court: Review of the records in the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, demonstrates false and deliberately misleading records for the purported judgment and sentencing of Richard Fine, which were never entered as required by California law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24738673/09-10-13-Richard-Fine-Petition-filed-with-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-of-Los-Angeles-County-to-free-Richard-Fine
b) Marina v LA County (BS109420): Correspondence with the Los Angeles Superior Court, which to this date denies access to the Register of Actions (California Docket) in Marina v LA County (BS109420) the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, and the related case of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - a request for injunction against the "not permitted" payments by LA County to the judges. Therefore, the habeas corpus and the appeal were both incredibly reviewed with no access to the record that would have provided the foundation for any other record in the case of Richard Fine's arrest and imprisonment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29603035/09-07-28-30-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Correspondence-with-senior-Deputy-Clerk-Gregory-Drepac-denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602633/09-07-28-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-Bennett-Response-Denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602878/09-07-29-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-Bennett-Response-No2-Denial-of-Access-to-Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340297/09-07-31-Richard-Fine-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Request-to-Access-Court-Records-s
c) Inmate Richard Fine (1824367): Arrest and Booking Records of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - Correspondence between Sheriff Baca to Supervisor Antonovich, in response to inquiry on my behalf - Why Sheriff Baca would not provide access to the true arrest and booking records, and why he would not correct false records, posted online, stating that Richard Fine was arrested and booked by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro.
In his response, the sheriff's "Risk Reduction Unit" simply repeated the mailing of the false records, and claimed that California Public Records Act did not require that it produce records which did not exist.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/10-01-08-Supervisor-Antonovich-Los-Angeles-County-repeat-mailing-of-January-8-2010-response-from-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-in-re-Richard-Fine-papers-inclu
Sample of true Los Angeles County Booking records, and the various manipulations of such records by the Sheriff's Department:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29383730/10-04-03-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-s-Department-Multiplicity-of-False-and-Deliberately-Misleading-Booking-Records-s
d) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Habeas Corpus Petition at the US District Court, Los Angeles - Correspondence with the California Judicial Council, documenting false and deliberately practices in retaining of counsel - Kevin McCormick, and refusal of the Council to review the alleged fraud in appearance and papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28787678/10-03-22-Richard-Fine-Final-Response-by-Mr-Carrizosa-California-Judicial-Council-Re-Case-Caption-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28821400/10-03-23-Richard-Fine-Request-Chief-Justice-Ronald-George-Investigation-Corrective-Actions-in-Conduct-of-Attorney-Kevin-McCormick-on-Behalf-of-the-Ca
e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): False declaration and records filed by Attorney McCormick, falsely appearing, in response to the habeas corpus petition
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26609353/09-03-04-Fine-v-Sheriff-2-09-cv-01914-False-Fine-Judgment-Records-filed-May-1-2009-by-LA-Superior-Court-as-purported-response-in-US-District-Court
e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) from US District Court, showing the invalidity of the June 29, 2009 Judgment of the US District Court and the February 12, 2010 Mandate of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525744/10-03-25-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-CM-ECF-case-management-system-of-the-US-Dist-Court-Los-Angeles-s
f) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Correspondence with the Clerk of the US District Court, LA - Terry Nafisi, who refused to state that the docket was honest, valid and effectual, or to explain why a person who was not a Deputy Clerk constructed such docket.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340585/09-08-01-Complaint-and-Request-for-Investigation-Filed-with-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-Court-Regarding-Dishonest-Manipulation-of-Records-of-the-Hab
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24776792/10-01-04-Request-Clarifications-by-US-District-Court-LA-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-in-re-PACER-CM-ECF-and-denial-of-access-to-records-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25329054/10-01-17-Req-Responses-by-Clerk-of-Us-Court-Terry-Nafisi-Re-Integrity-of-Dockets-in-Zernik-v-Connor-and-Fine-v-Sheriff-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25442978/10-01-19-Office-of-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-US-Court-still-researching-whether-the-dockets-of-the-court-were-honest-valid-and-effectual-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28342152/10-03-14-Richard-Fine-Repeat-Complaint-Filed-With-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-US-Court-Los-Angeles-re-Alleged-Fraud-and-Abuse-in-Records-of-Fine-v-S
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28866417/10-03-16-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Response-to-Zernik-s-Request-for-Clarifications-re-NEFs-and-Complaints-re-Tampering-wit
g) Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) - Appeal at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - unsigned orders and an invalid NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity) for the February 12, 2010 Mandate from US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/10-03-27-Addendum-1-to-Request-for-Opinions-Re-CM-ECF-case-management-system-of-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-as-reviewed-in-orders-in-Fine
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/10-04-05-Addendum-2-to-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-Case-management-system-NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s
No comments:
Post a Comment