10-02-03 PR Log Press release in re: Complaint filed with SEC re: Bank of America and Brian Moynihan

PRLog

SEC Complaint Filed against Bank of America and Brian Moynihan

Complaint against Bank of America [NYSE:BAC] alleged fraud in periodic certifications and requested release of public records, prior to Feb 23, 2010 Special Stockholders’ Meeting. Concerns regarding fraud at BAC have mounted in the past two years. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PR Log (Press Release) – Feb 03, 2010 – Los Angeles, complaint was filed by Joseph Zernik, PhD, stockholder, against Bank of America Corporation [NYSE:BAC] and its new President, Brian Moynihan. Mary Schapiro, Chair of SEC, confirmed receipt. Stockholder also requested release of public records that would allow better assessment of integrity of operations at BAC prior to the February 23, 2010 Special Stockholders’ Meeting. Integrity of operations at BAC has been a major concern in the past two years, while investigation by NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and multiple litigations alleging securities fraud by BAC are underway.  Notice was requested by SEC regarding disposition of previous complaints, receipt of which was confirmed by Ms Schapiro on January 11, 2010, where SEC has failed so far to provide any response on the complaints.  Release was also requested of public records from ongoing litigation of SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) at the US District Court in NYC. The District Court, NYC and attorneys for both SEC and BAC so far denied access to such public records, and therefore cast doubts regarding the nature of the litigation and integrity of both the court and US banking regulation.  The new complaint alleged fraud in BAC's periodic certification pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), which required reporting of any fraud by management to the Audit Committee.  Correspondence with General Tommy Franks, former member of the Audit Committee, would lead one to conclude that BAC's management did not comply with such reporting duty.  Regarding the December 10, 2008 ouster of former General Counsel of BAC, Timothy Mayopoulos, and its replacement with Brian Moynihan, today BAC's President, it was alleged that it was correlated with resumption of fraud by the former Legal Department of Countrywide. BAC is the largest consumer deposit bank in the US today, following the 2008 waiver of deposit limit on the corporation.  BAC is also the recipient of some $200 in US bailout funds in the past two years alone, while multiple litigations alleging securities fraud against BAC are underway. Concerns regarding fraud by former president Kenneth Lewis led to his stepping down December 31, 2009. The complaint raises doubts that Lewis' replacement by Brian Moynihan amounted to any improved in integrity of management at BAC. Concerns were also raised world-wide in the past few years regarding dysfunctional US banking regulation, and consequently - high risks of US financial markets meltdown.  The complaint, and the request for release of public records addressed concerns regarding integrity of both BAC and US banking regulation. Special Stockholders Meeting of BAC was scheduled for February 23, 2010. # # # Dr Z, formerly a biomedical researcher, filed in January 2007 complaints with FBI and banking regulators against Countrywide Financial Corporation, alleging large-scale fraud against the US government, and predicting the sub-prime crisis. His inside information and predictions regarding the nature of operations and performance at Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation were repeatedly proved on target. # # # + Share This + Embed This Email to a Friend Email Contact : Click to email (Partial email =  @earthlink.net)  Issued By : Dr Z Phone : 323 515 4583 Address : PO Box 526 : La Verne, CA Zip : 91750 City/Town : Los Angeles State/Province : California Country : United States Categories : Finance, Government Tags : bank of america corporation, bac, sec, brian moynihan, sub-prime crisis, banking regulation, us banking bailout Last Updated : Feb 03, 2010 Shortcut : http://prlog.org/10518494

10-02-03 What is an entered record in the United States courts today- the essence of the fraud in CM/ECF...

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:11:15 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LA ET AL, FINE V SHERIFF

Scott:

Let me clarify it again.  If you read theCM/ECF Manual and theGeneral Order 08-02 you would realize that today the clerk no longer stamps the papers  "ENTERED" and signs his/her name to certify the entry of court paper. Instead, the only certification of entry is through the NEF, which is produced by the clerk through CM/ECF. In order for such certification of entry to be valid and effectual, the NEF must bear an RSA-encrypted digital signature. Such RSA-encrypted digital signature appears as a nonsense string of characters and numerals, about 4 lines long, at the bottom of the NEF.

Therefore, for the complaint inUS v City of LA et al, or Summons AS ISSUED BY CLERK (NOT SERVICE OF SUMMONS) to be valid and effectual, they had to have an NEF issued on them.  Similarly, for the petition for Habeas Corpus Fine v Sheriff to be deemed entered by the court, an NEF had to be issued on it, bearing a digital signature.

Absent such NEFs such papers were never deemed entered by the court. 

The key is in paragraph "O" of General Order 08-02. [1]  Since it appears hopeless that anybody here would ever read a document, I copy the paragraph in its entirety below.

Paragraph O (page 17) of the General Order 08-02 of the Central Distric of California states:[2]

 O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described

herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court.

The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United

States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An

encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the

NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming

the authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of

Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into CM/ECF,

the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the custody of

the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated document(s)

is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the court.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

[1] Again - I deem the General Order 08-02 an integral part of the fraud - since it was never signed, never authenticated by a clerk, and bears no name of a judge who authored it, yet Dawn Bullock, Supervisor of Records, US District Court, LA,  claimed that it was the one governing and authorizing the operations of CM/ECF at the Central District of California, and so does the CM/ECF manual of the Central District of California. Similar provisions can be found in other District Court throughout the United States. However, uniformly, the issue is made vague and ambiguous.

[2] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-pacer-cm-ecf-us-dist-ct-cacd-general-orders-08-02-authorizing-cm-ecf-digital-verification-of-attestation-in-nef.pdf

At 04:47 PM 2/3/2010, you wrote:

JZ, I think i understand your facts quite well, you allege no service of summons and complaint in USA v. LA.  Then you made a legal conclusion that the entire case was void because of this.  You are talking law. -- scott

JZ,  Insufficiency of service is a question of fact and law.  Your declaration that USA v. LA was void because of insufficiency of service is a question of law.  Why do you inject legal questions into your conclusions if you do not wish to discuss law.  -- scott

---

From: s_huminski@live.com
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL, and FINE V SHERIFF
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:59:34 -0500



JZ, Your refusal to read the law of the US Supreme Court and the Federal Rules interferes with your conclusion that USA v. LA was not initiated properly.  Thus, you ignore the law and continue on ranting. -- scott

JZ, since when does the opinion of anyone making comments on the internet overrule the US Supreme Court and the Federal Rules.  Are you truly this dim? -- scott

---

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:51:46 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LA ET AL, FINE V SHERIFF

Scott: Again, to apply the law, any rule or any supreme court decision, you must be familiar with the facts in the matter.   Somehow, reviewing the facts in the matter is the only thing you refuse to do... jz.


At 02:34 PM 2/3/2010, you wrote:

JZ, since when does the opinion of anyone making comments on the internet overrule the US Supreme Court and the Federal Rule.  Are you truly this dim? -- scott

 

---

From: s_huminski@live.com

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: FACT BASE DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LA ET AL

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:26:32 -0500

Again a false statement, I never claimed to inspect papers, i looked at the docket and could tell you were way out just from that.  I'm not going to look up the U.S. Supreme Court case law again or cite from the federal rules again to prove you dead wrong for the second time on the same issue.

 

Ok here it is again, Read JZ and don't make your stupid arguments over and over,

 

It is well settled that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction can be waived, see Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703-05 (1982), and, as to a defendant appearing in an action, the defense is deemed waived if not raised by motion before trial, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1). 

 

OK Mr. expert on law, a summons is not neccessary as it can be waived.  I guess the US Supreme Court and the federal rule are wrong.  JZ is the expert on everything.  In USA v. LA the trial phase was replaced with a joint consent agreement, a settlement.  SERVICE OF COMPLAINT AND SUMMONS WAS WAIVED.  Now stop this endless cr@p.   -- scott

---

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:47:01 -0800

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com

From: jz12345@earthlink.net

Subject: FACT BASE DISCUSSION: US V CITY OF LA ET AL

Scott:

1) You claimed to have inspected the papers.   Where did you find the certifications of Counsel for Defendants?

2) Regarding commencing court action with no summons at all, let me refer to:

a) Opinion of Brad - that the case must not be started with no summons being issued by the clerk.

b) Opinion of John Wolfgram (later reversed) that issuing of summons was not optional, but a must.

jz

At 01:00 PM 2/3/2010, you wrote:

Joe,  Your claim that USA v. LA was initiated improperly was dead wrong.  Fact, how about admitting it. You have lost all credibility. You are shooting from the hip with wild accusations.  See wolf's post on your sensational conclusions.  You are no PT Barnum, he was a better con-man.  -- scott

 

---

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:44:38 -0800

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com

From: jz12345@earthlink.net

Subject: Judges in the United States are prone to racketeering, evidence from California and elsewhere...

Scott:

Your response seemed to consider the claim of racketeering by judges as scandalous, or even incredible.  Attorney Gottschalk can provide you with the exact case captions. He seemed to be an encyclopedia of judicial corruption.  

California and US judges were prosecuted for racketeering in:

a) San Jose California

b) San Diego California

Outside of California there were conviction of judges for racketeering in:

c) Cook County, Illinois (Chicago, Greylord)

Currently there is prosecution of judges for racketeering in:

d) Luzerne County, PA.

Currently, a major case of judicial corruption is being prosecuted, with all papers sealed, for unclear reasons, so that the public has hardly any information, and in violation of Sixth Amendment right for public trial (I am referring to the right of the public, since I assume that the sealing in this case was meant to benefit the defendants), at:

e) El Paso Texas.

Finally:

I provided the US Attorney General office ample evidence of racketeering in the Los Angeles Courts already in early 2008, well before Richard Fine was arrested.  The US Attorney General office refused to respond.  Thereafter, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Diane Watson issued Congressional  Inquiries on the US Department of Justice and the FBI on my behalf:

Why they would not respond to my requests for equal protection of the 10 million residents of LA County. 

The responses provided by Director of the US Attorney General Office, Kenneth Melson, and Assistant Director Kenneth Kaiser of FBI to United States Congress, are the subject of my current complaint to the DOJ IG.  I claimed that;

a) Such responses reflected refusal of US officers to perform their duties and provide equal protection, and

b) Such responses reflected fraud by US officers on US Congress.

The two gentlemen never contradicted my claims of racketeering by the judges in Los Angeles. Instead, they provided false and deliberately misleading responses, such as:

a) That I never proved "federal investigational jurisdiction" it the matter, and

b) That I never claimed any "specific violation of federal law".

Needless to say, if such claims of racketeering by judges in Los Angeles County were out to lunch, I doubt that Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Watson would have issued inquiries on my behalf.

IN SHORT - Claiming that judges in the United States are prone to racketeering in no news any longer, surely not scandalous.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group.

To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en.

10-02-03 William Brennan Jr, Louis Brandeis, Richard Fine, and racketeering by judges in Los Angeles County, California

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:39:25 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: William Brennan Jr, Louis Brandeis, habeas corpus, and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), US Judge John Walter, US Magistrate Woehrle, California Judge David Yaffe, California Judge Charles McCoy, and the ongoing false hospitalization of Richard Fine.

 

Scott and John:

The habeas corpus was routinely called by the late Justice William Brennan Jr "The Great Writ", and a "Cornerstone of the United States Constitution".  The late Justice Louis Brandeis referred to it as the greatest achievement of the English-speaking legal system - establishing Liberty by law.

Let me offer again the simplest facts regarding Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), which you could review and ascertain or refute in the online papers in no time at all:

a. Sheriff was rightly named by Fine as Respondent, since he is holding Richard Fine.
b. Sheriff refused to respond, and never responded to the Hebeas Corpus petition of Fine.
c. Kevin McCormick appeared on behalf of Judge Yaffe and the Los Angeles Superior Court.
d. Kevin McCormick failed to file the required certifications as Counsel of Record for such parties.
e. Kevin McCormick filed papers with declaration by counsel alone.
f.  Kevin McCormick was not involved in the case prior to May1, 2009.
g. Kevin McCormick, therefore, was not a competent fact witness in the matter at all.
g. No declaration by Judge Yaffe or any other responding party can be found in the habeas corpus papers.
h. No signature whatsoever by Judge Yaffe or any other responding party can be found in the habeas corpus papers.

Please notice, that all the facts and the claims above do not require any true legal analysis, where I am not qualified at all. These are all facts "on the face" of the papers, regarding names, dates, signatures, certifications.

Regarding the validity of the case as a whole, I am eagerly expecting the NEFs of the Complaint and purported Judgment, if Brad would be allowed access to the records on February 8, 2010. I have been repeatedly denied access to the records by the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Los Angeles.

Let me add that the case of Richard Fine is a high visibility case, where the prisoner is a former US Prosecutor.  The habeas corpus petitions of prisoners, which I have reviewed in various courts, are routinely abused across the United States.   It is a right that was medieval in origin. Yet, we who live in Los Angeles County, California, are struggling in 2009 to restore such medieval right!

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!
__________

Most records in the respective caption can be found at: http://inproperinla.com/
Use the "Find" function in your browser (typically "Control F") and query for "fine_v_sheriff" [underlines, but no quotes].
You would get to the section of the archive holding the relevant papers.

jz

__________
At 12:02 PM 2/3/2010, you wrote:

Scott:
The secondary proof of the claims I made is that Fine was never held in jail proper, he never participated in almost a year in the three times a day mandatory counts of all inmates. Instead, he is kept confined in a hospital, for almost a year, while not sick.

Furthermore, the sheriff refused to allow access to the arrest and booking records, and finally, following inquiry by LA Supervisor Antonovich on my behalf, the legal department claimed that pursuant to California Public Records Act the sheriff was not required to allow access to records which do not exist... [1]

What the Sheriff provided instead of the arrest and booking papers, required by law, was fraudulent printout from a computer system that claimed that Richard Fine was arrested and booked by the non-existent Municipla Court of the City of San Pedro. [1] The arrest of Richard Fine was witnessed by many, and was reported by media. [2] It took place in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in the City of Los Angeles. [2] 
Again, all records are provided online for your convenience, so that you may comment on the facts in the matter.

jz

[1] Correspondence of Supervisor Antonovich, who inquired on behalf of Zernik with the Sheriff Baca for the arrest and booking papers of Mr Fine and Mr Gottschalk, and response by the Sheriff's Department, that they were not required by California Public Records Act to produced records which did not exist. Instead, the Sheriff provided fraudulent printouts from its computer systems that listed the arrest and booking of Fine as taking place in the non-existent Municipal Court of the City of San Pedro.
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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24785963/10-01-04-Richard-Fine-Reply-to-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-Re-False-Arrest-Booking-Papers-s

[2] Media reports of arrest of Fine in the City of Los Angeles , Superior Court of California
http://inproperinla.com/09-03-04-full-disclosure-network-att-richard-fine-jailed-in-attempt-to-disqualify-la-judge.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-03-05-met-news-court-sentences-disbarred-attorney-fine-to-jail-for-contempt.pdf

__________

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:44:38 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Judges in the United States are prone to racketeering, evidence from California and elsewhere...

Scott:

Your response seemed to consider the claim of racketeering by judges as scandalous, or even incredible.  Attorney Gottschalk can provide you with the exact case captions. He seemed to be an encyclopedia of judicial corruption.  

California and US judges were prosecuted for racketeering in:
a) San Jose California
b) San Diego California

Outside of California there were conviction of judges for racketeering in:
c) Cook County, Illinois (Chicago, Greylord)

Currently there is prosecution of judges for racketeering in:
d) Luzerne County, PA.

Currently, a major case of judicial corruption is being prosecuted, with all papers sealed, for unclear reasons, so that the public has hardly any information, and in violation of Sixth Amendment right for public trial (I am referring to the right of the public, since I assume that the sealing in this case was meant to benefit the defendants), at:
e) El Paso Texas.

Finally:
I provided the US Attorney General office ample evidence of racketeering in the Los Angeles Courts already in early 2008, well before Richard Fine was arrested.  The US Attorney General office refused to respond.  Thereafter, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Diane Watson issued Congressional  Inquiries on the US Department of Justice and the FBI on my behalf:
Why they would not respond to my requests for equal protection of the 10 million residents of LA County. 
The responses provided by Director of the US Attorney General Office, Kenneth Melson, and Assistant Director Kenneth Kaiser of FBI to United States Congress, are the subject of my current complaint to the DOJ IG.  I claimed that;
a) Such responses reflected refusal of US officers to perform their duties and provide equal protection, and
b) Such responses reflected fraud by US officers on US Congress.

The two gentlemen never contradicted my claims of racketeering by the judges in Los Angeles. Instead, they provided false and deliberately misleading responses, such as:
a) That I never proved "federal investigational jurisdiction" it the matter, and
b) That I never claimed any "specific violation of federal law".

Needless to say, if such claims of racketeering by judges in Los Angeles County were out to lunch, I doubt that Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Watson would have issued inquiries on my behalf.

IN SHORT - Claiming that judges in the United States are prone to racketeering in no news any longer, surely not scandalous. 

10-02-03 Fact-based discussion: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), US Judge John Walter, US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, California Judge David Yaffe, and the racketeering courts of California and the United States.

  

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:33:06 -0800
To: "US and California agencies, law school faculty, NGOs, and others"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Fwd: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), US Judge John Walter, US Magistrate Woehrle, California Judge David Yaffe, California Judge Charles McCoy, and the ongoing false hospitalization of Richard Fine.

FYI, any comment on the matter at hand would be greatly appreciated.
Enjoy your readings of fraudulent records of the fraudulent court systems of California and the United States!
 --jz

CC:
United States Department of Justice Inspector General, Glenn A Fine, as an addendum to complaint against Kenneth Kaiser - FBI Assistant Director, Criminal Investigations, and Kenneth Melson - Director, US Attorney General Office, RE:
1) Refusal to protect the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County, California, and
2) Fraud in responses to inquiries by United States Congress on the matter, by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Diane Watson.

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:11:01 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), US Judge John Walter, US Magistrate Woehrle, California Judge David Yaffe, California Judge Charles McCoy, and the ongoing false hospitalization of Richard Fine.

Dear All:

Surprisingly, not a single person refuted the set of facts, provided below, regarding the false hospitalization of Richard Fine.  The writing below included claims of false appearances by counsel, who was not counsel of record, Kevin McCormick, on behalf of Judge David Yaffe and the Los Angeles Superior Court, the filing of false records by such counsel, and deliberate conduct through collusion of Kevin McCormick, California Judge David Yaffe, California Judge Charles McCoy, US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, US Judge John Walter, and others, in order to perpetrate the false hospitalization of Richard Fine.

One would expect such heavy duty claims - that the Los Angeles Superior Court and the US District Court, Los Angeles, colluded in perversion and obstruction of justice, in what should be deemed racketeering, would raise a whole set of objections.  In particular, such claims should be noted in the fact that they contradict any version of reality reported by media to this date in re: False hospitalization of Richard Fine.

As noted below, all supporting records were posted online for review by those interested.

Enjoy your readings of fraudulent records of the fraudulent court systems of California and the United States!

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!


Subject: Re: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914),  Judge John Walter, Magistrate Woehrle, and the ongoing false hospitalization of Richard Fine.

Dear All: 

For those interested in fact-based discussion regarding the caption listed above, and alleged Willful Misconduct by Magistrate Carla Woehrle and US Judge John Walter, as well as alleged criminality by Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge David Yaffe, Judge Charles McCoy (Presiding Judge, LA Superior Court) and John Clarke (Clerk of the Court, LA Superior Court):

Most records in the caption can be found at: http://inproperinla.com/
Use the "Find" function in your browser (typically "Control F") and query for "fine_v_sheriff" [underlines, but no quotes].
You would get to the section of the archive holding the relevant papers.

Enjoy your readings in the fraudulent court system of the United States! 

FALSE APPEARANCE BY COUNSEL, WHO WAS NOT COUNSEL OF RECORD IN FINE V SHERIFF 

In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), the NON-CASE of Richard Fine's habeas corpus petition, the following facts should be noted: 

1. Sheriff was rightly named as Respondent, since he is holding Richard Fine. 
2. Sheriff refused to respond [because Fine is held with no legal foundation]. 
3. US Magistrate Carla Woehrle refused to release Fine, who filed ex parte application for his own release following refusal of the Sheriff to respond on a Habeas Corpus petition. 
4. Eventually, Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court purported to respond in lieu of the Sheriff, albeit - they were never named Respondents by Richard Fine. They were not the ones holding him. 
5. Purported appearances for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court were by Attorney Kevin McCormick from Ventura County, a relatively young attorney, of no significance, but relatively far away... 
6. Kevin McCormick failed to file the required certifications for appearance as Counsel of Record for David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court.  Regardless, Magistrate Carla Woehrle allowed him to appear. 
7. Kevin McCormick filed briefs with Declaration by Counsel - himself, not a competent fact witness in this case at all.  No declaration by any of his clients was ever filed. 
8. Kevin McCormick filed false records as evidence, with no authentication at all. 
9.  None of the records McCormick filed originated from his purported clients.   
10. Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge Yaffe, and the LA Superior Court refused to respond to repeated inquiries to ascertain that McCormick was appearing as Counsel of Record for such clients under the respective caption. 

In short - there was no evidence in the court file that Attorney Kevin McCormick had ever communicated with Judge David Yaffe or the LA Superior Court. 

Needless to say, no order or judgment were ever entered in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - no valid NEF was ever served on Richard Fine with any of the false court papers that were represented as orders and judgment. 

Such NON CASE for the habeas corpus of Richard Fine, and such appearances by false counsel were used to affect deprivation of Liberty. 

Fraud in the Courts 101 

ESSENTIALS OF A NON-CASE: 

NON-CASES - the cornerstone of judicial corruption in the United States today, in both state and US courts, are surely another subject that is never taught in law school. Therefore, let me offer you the overview:  

1. Commencing records must be defective 
2. Termination records must be defective as well. 
3. No valid commencement of jurisdiction may be entered  - no valid assignment to a judge, no valid reference, etc. 
4. No valid dispositive order on jurisdiction may be entered - no valid order on disqualification, either denying or granting it.   
5. All executable orders that may be issued by the court during the course of a NON-CASE must be defective, and none must be entered, which explains the plethora of unsigned orders and judgments in the US today. 
6. No court fee may be collected, where any mention is explicitly provided that such fees were for court services. 
7. Public access to court records that would provide definitive evidence of the racketeering by the judges must be denied - today - often achieved through implementation of fraudulent case management systems at the courts. 

10-02-03 Richard Fine's false hospitalization - wishing that Los Angeles County Supervisors confer in re: false information provided through their offices

 
      

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:34:44 -0800
To: "Michael D. Antonovich"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: RICHARD FINE's false hospitalization - January 27, 2010 Letter by Los Angeles Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to constituent Ms Dianne Nezgoda.
Cc: Dianne Nezgoda

TO the Hon Michael Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor, copied to Ms Dianne Nezgoda;
By email.

Dear Supervisor Antonovich:

Thank you again for your help in obtaining written responses from Lee Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, in re: the false hospitalization of Richard Fine, a political dissident.  I would like to bring to your attention a letter from your colleague, Los Angeles Supervisor the Hon Zev Yaroslavsky to his constituent - Ms Dianne Nezgoda, on the very same matter.  [1]

The responses provided by the Sheriff through the efforts of your good offices, and the response provided by the Los Angeles County Counsel through the good offices of your colleague, the Hon Zev Yaroslavsky, are irreconcilable. The Sheriff claims that Mr Fine was arrested and booked pursuant to the authority of the non-existent Municipal Court of the City of San Pedro, in some unknown legal matter.  The County Counsel claims that Mr Fine was falsely hospitalized as a result of ancillary proceedings in Marina v LA County (BS109420) at the court of Judge David Yaffe, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles.

I could only wish that the Hon Los Angeles Supervisors would confer on this matter, since the true facts in the matter show that both Supervisors provided to constituents false information from County agencies in the matter at hand.

Respectfully,
Dated: February 03, 2010                
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California       Joseph H Zernik, PhD  
                                                                                
                                                                      By: ______________
                                                                      JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                                      PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                                      Email
                                                                                                                                 Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
                                                                Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/26300502/10-01-27-Los-Angeles-County-Supervisor-Zev-Yaroslavsky-s-Letter-to-Ms-Dianne-Nezgoda-re-false-hospitalization-of-Richard-Fine-s

10-02-03 Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky Letter to Ms Dianne Nezgoda - false claims regarding Richard Fine.

      

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:02:16 -0800
To: Dianne Nezgoda
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Response frm Co. Suprvsr. Yarosalvsky re R. Fine

Dear Ms Nezgoda:

Thank you for your interest and for sharing with me the January 27, 2010 letter from Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. 

I am surprised that Mr Yaroslavsky created  such letter replete with false information. You could use my letter linked below, in requesting Mr Yaroslavsky for input regarding false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California.  In response to Mr Yaroslavsky, you may also want to use the response I received from his colleague, Michael Antonovich, where the Sheriff's Department finally admitted that it had no papers for the arrest and booking of Richard Fine, and therefore, were not required by California Public Record Act to produce such papers in response to my requests.

The story propagated in Supervisor Yaroslavsky is false, since it contradicts the data purported by the Sheriff's Department as the legal foundation for the false hospitalization - some unknown court action at the non-existent San Pedro Municipal Court.  Had there been any validity to the story propagated by Supervisor Yaroslavsky, surely the Sheriff's Department would have kept honest, valid, and effectual records to provide the legal foundation for the false hospitalization of Richard Fine. Even after the fallacy of the records provided was repeatedly pointed out to the Sheriff's Department, the Department insisted on producing such false records again in response to inquiry by Supervisor Antonovich.

Please feel free to quote or copy this letter in your response to Supervisor Antonovich.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!


If you don't hear from me, you can always find my latest writing on the blog:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

Or at scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

Today's writing included the following item, which was related to your email - a request for input by the Sheriff and DA, copied to Supervisor Antonovich, regarding large scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, and the false hospitalization of dissidents like Richard Fine:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2010/02/10-02-02-requesting-los-angeles.html

Correspondence with Supervisor Antonovich, who inquired on my behalf with the Sheriff Department for the arrest and booking papers of Mr Fine, and response by the Sheriff's Department, that they were not required by California Public Records Act to produced 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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24785963/10-01-04-Richard-Fine-Reply-to-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-Re-False-Arrest-Booking-Papers-s



At 10:12 PM 2/2/2010, you wrote:

Hi JZ,

There's been a conspicuous absence of your presence in my email box.  I hope you are OK.

I am attaching a copy of a letter received by me frm Co. Suprvsr. Zev Yaroslavsky in response to my inquiry re Richard.  Any comments?  Would you like to help me compose a response? 

I was unable to raise the issue at the annual Benedict Canyon Association mtg. @ the Beverly Hills Hotel on 1/25 in person with Yaroslavsky because the BCA would only allow paid members to address Suprvsr. Yaroslavsky and Councilperson Koretz, which I think was discriminatory. 

FYI - It has been a month since I filed my request to access JV (Superior) court records re my case and have not received a response.

DN