10-03-11 Richard Fine: Complaint filed with H Marshall Jarrett, Director, US Attorneys Office // Richard Fine: Queja presentada con H Marshall Jarrett, Director de la Oficina de Abogados de EE.UU.

 
H Marshall Jarrett


Los Angeles, March 11 - Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, filed a complaint with H Marshall Jarrett, Director, Office of US Attorneys, US Department of Justice, and a request for Equal Protection under the Law for the falsely imprisoned Attorney Richard Fine, former US Prosecutor. (copied below)

The complaint named Attorney Kevin McCormick and Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas as instrumental in perverting justice and affecting the false imprisonment of Richard Fine.

MARCH 11, 2010 COMPLAINT FILED BY DR JOSEPH ZERNIK WITH H MARSHALL JARRETT, DIRECTOR, US ATTORNEYS OFFICE.

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:58:43 -0800
To: "Attention: H. Marshall Jarrett,Director"  <202.616.2278@metrofax.com>,
From: joseph zernik
Subject: False imprisonment of Attorney Richard Fine: Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas; Request for equal protection under the law for Richard Fine.

Executive Office for United States Attorneys
H. Marshall Jarrett,Director   
PH 202.514.2121    Fax 202.616.2278 Email:

RE: False imprisonment of Attorney Richard Fine: Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas; Request for equal protection under the law for Richard Fine.

Dear Director H Marshall Jarrett:

Please accept the writing below as a complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and against Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas, of the US District Court, Los Angeles, for perversion of justice in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Attorney Richard Fine - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). Together, the two were instrumental in affecting his ongoing false imprisonment.

The Local Los Angeles FBI, California Attorney General, and Los Angeles District Attorney Office continue to refuse to take any action in matters pertaining to corruption of the justice system.

Respectfully,
Dated: March 11, 2010           
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California                       Joseph H Zernik, PhD  
                                                                
                                                           By: ______________
                                                           JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                           PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                           Phone: 323.515.4583
                                                           Fax: 323.488.9697
                                                           Email
                                                           Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
                                                           Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

 

Los Angeles, March 11 - in response to an article in the ABA Journal, titled: 70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, posted the correction, copied and linked, below. [1]

Dr Zernik concluded: The case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.

JUDICIARY

70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case

Posted Mar 10, 2010 1:03 PM CST
By Sarah Randag


A year ago, a Los Angeles County superior court judge sentenced lawyer Richard Fine to jail indefinitely after he refused to provide personal financial information in an attorney fee dispute.
Now? He is still in jail, Dan Walters writes in a column for the Sacramento Bee, if not still a lawyer: TheState Bar of California indicates that he has been disbarred.
Fine has been a longtime critic of Los Angeles County's practice of giving its judges nearly $50,000 in extra pay over their state salaries, and that it creates a conflict of interest for judges hearing cases involving the county, Walters writes. And, on top of that, Fine says that because of the extent of his criticism, it's a conflict for any judge to hear a case involving him.
A state appellate court agreed with Fine in 2008, saying the payments violated California's constitution. But the legislature passed a retroactive authorization of the payments last year, Walters writes.
Fine has petitioned for his release, but the California Supreme Court refuses to interfere, and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied his petition, Walters writes.
"Fine holds the key to his jail cell," Kevin McCormick, an attorney for the Los Angeles court, said in an appellate brief. "By simply agreeing to answer the questions and produce documents concerning his assets, that he has a legal obligation to provide, his coercive confinement will end."

COMMENTS

1. B. McLeod
Mar 10, 2010 4:37 PM CST
Its probably just that he enjoys the food there.

2. Peter C. Lomtevas
Mar 11, 2010 6:12 AM CST
The issue here is not Fines holding the key to his confinement.
He dared to expose a potential fraud upon the public that has to do with judicial impartiality and in California, one dare not question the integrity of the judiciary. The animosity between bar and bench is legendary and this has bred some California superlawyers who dedicated their practice before one or two judges and always win no matter the odds. Justice depends upon retaining one of these.
California is said to be the land of fruits, nuts and flakes. No one ever stepped into a California courtroom without that thought popping into his mind.

3. Joseph Zernik
 Mar 11, 2010 12:19 PM CST
Please stand corrected, being the ABA Journal,  regarding the facts in the Richard Fine Case:
1) Richard Fine was never sentenced for Contempt, there is no valid court record such as judgment or sentencing in the case - Marina v LA County (BS109420). Neither is there any Assignment Order for the Judge in the case, or Appointment Order for the purported Debtor Examiner, Murray Gross, whose authority Mr Fine therefore justly disputed.
2)  Neither was the March 4, 2009 proceeding that was described by media as the Sentencing Hearing, ever included in the informal, online, litigation chronology (which comes with a disclaimer).
3) However, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles continues to deny access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS10940) the case, in ancillary proceedings of which Mr Fine was purportedly arrested, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
4) Neither was there ever a valid warrant for the arrest of Mr Fine.
5) Accordingly, the Sheriffs Department denied for months access to the Arrest and Booking records, in disregard of California Public Records Act.
6) Even after numerous complaints, the Sheriffs Department insisted on keeping falsely publishing online that Richard Fine was arrested at and by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro, when media reported that the arrest took place on March 4, 2009, in downtown Central District of the Superior Court Courthouse, in the city of Los Angeles.
7) In response to inquiry by Supervisor Antonovich, the Sheriffs Bureau finally responded that California Public Records Act did not require it to produced records which did not exist.
8) In her scholarly June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine -  US Magistrate Carla Woehrle,  never mentioned the word Warrant in a case highlighted by warrantless arrest, neither did it mention the caption of the case of the Superior Court , which purportedly was under reviewed. Moreover, the habeas corpus petition was concluded without the Register of Actions of Marina v LA County ever being produced, therefore, with no foundation at all for any other record in the case.
9) Respondent Sheriff refused to respond on the habeas corpus petition.
10) The Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe joined the case as Intervenors, through false representation by Attorney Kevin McCormick, was failed to file certification of Counsel of Record, failed to ever provide any declaration by his clients, or ever file any record provided by his clients. In short, he was likely employed as false counsel, with no communications with client clause.
11) Accordingly - none of the Minutes, Orders, Judgment in Fine v Sheriff, was ever entered as valid court records - all were served on Richard Fine with no valid NEFs (Notice of Electronic Filing) at all.  Neither would Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court allow access to inspect and to copy the NEFs in Fine v Sheriff, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
12) The Clerk of the US District Court, Los Angeles, Terry Nafisi, has continuously refused to answer on the question whether the online PACER docket in Fine v Sheriff was an honest, valid, and effectual record of the US District Court.  Such docket would not be certified either.
13) Clerk Nafisi would not answer on whether Donna Thomas, who was listed as conducting transactions on the docket of Fine v Sheriff, was at all authorized as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
14) Likewise, in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) Mr Fines petitions at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, - June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition, issued in the names of Kozinski, Paez and Tallman, was an unsigned order, which was served with no NEF at all.
In Short, the case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.

4. B. McLeod
Mar 11, 2010 3:16 PM CST
Another Fine mess hes gotten himself into!

5. Joseph Zernik

Mar 11, 2010 3:50 PM CST
Mr B McLeod is surely a legal scholar, to blame Attorney Richard Fine for being a victim of widespread corruption of the justice system
We, the 10 million who live in Los Angeles County are deprived of the right for honest Habeas Corpus petitions, and with it - the right to access court records, to inspect and to copy.  Both are rights of medieval origins in the English-speaking legal system.
In short - we are subjected to corrupt justice system of medieval nature.  No doubt - Attorney Richard Fine is to blame for it all

LINKED:
[1] ABA Journal article and comments:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#67761

 

H Marshall Jarrett

Los Angeles, 11 de marzo - Dr. Joseph Zernik, residente de Los Ángeles, presentó una denuncia ante H Marshall Jarrett, Director, Oficina de Abogados de EE.UU., EE.UU. Departamento de Justicia, y una solicitud para la igualdad de protección bajo la ley de la secuestrada abogado Richard Fine , el ex EE.UU. Fiscal. (con copia a continuación)
La denuncia nombrado Procurador Kevin McCormick y la sala auxiliar Donna Thomas como un instrumento en contra de la justicia y que afectan a la privación de la libertad de Richard Fine.
11 DE MARZO 2010 QUEJA PRESENTADA POR EL DR. JOSEPH ZERNIK CON H MARSHALL JARRETT DIRECTOR DE LA OFICINA DE ABOGADOS EE.UU.
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:58:43 -0800 A: "Atención: H. Marshall Jarrett, Director" <@ 202.616.2278 metrofax.com>,  De: Joseph Zernik  Asunto: encarcelamiento de abogado Richard Fine: Queja contra Fiscal Kevin McCormick y la sala auxiliar Donna Thomas; Solicitud de igualdad de protección bajo la ley de Richard Fine.
Oficina Ejecutiva de Abogados de Estados Unidos H. Marshall Jarrett, Director PH 202.514.2121 Fax 202.616.2278 Correo electrónico:
RE: encarcelamiento de abogado Richard Fine: Queja contra Fiscal Kevin McCormick y la sala auxiliar Donna Thomas; Solicitud de igualdad de protección bajo la ley de Richard Fine.


Estimado Director H Marshall Jarrett:
Le ruego acepte el escrito a continuación como una queja contra la fiscal federal Kevin McCormick y contra la sala de audiencias Asistente Donna Thomas, de la Corte de Distrito de EE.UU., Los Ángeles, de la perversión de la justicia en la petición de hábeas corpus del abogado Richard Fine - Fine V Sheriff (2:09 -- CV-01914). Juntos, los dos fueron decisivos que afectan a su privación de libertad en curso.
El local de Los Ángeles del FBI, Fiscal General de California, y Distrito de Los Ángeles Fiscalía siguen negándose a tomar cualquier acción en asuntos relativos a la corrupción del sistema de justicia.
Respetuosamente, Fecha: 11 de marzo 2010 La Verne, en el condado de Los Ángeles, California, Joseph H Zernik, PhD
                                                             
                                                           Por: ______________
                                                           JOSEPH H Zernik
                                                           PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                           Teléfono: 323.515.4583
                                                           Fax: 323.488.9697
                                                           Email
                                                           Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
                                                           Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

Los Angeles, 11 de marzo - en respuesta a un artículo en el diario del ABA, titulado: 70-Year-Old Hits abogado por un año en la cárcel de Marcos en caso de desacato, el Dr. José Zernik, residente de Los Ángeles, envió la corrección, copiado y vinculado , a continuación. [1]
Dr. Zernik concluyó: El caso del abogado Richard Fine es un hito histórico y un caso de libro en la prestación de un catálogo de los ingeniosos métodos utilizados por el sistema de justicia corrupta a la justicia pervertido. PODER JUDICIAL





70-Year-Old Hits abogado por un año en la cárcel de Marcos en caso de desacato
Publicado 10 de marzo 2010 1:03 PM CST Por Sarah Randag

Hace un año, un condado de Los Ángeles Juez del Tribunal Superior el abogado Richard Fine condenado a la cárcel indefinidamente después de que él se negó a proporcionar información financiera personal en una disputa de honorarios abogado. ¿Ahora? Él todavía está en la cárcel, Dan Walters escribió en una columna para el diario The Sacramento Bee, si no todavía a un abogado: thestate Colegio de Abogados de California indica que ha sido inhabilitado. Fina ha sido un viejo crítico de la práctica Condado de Los Angeles de dar a los jueces casi 50.000 dólares en pagar extra sobre sus salarios estatales, y que crea un conflicto de intereses para los jueces que entienden en casos relacionados con el condado, escribe Walters. Y, por encima de eso, Fine dice que debido a la extensión de su crítica, es un conflicto de cualquier juez para conocer un caso relacionado con él. Una corte estatal de apelaciones estuvo de acuerdo con Fine en 2008, diciendo que los pagos violaron la constitución de California. Sin embargo, la legislatura aprobó una autorización con efecto retroactivo de los pagos del año pasado, Walters escribe. Fine ha solicitado para su liberación, pero la Corte Suprema de California se niega a intervenir, y la sede en San Francisco 9 º Circuito de los EE.UU. Corte de Apelaciones ha negado su petición, Walters escribe. "Muy bien es la clave de su celda de la cárcel", Kevin McCormick, un abogado de la corte de Los Angeles, dijo en un escrito de apelación. "Simplemente acceda a contestar las preguntas y presentar documentos sobre su patrimonio, que tiene una obligación legal de proporcionar, su reclusión coercitivas tendrá fin." COMENTARIOS
1. B. McLeod 10 de marzo 2010 4:37 PM CST Es probablemente justo que disfruta de la comida.
2. Peter C. Lomtevas 11 de marzo 2010 6:12 AM CST La cuestión aquí no es Multas la celebración de la clave de su confinamiento. Se atrevió a exponer a un posible fraude a la opinión pública que tiene que ver con la imparcialidad judicial y, en California, uno no se atreve a cuestionar la integridad del poder judicial. La animosidad entre la barra y el banco es legendaria, y esto ha generado cierta superlawyers de California, quien dedicó su práctica antes de que uno o dos jueces y ganar siempre sin importar las adversidades. La justicia depende de conservar uno de ellos. California, se dice que es la tierra de frutas, frutos secos y copos. Nadie entró en un tribunal de California, sin que el pensamiento estallar en su mente.
3. José Zernik
 11 de marzo 2010 12:19p.m. CST Si no están corregidos, siendo el diario del ABA, en relación con los hechos en el caso de Bellas Richard: 1) Richard multa nunca fue condenado por desacato, no hay ningún registro judicial válida como la sentencia o condena, en el caso - Marina V Condado de Los Ángeles (BS109420). Tampoco hay ninguna orden de asignación para el juez en el caso, o del pedido de cita para el examinador presunto deudor, Murray Gross, cuya autoridad del Sr. Fine tanto, justamente en disputa. 2) Ni lo fue el 4 de marzo 2009 procedimiento que fue descrito por los medios de comunicación como la sentencia de audición, cada vez incluido en el informal, en línea, la cronología de los litigios (que viene con un descargo de responsabilidad). 3) Sin embargo, la Corte Superior de California, condado de Los Ángeles sigue negando el acceso al Registro de Acciones (expediente civiles de California) en Marina V Condado de Los Ángeles (BS10940) el caso, en un procedimiento auxiliar de la que el Sr. Fine fue supuestamente arrestado, haciendo caso omiso de los derechos de Primera Enmienda. 4) Tampoco hubo alguna vez una orden válida de la detención del Sr. Fine. 5) En consecuencia, el Departamento del Sheriff negado durante meses el acceso a la detención y los registros de reservas, haciendo caso omiso de la Ley de Registros Públicos de California. 6) Incluso después de numerosas quejas, el Departamento del Sheriff insistió en mantener falsamente la publicación en línea que Richard fue detenido en Bellas y por la inexistencia de la Corte Municipal de San Pedro, cuando los medios de comunicación informaron de que la detención tuvo lugar el 4 de marzo de 2009, en el centro de del Distrito Central de la Corte del Tribunal Superior, en la ciudad de Los Ángeles. 7) En respuesta a la pregunta por la Supervisora Antonovich, la Oficina del Sheriff, finalmente respondió que la Ley de Registros Públicos de California no requieren que los documentos producidos, que no existía. 8) En su erudita 12 de junio 2009 Informe y recomendación en Bellas v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - la petición de habeas corpus de Richard Fine - EE.UU. magistrado Carla Woehrle, nunca mencionó la obtención de palabra en un caso indicado por orden judicial detención, ni tampoco menciona el título de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Superior, que supuestamente estaba bajo revisión. Además, el recurso de hábeas corpus se concluyó sin el Registro de Acciones de Marina V Condado de Los Angeles cada vez que se producen, por lo tanto, sin fundamento alguno para cualquier otro registro en el caso. 9) La Demandada alguacil se negó a responder sobre la petición de hábeas corpus. 10) El Tribunal Superior y el juez David Yaffe se unió al caso como interventores, a través de falsa representación por abogado, Kevin McCormick, fue dejado de presentar la certificación de abogado de oficio, no siempre proporciona ninguna declaración de sus clientes, o cualquier archivo de registro cada vez proporcionada por sus clientes. En resumen, era probable que trabajaba como abogado falso, sin comunicación con la cláusula de cliente. 11) Por lo tanto - ni en las actas, órdenes, Sentencia de Bellas v Sheriff, siempre estaba inscrita como archivos judiciales válidos - todos fueron notificadas a Richard fino con fondos nacionales no válido (Aviso de Presentación Electrónica) en absoluto. Tampoco sería Terry Nafisi, Secretario del Tribunal de permitir el acceso para inspeccionar y copiar los fondos nacionales en Bellas v Sheriff, haciendo caso omiso de los derechos de Primera Enmienda. 12) El Secretario del Tribunal de Distrito de los EE.UU., Los Ángeles, Terry Nafisi, continuamente ha negado a responder a la cuestión de si el expediente PACER en línea en Bellas v sheriff era un registro honesto, válida y eficaz de la Corte de Distrito de EE.UU.. Tal expediente no sería certificadas. 13) Secretaria Nafisi no quiso responder sobre si Donna Thomas, que fue clasificada como la realización de transacciones en el expediente de Bellas v Sherif, fue en todos los autoriza como secretario Adjunto de la Corte. 14) Asimismo, en Bellas v Sheriff (09-71692) Señor peticiones de multas a la Corte de Apelaciones de EE.UU., 9 º Circuito, - 30 de junio 2009 Orden negar la petición, emitido a nombre de Kozinski, Páez y Tallman, era un signo orden, que fue notificada, sin NEF en absoluto. En resumen, el caso del abogado Richard Fine es un hito histórico y un caso de libro en la prestación de un catálogo de los ingeniosos métodos utilizados por el sistema de justicia corrupta a la justicia pervertido.
4. B. McLeod 11 de marzo 2010 3:16 PM CST Otro lío hes metido!
5. José Zernik
11 de marzo 2010 3:50 PM CST Sr. B McLeod es sin duda un experto legal, la culpa abogado Richard Fine por ser una víctima de la corrupción generalizada del sistema de justicia Nosotros, los 10 millones que viven en el Condado de Los Angeles se ven privados del derecho de publicidad honesta peticiones de hábeas corpus, y con ella - el derecho a acceder a documentos de la corte, para inspeccionar y copiar. Ambos son derechos de los orígenes medievales en el sistema jurídico de habla Inglés. En pocas palabras - estamos sometidos al sistema de justicia corrupta de la naturaleza medieval. Sin duda - El abogado Richard Fine es el culpable de todo
Relacionados: [1] Artículo de revista ABA y comentarios: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/ # 67761

10-03-11 Richard Fine: Complaint Filed with FBI // Denuncia presentada ante el FBI

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:18:16 -0800
To: "FBI Los Angeles" , "Attention Steven Goldman, FBI" <310.996.3359@metrofax.com>
From: joseph zernik
Subject: False imprisonment of Attorney Richard Fine: Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas
Cc: FBIDIRECTOR

Special Agent Steven Goldman, Supervisor
Los Angeles FBI White Collar Crime Squadron;
By fax and by email.

RE: False imprisonment of Attorney Richard Fine: Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas

Dear Special Agent Steven Goldman:

Please accept the writing below as a complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and against Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas, for perversion of justice in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Attorney Richard Fine - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). Together, the two were instrumental in affecting his ongoing false imprisonment.

The California DA and Attorney General continue to refuse to take any action in matters pertaining to corruption of the local justice system.

Respectfully,
Dated: March 11, 2010           
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California                       Joseph H Zernik, PhD  
                                                                
                                                                By: ______________
                                                                JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                                PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                                Phone: 323.515.4583
                                                                Fax: 323.488.9697
                                                                Email
                                                                Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
                                                                Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:09:38 -0800
To: , , , , , , , , Nodonnell@da.lacounty.gov
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Request for filing a complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick
Cc: "Attention AG Brown c/o Sue Feldmann"

LA County District Attorney Office
By email
Copied to California Attorney General Jerry Brown:
By email

Dear DA Deputy D. Roth and Office of Los Angeles District Attorney:

As former attorney in charge of the Section on "Integrity of the Justice System", Deputy District Attorney D Roth would surely accept the writing below as a complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and against Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas, for perversion of justice in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Attorney Richard Fine - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).

Please forward the complaint to the right Deputy DA in your offices.

This complaint is also copied to attention of California Attorney General and gubernatorial aspirant, Jerry Brown, who falsely claimed in a recent San Bernardino press conference that he was "appalled by the corruption", and that he had "never seen anything like this";

Respectfully,
Dated: March 11, 2010           
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California      Joseph H Zernik, PhD  
                                                                
                                                                By: ______________
                                                                JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                                PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                                Phone: 323.515.4583
                                                                Fax: 323.488.9697
                                                                Email
                                                                Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
                                       Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

 

Los Angeles, March 11 - in response to an article in the ABA Journal, titled: 70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, posted the correction, copied and linked, below. [1]

Dr Zernik concluded: The case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice. 

JUDICIARY

70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case

Posted Mar 10, 2010 1:03 PM CST
By Sarah Randag


A year ago, a Los Angeles County superior court judge sentenced lawyer Richard Fine to jail indefinitely after he refused to provide personal financial information in an attorney fee dispute.
Now? He is still in jail, Dan Walters writes in a column for the Sacramento Bee, if not still a lawyer: TheState Bar of California indicates that he has been disbarred.
Fine has been a longtime critic of Los Angeles County's practice of giving its judges nearly $50,000 in extra pay over their state salaries, and that it creates a conflict of interest for judges hearing cases involving the county, Walters writes. And, on top of that, Fine says that because of the extent of his criticism, it's a conflict for any judge to hear a case involving him.
A state appellate court agreed with Fine in 2008, saying the payments violated California's constitution. But the legislature passed a retroactive authorization of the payments last year, Walters writes.
Fine has petitioned for his release, but the California Supreme Court refuses to interfere, and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied his petition, Walters writes.
"Fine holds the key to his jail cell," Kevin McCormick, an attorney for the Los Angeles court, said in an appellate brief. "By simply agreeing to answer the questions and produce documents concerning his assets, that he has a legal obligation to provide, his coercive confinement will end."

COMMENTS

1. B. McLeod
Mar 10, 2010 4:37 PM CST
Its probably just that he enjoys the food there.

2. Peter C. Lomtevas
Mar 11, 2010 6:12 AM CST
The issue here is not Fines holding the key to his confinement.
He dared to expose a potential fraud upon the public that has to do with judicial impartiality and in California, one dare not question the integrity of the judiciary. The animosity between bar and bench is legendary and this has bred some California superlawyers who dedicated their practice before one or two judges and always win no matter the odds. Justice depends upon retaining one of these.
California is said to be the land of fruits, nuts and flakes. No one ever stepped into a California courtroom without that thought popping into his mind.

3. Joseph Zernik
 Mar 11, 2010 12:19 PM CST
Please stand corrected, being the ABA Journal,  regarding the facts in the Richard Fine Case:
1) Richard Fine was never sentenced for Contempt, there is no valid court record such as judgment or sentencing in the case - Marina v LA County (BS109420). Neither is there any Assignment Order for the Judge in the case, or Appointment Order for the purported Debtor Examiner, Murray Gross, whose authority Mr Fine therefore justly disputed.
2)  Neither was the March 4, 2009 proceeding that was described by media as the Sentencing Hearing, ever included in the informal, online, litigation chronology (which comes with a disclaimer).
3) However, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles continues to deny access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS10940) the case, in ancillary proceedings of which Mr Fine was purportedly arrested, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
4) Neither was there ever a valid warrant for the arrest of Mr Fine.
5) Accordingly, the Sheriffs Department denied for months access to the Arrest and Booking records, in disregard of California Public Records Act.
6) Even after numerous complaints, the Sheriffs Department insisted on keeping falsely publishing online that Richard Fine was arrested at and by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro, when media reported that the arrest took place on March 4, 2009, in downtown Central District of the Superior Court Courthouse, in the city of Los Angeles.
7) In response to inquiry by Supervisor Antonovich, the Sheriffs Bureau finally responded that California Public Records Act did not require it to produced records which did not exist.
8) In her scholarly June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine -  US Magistrate Carla Woehrle,  never mentioned the word Warrant in a case highlighted by warrantless arrest, neither did she mention the caption of the case of the Superior Court , which purportedly was under reviewed. Moreover, the habeas corpus petition was concluded without the Register of Actions of Marina v LA County ever being produced, therefore, with no foundation at all for any other record in the case.
9) Respondent Sheriff refused to respond on the habeas corpus petition.
10) The Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe joined the case as Intervenors, through false representation by Attorney Kevin McCormick, who failed to file certification of Counsel of Record, failed to ever provide any declaration by his clients, or ever file any record provided by his clients. In short, he was likely employed as false counsel, with "no communications with client" clause.
11) Accordingly - none of the Minutes, Orders, Judgment in Fine v Sheriff, was ever entered as valid court records - all were served on Richard Fine with no valid NEFs (Notice of Electronic Filing) at all.  Neither would Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court allow access to inspect and to copy the NEFs in Fine v Sheriff, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
12) The Clerk of the US District Court, Los Angeles, Terry Nafisi, has continuously refused to answer on the question whether the online PACER docket in Fine v Sheriff was an honest, valid, and effectual record of the US District Court.  Such docket would not be certified either.
13) Clerk Nafisi would not answer on whether Donna Thomas, who was listed as conducting transactions on the docket of Fine v Sheriff, was at all authorized as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
14) Likewise, in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) Mr Fine's petitions at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, - June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition, issued in the names of Kozinski, Paez and Tallman, was an unsigned order, which was served with no NEF at all. 

In Short, the case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.

4. B. McLeod
Mar 11, 2010 3:16 PM CST
Another Fine mess hes gotten himself into!

5. Joseph Zernik

Mar 11, 2010 3:50 PM CST
Mr B McLeod is surely a legal scholar, to blame Attorney Richard Fine for being a victim of widespread corruption of the justice system
We, the 10 million who live in Los Angeles County are deprived of the right for honest Habeas Corpus petitions, and with it - the right to access court records, to inspect and to copy.  Both are rights of medieval origins in the English-speaking legal system.
In short - we are subjected to corrupt justice system of medieval nature.  No doubt - Attorney Richard Fine is to blame for it all...

6.

B. McLeod
Mar 11, 2010 7:23 PM CST

Maybe that is why they have him in the pokey.

For the people in Los Angeles County who are not in the pokey, I suppose they can leave if they don’t like how the county is run.

7.

Joseph Zernik
Mar 11, 2010 9:13 PM CST

Again - the genius of a legal scholar in Mr McLeod is unmistaken…

This nation was founded on a Constitution, The ABA runs under the motto of “Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice”...  The Late William Brenna called the Habeas Corpus “The Great Writ”, and the “Corner Stone of the US Constitution”.  The late Louis Brandeis called the Habeas Corpus the greatest achievement of the English-speaking legal system - establishing Liberty by law.

Those who hold offices where they took oaths of loyalty to the US Constitution, but are no longer loyal to it, should be removed from office -  is an alternative solution…

LINKED:
[1] ABA Journal article and comments:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#67761

The Usual:  
IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!  

"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.

10-03-11 Richard Fine: Complaint filed with Los Angeles District Attorney Office and with California Attorney General Jerry Brown// Denuncia presentada ante el fiscal de distrito de Los Angeles y la Oficina de Fiscal General de California Jerry Brown

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:09:38 -0800
To: , , , , , , , , Nodonnell@da.lacounty.gov
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Request for filing a complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick
Cc: "Attention AG Brown c/o Sue Feldmann"

LA County District Attorney Office
By email
Copied to California Attorney General Jerry Brown:
By email

Dear DA Deputy D. Roth and Office of Los Angeles District Attorney:

As former attorney in charge of the Section on "Integrity of the Justice System", Deputy District Attorney D Roth would surely accept the writing below as a complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and against Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas, for perversion of justice in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Attorney Richard Fine - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).

Please forward the complaint to the right Deputy DA in your offices.

This complaint is also copied to attention of California Attorney General and gubernatorial aspirant, Jerry Brown, who falsely claimed in a recent San Bernardino press conference that he was "appalled by the corruption", and that he had "never seen anything like this";

Respectfully,
Dated: March 11, 2010           
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California                       Joseph H Zernik, PhD  
                                                                
                                                                        By: ______________
                                                                        JOSEPH H ZERNIK
                                                                                PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
                                                                Phone: 323.515.4583
                                                                Fax: 323.488.9697
                                                                        Email
                                                                Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
                                                                Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

 

Los Angeles, March 11 - in response to an article in the ABA Journal, titled: 70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, posted the correction, copied and linked, below. [1]

Dr Zernik concluded: The case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.

JUDICIARY

70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case

Posted Mar 10, 2010 1:03 PM CST
By Sarah Randag


A year ago, a Los Angeles County superior court judge sentenced lawyer Richard Fine to jail indefinitely after he refused to provide personal financial information in an attorney fee dispute.
Now? He is still in jail, Dan Walters writes in a column for the Sacramento Bee, if not still a lawyer: TheState Bar of California indicates that he has been disbarred.
Fine has been a longtime critic of Los Angeles County's practice of giving its judges nearly $50,000 in extra pay over their state salaries, and that it creates a conflict of interest for judges hearing cases involving the county, Walters writes. And, on top of that, Fine says that because of the extent of his criticism, it's a conflict for any judge to hear a case involving him.
A state appellate court agreed with Fine in 2008, saying the payments violated California's constitution. But the legislature passed a retroactive authorization of the payments last year, Walters writes.
Fine has petitioned for his release, but the California Supreme Court refuses to interfere, and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied his petition, Walters writes.
"Fine holds the key to his jail cell," Kevin McCormick, an attorney for the Los Angeles court, said in an appellate brief. "By simply agreeing to answer the questions and produce documents concerning his assets, that he has a legal obligation to provide, his coercive confinement will end."

COMMENTS

1. B. McLeod
Mar 10, 2010 4:37 PM CST
Its probably just that he enjoys the food there.

2. Peter C. Lomtevas
Mar 11, 2010 6:12 AM CST
The issue here is not Fines holding the key to his confinement.
He dared to expose a potential fraud upon the public that has to do with judicial impartiality and in California, one dare not question the integrity of the judiciary. The animosity between bar and bench is legendary and this has bred some California superlawyers who dedicated their practice before one or two judges and always win no matter the odds. Justice depends upon retaining one of these.
California is said to be the land of fruits, nuts and flakes. No one ever stepped into a California courtroom without that thought popping into his mind.

3. Joseph Zernik
 Mar 11, 2010 12:19 PM CST
Please stand corrected, being the ABA Journal,  regarding the facts in the Richard Fine Case:
1) Richard Fine was never sentenced for Contempt, there is no valid court record such as judgment or sentencing in the case - Marina v LA County (BS109420). Neither is there any Assignment Order for the Judge in the case, or Appointment Order for the purported Debtor Examiner, Murray Gross, whose authority Mr Fine therefore justly disputed.
2)  Neither was the March 4, 2009 proceeding that was described by media as the Sentencing Hearing, ever included in the informal, online, litigation chronology (which comes with a disclaimer).
3) However, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles continues to deny access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS10940) the case, in ancillary proceedings of which Mr Fine was purportedly arrested, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
4) Neither was there ever a valid warrant for the arrest of Mr Fine.
5) Accordingly, the Sheriffs Department denied for months access to the Arrest and Booking records, in disregard of California Public Records Act.
6) Even after numerous complaints, the Sheriffs Department insisted on keeping falsely publishing online that Richard Fine was arrested at and by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro, when media reported that the arrest took place on March 4, 2009, in downtown Central District of the Superior Court Courthouse, in the city of Los Angeles.
7) In response to inquiry by Supervisor Antonovich, the Sheriffs Bureau finally responded that California Public Records Act did not require it to produced records which did not exist.
8) In her scholarly June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine -  US Magistrate Carla Woehrle,  never mentioned the word Warrant in a case highlighted by warrantless arrest, neither did it mention the caption of the case of the Superior Court , which purportedly was under reviewed. Moreover, the habeas corpus petition was concluded without the Register of Actions of Marina v LA County ever being produced, therefore, with no foundation at all for any other record in the case.
9) Respondent Sheriff refused to respond on the habeas corpus petition. 

10) The Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe joined the case as Intervenors, through false representation by Attorney Kevin McCormick, was failed to file certification of Counsel of Record, failed to ever provide any declaration by his clients, or ever file any record provided by his clients. In short, he was likely employed as false counsel, with no communications with client clause.
11) Accordingly - none of the Minutes, Orders, Judgment in Fine v Sheriff, was ever entered as valid court records - all were served on Richard Fine with no valid NEFs (Notice of Electronic Filing) at all.  Neither would Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court allow access to inspect and to copy the NEFs in Fine v Sheriff, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
12) The Clerk of the US District Court, Los Angeles, Terry Nafisi, has continuously refused to answer on the question whether the online PACER docket in Fine v Sheriff was an honest, valid, and effectual record of the US District Court.  Such docket would not be certified either.
13) Clerk Nafisi would not answer on whether Donna Thomas, who was listed as conducting transactions on the docket of Fine v Sheriff, was at all authorized as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
14) Likewise, in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) Mr Fines petitions at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, - June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition, issued in the names of Kozinski, Paez and Tallman, was an unsigned order, which was served with no NEF at all.
In Short, the case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.

4. B. McLeod
Mar 11, 2010 3:16 PM CST
Another Fine mess hes gotten himself into!

5. Joseph Zernik

Mar 11, 2010 3:50 PM CST
Mr B McLeod is surely a legal scholar, to blame Attorney Richard Fine for being a victim of widespread corruption of the justice system
We, the 10 million who live in Los Angeles County are deprived of the right for honest Habeas Corpus petitions, and with it - the right to access court record, to inspect and to copy.  Both are rights of medieval origins in the English speaking legal system.
In short - we are subjected to corrupt justice system of medieval nature.  No doubt - Attorney Richard Fine is to blame for it all


LINKED:
[1] ABA Journal article and comments:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#67761