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

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

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

The following individuals, who happen to be JUDGES & CLERKS are held by me as CRIMINALS for their part in the false jailing of Richard Fine. Had I been in position of authority, I would have considered them worthy of penal sentences of jauling or imprisonment:

1. David Yaffe
2. John Clarke
3. Carla Woehrle
4. John Walter
5. Terry Nafisi
6. Richard Tallman
7. Richard Paez
8. Alex Kozinski
9. Molly C Dwyre

And after that moment of insight, This is how it was emailed out:

____________________

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

_____________________

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

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

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

Part I - Joey Tribbiani's smile, and catering to the LA-JR in false denial of Richard Fine's Habeas Corpus Petition
This is a clarification of notes in the Index posting[1]: The last thing we need today, while we are in the midst of the War on Terror, and while we are busy building the court system in Iraq, is some smart alecks doubting of the justice system of Los Angeles County, California... Any suggestion that there was any inference to a possible Warrantless Arrest, or any appearance of an illusion of a slim chance of a Fourth Amendment violation, or even False Imprisonment in the case of Richard Fine, was surely never intended. Anyway, it's all lay-person's writing in lay person's language, If inference was found it must be disregarded, as having no legal meaning at all.

Smart Alecks
Let me assure all the Doubting Thomases out there... I an not an attorney, not even by a long shot... Richard Fine was arrested and is jailed by State of California Judge David Yaffe. That should have been good enough on its own. In addition - the job on his Habeas Corpus Petition was done by the U.S. Court, LA, If anybody wanted more - his Petition was a taken care of by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Triple whammy. That should be good enough for any nitpicker!

A Nitpicker
1) Magistrate Carla Woehrle - of the U.S. District Court, LA posted a lengthy Report and Recommendations on the Habeas corpus Petition with footnotes, citations and all. Obviously it was no rush job. In the 25 pages of the Report, she never even entered the Caption of the case she was reviewing for over two months- Marina Strand Colony Home Owner's Association v County of Los Angeles. Frankly, I don't think it matters, Joe, Joey, or Joseph, it's all the same to me... She simply wasn't really sure that it was a true case of the Superior Court. It's not that simple nowadays... It is not the only case, and Carla Woehrle did the job on them before. They cases were not of the Superior Court at all. For lack of better term let's call them "Equity/Enterprise Track" cases, and the general operation - the LA-JR (LA Judiciary Racket). Calling the child by name makes it easier. Most civil cases are real estate cases - which this one was as well. The criminal cases involved false imprisonments. The evidence showed that the LA-JR controlled the LA Superior Court for years. That was the story of the Rampart scandal a decade ago. FBI and U.S. Dept of Justice couldn't see it - severe myopia.
The case of Richard Fine was one of them as well. The Report demonstrated that Magistrate Carla Woehrle was fully colluding with the LA-JR. And the false imprisonment of Richard Fine for 7 months, showed that FBI and U.S. Dept of Justice did just the same (in lay-person's language).
We need a U.N. Resolution, and help from the Multinational Coalition, to help the U.S. Government gain control of Los Angeles County again...

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

Another Nitpicker

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

The Nattering Nabob
The nattering nabobs expected also a Register of Actions (California docket), as if there wasn't enough paperwork already.
They said that reviewing a case without a court file was anyway like writing a book review without reading the book. Doing it with no Register of Actions, was like not bothering to read the Cliff's Notes either... just flying blind. Well - Magistrate Carla Woehrle knew the story of the LA-JR already, She did it before. Therefore she did not need the Register of Actions to write her Report...

Cliff's Notes
U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle did a fine job for the LA-JR - an impressive Report, which recommended "deny with prejudice". OK - the Report was never authenticated, and it therefore was an invalid court paper. Those who objected to this practice were simply placing form over substance. It was Carla Woehrle's way of delivering the goods for the LA-JR, while pretending that her conduct was not of criminal nature.... It's like eating the cake and having it too... (I am not a dietitian, not even by a long shot) Why not? If she could get away with it that easy, time after time... By now she was a groupie...

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

3) Chief Judge Alex Kozinski - widely recognized as a brilliant jurist - of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - and Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Richard Tallman were named on the Petition, which Richard Fine also filed from the Habeas Corpus. This Court is second in authority only to the U.S. Supreme Court! The June 30, 2009 Order was posted in Pacer, the court's case management system:
"petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrant the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v United States Dist Court 557 F 2d 650 (9th Circ 1977). The petition is denied."(Order)
Mom never called me a "brilliant jurist"... But with all due respect, it looked like someone copied the Bauman out of habit, into an order of denial of the wrong petition. OK, I am clueless, but Habeas Corpus was meant for the clueless... for prisoners, way back when... Or even today - like Richard Fine - who was denied pen and paper. In Habeas Corpus, the prisoner did not have to say much at all. Just to challenge the confinement, and ask to be brought before a judge. In turn, the judge was not asked to do much either, only to inquire, that the confinement conformed with the fundamentals of the law. If not - to order the immediate release of the prisoner. A fundamental consensus of the international civilized human community today, one of the cornerstones of the U.S. Constitution, and most likely - the quintessential contribution of the English speaking courts to mankind in over half a millennium. Establishing in the law - as the protection of individual Liberty.

A Nitpicker
What are the fundamental? It's the nitpickers again!
We should leave it to the Circuit Judges, who split hairs on such questions day in and day out: What's the validity of an arrest, which started under exigency, with no warrant, while the warrant was getting written, but the exigency turned into non-exigency, before the warrant was completed... Tough cases...That's their specialty. Here we have a man in solitary confinement for 7 months with no (1) Warrant, and no (2) Sentencing/Judgment, and (3) No Register of Actions. The Circuit Judges owe us also an explanation of their unsigned denial Order. Just to make it clear: I was on the service list, and I was served with the Order. The one served on me, was unsigned as well, and it came with no authentication (NEF) by the court either, just like all the papers from the U.S. District Court [3]. Unsigned orders by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, are nothing new either. They may justify such inexcusable practice to themselves as necessary in response to the burden of "frivolous prisoner's petitions", The legal profession remained dumb on the unsigned denial by the prominent court, as it was all along. It was left for lay-persons to spell out the disgrace.

To Sum It Up-

• The LA Superior Court never entered effectual Sentencing/Judgment and never issued an effectual Warrant...
• The Sheriff Department never performed effectual Booking and was keeping Richard Fine jailed under false registration and "off the record".
• The U.S. District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued court papers, that looked to lay-persons like Orders and Judgments, but lacked authentication, and in the case of the Court of Appeals also lacked endorsement by the Judges. Therefor such papers were ineffectual for any purpose, moreover - they were false and deliberately misleading.
• None of it was news. It was a widespread practice in the U.S.
• Here - such practice was applied in catering to the LA-JR.

All four justice system agencies worked in concert through false court records and deceptive case management systems to cater to the LA-JR and to deprive Richard Fine of Liberty (lay-person's language).

Part II - Hips by Beyonce, and denial of access to Court Records.
The Register of Actions sounded cool and exciting... I wondered why there was no video game yet - karate, or kung fu could be best with that title. I was resolved to do my best to get a copy of this critical record, which was never seen even by Richard Fine himself!

The Register of Actions
Court papers were Public Records - I knew. The right also originated in English Common Law, and dates hundreds of years back, as essential for the public's ability to supervise the integrity of the courts, and prevent undocumented imprisonments and other abuses. In fact, it was said that the Habeas Corpus and the right to Access Court Records were connected at the hips. I am don't know about that. I have been working at it for several months, but so far I have seen no records, no hips, no thighs and no chicken wings, nada...

Hips by Beyonce
To make sure, that I got it right, I called a Civil Rights organization, which kindly told me that it was a slam dunk, guaranteed by the First Amendment relative to Court papers. On top of that, they told me, in California we were ahead of pack, because even the Arrest and Booking papers were public records thanks to the California Public Records Act. They said that they routinely got the papers produced in other counties of California. They even gave me the code section and the subsection to put in the letters.

1) Denial of Access to Records by the Sheriff's Department
Regardless, access to the Arrest and Booking papers from the Sheriff Department was denied. In fact, I was convinced that it was a flimflam, and there were no papers at all. The last I heard from Commander Liang was "The Sheriff's Department practices full transparency". And the papers? "If you want to see the paper you would have to get a court order for that". In addition, the information that was provided regarding Richard Fine in the official online Inmate Information Center, was false and deliberately misleading.[4]

The Old Flimflam
2) Denial of Access to Records by the LA Superior Court
I was also denied the right to access the Register of Actions by the LA Superior Court, That's how we run the business of Justice in Los Angeles, For years, both civil and criminal litigations are conducted with the quintessential litigation records being hidden from the litigants, but secretly shared with review courts. What I got in response to pressing my requests was a series of long letters from a guy who said that he was "Counsel" for the court... I never knew that the court needed a lawyer to answer such simple request.

3) Denial of Access to Records by the U.S. District Court, LA and elsewhere
The U.S. District Court denied requests for access to records in recent months as well. There were substantial concerns regarding dishonest manipulation of the paper records that were filed on behalf f Richard Fine from jail, while he was denied access to pen and paper, and could not review the paper, either before or after the filing.
Most alarming was the fact that the U.S. Courts, in a way were following the practice of the LA Superior Court, with the completion of the installation of the courts' case management systems, Pacer & CM/ECF, which are opined here as inherently abusive and in violation of the law. The denial of access to NEFs was inexplicable. However, it was not unique to the U.S. District Court in LA, it was seen directly in the District Court in Washington DC, and also in the U.S. District Court in NYC, and in both cases - in was related to dishonestly, or worse. Experience with two other U.S. Courts, in two additional states, suggested the same, although the last two were never carried all the way to denial of explicit requests.
The only plausible explanation of the facts, and experiences beyond those described here, was that there was a concerted instruction, most likely originating from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which trained the various courts to deny access to NEFs, which was seen as inherently fraudulent, and undermining the court system from its core.[5][6]

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

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

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

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

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


The Old Flimflam

Epilogue in Re: Richard Fine
So where does it leave us?
We must insist on the immediate release of Richard Fine, since none of the fundamentals of the law were ever produced in this case - a Warrant, a Judgment, or a Register of Actions.
Alternatively - Why not just move Richard Fine to Guantanamo Bay, and "pronounce" him a Detainee?

Joe Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
_____________________
End Notes:
Additional evidence found in blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Records are archived at: http://inproperinla.com/

Recent review papers inclued:
1) http://inproperinla.com/09-11-12-eee-bluffs-in-cmss-s.pdf
2) http://inproperinla.com/09-11-13-hi-shirley-updates-on-the-richard-fine-case-s.pdf

[1] Atty Richard Fine's sentencing proceeding, in Marina v LA County, was a different story altogether. It was widely reported by media, who were present in the courtroom, at Mosk- downtown LA... It purportedly took place on March 4, 2009... and Atty Fine was arrested by 11:05am... These reporters were of course all deluded... Just because media were there, witnessing Judge David Yaffe saying that he was sentencing Richard Fine to "continuous confinement", and just because Richard Fine was immediately after that arrested by the Warrant Detail, of the Sheriff Department of the County of Los Angeles, didn't mean a thing... It was an alleged "off the record" Calendar Fraud combined with little Warrant Fraud - the old flimflam... These reporters should have reviewed the list below, before reporting what they thought they witnessed to the public at large... It is obvious that the reporters were all deluded... because the computer system of the Sheriff Department shows that it indeed took place on March 4, 2009, at 11:05, ok, but not in Mosk downtown, but instead, in the Never-Existed-Municipal Dept 86, in San Pedro... As far as I am concerned - I would trust the computer systems of the Courts and the Sheriff before I trust any deluded reporter...
[2] The missing Warrant
The word "Warrant" never appears in the Report and Recommendation. On the other hand, the word "Warrant" does appear in the code sections that Magistrate Woehrle cited as the basis for the jailing:
Cal Code Civ Proc 1211-1219.
1113 ...judge must direct, by an endorsement on the warrant...
1219a)(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), when thecontempt consists of the omission to perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, he or she may be imprisoned until he or she has performed it, and in that case the act shall be specified in the warrant of commitment.
However, in the case of Richard Fine, there was no (a) warrant, there was no (b) endorsement,by a judge there was (c) no specification in the non-warrant of the act to be performed, and there was (d) no reference to any other record which provides the authority for the confinement, or specifies the act to be performed. Instead, the Deputy Clerk issued a Remand Order. That too, much later in the afternoon, it was faxed at 4:31pm, while the arrest took place at 11:05am, and the false booking was falsely listed as if it took place at 12:23pm at San Pedro. No exigency either...
[3] Back to the Delusional Proceeding on March 4, 2009:
Careful review of the Report and recommendation reveals that Magistrate Woehrle was aware of the schizophrenic nature of that proceeding. In listing the ancillary proceedings that were part of the unnamed litigation under review she stated:
"Trial was held before Judge Yaffe on December 22, 24, 26, and 30, 2008, and January 8, 12, and 22, 2009." (p8)
The was March 4, 2009 proceeding as part of it!
Later, when she needed to find the basis for the sentencing, she stated:
"Judge Yaffe pronounced sentence on March 4, 2009." (p9)
Therefore, the sentencing was oral sentencing only, and the evidence that she brings for it was a Transcript...
[4] Denial of Access to Records by the Sheriff Department
Attempts to access the Sheriff's records were more elaborate. I asked for the Warrant and Arrest and Booking. I faxed the requests, and receipt was confirmed, and for some three weeks, I was on the phone almost daily with Sergeant Burson, and Commander Liang. First, they sent me to the Jail's Front Office, downtown LA. My request was denied for considerations related to the safety of the inmates. I was sent to Cindy, in the Discovery Unit, in City of Commerce. Cindy was confused, she could not figure out why they sent me to her. Then I was directed to Municipal Division 86 in San Pedro. They said that Richard Fine was arrested and booked in San Pedro, that is the official information online Inmate Information Center. The problem was- there was no such thing as Municipal Division 86 in San Pedro, and no Booking facilities there either. Then Sergeant Burson told me that the Legal Department of the Sheriff's office may allow me to see the paper, which he called "Removal Order", and I call Remand Order. I also pointed out to Sheriff Lee Baca's office that the arrest was reported by media, and the data in the Sheriff system was obviously false. After that - they would not answer any more questions regarding the papers. All they got, and all that was ever produced in the past was that order which was no Warrant for sure.
[5] Office of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles
Both the offices of the Clerks - John A Clarke of LA Superior Court, and Terry Nafisi - U.S. District Court, LA, are key to the operations of the LA-JR, which are based on creating false litigation records, which are falsely represented as true court records.
a) There were also some additional issues related to concerns of dishonest manipulation of the paper records of the Habeas Corpus Petition of Richard Fine, Sharon McGee - Supervisor of the Intake Unit at the U.S. District Court, LA, a brave woman, said that she agreed with me regarding my concerns, and that she took the initiative to raise it with the Court of Carla Woehrle herself. For a couple of months I then tried to correspond with Terry Nafisi, the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, on the matter, but it got nowhere. So on Sept 18, 2009, I went in person, and hand delivered s letter to the duty clerk, asking to see the habeas corpus paper record, which was filed on behalf of Richard Fine. The Duty Clerk gave me a NO on the this one. He claimed that the petition had been shredded. I later sent a written request to access, inspect, and copy, the records of the shredding. Never got an answer.
b) I also asked to see the authentication of the records (NEFs) of the habeas corpus case. I got a NO on this one as well, with no explanation at all.
[6] The Fingerprints of the LA-JR
Nothing in all of this is new. I call it the "Fingerprints of the LA-JR". We was the most common feature in the cases we collected.
a) Issuance of invalid ineffectual court papers, which were then used as valid and effectual in fraud on the people.
b) Fraud in the entry of judgment was standard procedure, it was likely to be seen as the trademark of the LA-JR - based on eliminating the Book of Judgments.
c) Fraud in coercing an un-appointed referee to execute such false judgments was also common.
d) Most civil cases were real estate related. That is where the money was.
e) False imprisonment - were the true speciality of the LA-JR. We have thousands of Rampart-FIPs who were never release in the past decade.
____________________
More on the LA-JR - on the blog http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
POSTED BY DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT IN PRO PER AT 4:44 PM
LABELS:
1.1.1FINE RICHARD,
2.2.1FINE V SHERIFF (09-71692) ALL-CRIM,
2.3.1FINE V SHERIFF (2:09-CV-01914),
3.3.4MARINA V COUNTY (BS109420),
6.2.31 CALENDAR FRAUD,
6.2.41 LA-JR (ALLEGED LA-JUDICIARY RACKET

09-11-14 Organizing this blog...

Nov 14, 2009

Getting organized...

When I started it out, I had no clue what I was getting into, by now, it somehow seems to fall into place... But I am sure it will continue to change with time.

Defining Categories:

As it stands now, I am following some litigation Cases, most of them, but not all, are corrupt litigations, some still ongoing, which I repeatedly refer to. Some of them are historical, and are key concepts such as Nixon v Warner Communications - as the right to Access to Court Records, and Fay v Noia - habeas corpus. Various Parties are involved. The records are in the archive, including correspondence and key email. Here I usually try to provide Review, or Report on events. Then - I am interested in conduct of some Judges. In addition, there are interactions with Government Agencies. Separately, I am constantly, as I go along, collecting documentation of alleged fraud in CMSs, and finally, there are Concepts, and ideas. Frauds & Criminality- are a particular interest, both as a conceptual subject, and as analytical tool in undrstanding events. So the headings are, alphabetically: Cases, CMSs, Concepts, Government Agencies, Judges, Parties, Reviews & Reports

Organization Goals:

1) I will make an effort to go back and tag the postings so that they will be easily accessed.

2) I will try to list on this page key postings under each of these headings and subheadings, to make it easier to start review of the material in this blog.

1) Cases U.S.

U.S. Supreme Court

Fay v Noia (1963)

Nixon v Warner Comm Inc (1978)

U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District

Fine v US Dist Ct, LA (09-71692)

Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-56073)

Haddick v US Dist Ct LA (97-50090)

Zernik v US Dist Ct, LA (08-72714)

U.S. Court, California Central District

Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914)

Schaffer v Hartford Life et al (5:08-cv-01184)

USA v Haddick (95-cr-01161)

USA v City of LA et al (2:2000-cv-11769)

Zernik v Connor Et Al (2:08-cv-01550)

U.S. Court, District of Columbia

Zernik v Melson at al. (1:09-cv-00805)

U.S. Court, Southern District of NY

SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

U.S. Bankruptcy Courts

Borrower Sharon Dianne Hill, Pittsburgh, PA (01-22574)

Borrower William Alan Parsley, Houston, TX (4-05-bk-90374)

2) Cases California

Califonria Supreme Court

6) California Courts of Appeals

Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736, 41 Cal.App.4th 738

In re: Fine on Habeas Corpus - B214321

Galdjie v Darwish et al - B191327, B179667, B163970

Samaan v Zernik - B203063

Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles 2008 - D050832

Zernik v LA Superior Court –B199661, B204029, B204164, B205195, B205686, B205737, B206838

7) LA Superior Court

1) Derwish v Darwish (SC060217)

2) Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).

3) Hanks v Woods (SC083585)

4) Marina v County (BS109420)

5) Parks v Zernik (BC369558)

6) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

7) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)

stop crimes

usc

sheri criminal

nick

2) CMSs

Edge - Countrywide/BAC

Sustain - LA Superior Court

Criminal - LA Superior Court

Inmate Information- Sheriff, LA County

TBN - California Court of Appeal

Pacer - U.S. District Courts

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court

Pacer - U.S. Courts of Appeals

CM/ECF - U.S. Courts of Appeals

3) Concepts

Fraud and Criminality

Logic Verification

Public Access

4) Government Agencies
5) Judges
6) Parties
7) Reviews & Reports

09-11-13 Hi Shirley - Updates on the Richard Fine case in Facebook notes.

_ _ __ _ _

No. 1

RE: ALL JUSTICE SYSTEM AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE RICHARD FINE CASE ARE BLUFFING...

Hi Shirley:

Running the fundraiser for Richard Fine in a Casino, under the “Life's A Bluff” title, is more appropriate than you could ever realize... I have just finished working on several manuscripts for submission to various computer science, scholarly and professional journals, in the U.S. and abroad. The claim is: FALSE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PREVALENT IN THE U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM, ARE TOOLS FOR LARGE-SCALE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. Anti-corruption activist Richard Fine - a textbook case - is falsely imprisoned for 7 months in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California, through bluffing and flimflams in four different systems...

The paper alleges that all agencies which are involved in the case are just playing little bluffs… None of the records of these courts or the sheriff's department are considered real court records (authenticated, effectual) by the same agencies... Just little flimflams...

Accordingly, the same agencies now are denying requests to inspect and to copy the records - which are public records by law… They probably can't understand what the fuss is all about either... After all, it has been going on in Los Angeles for years, on a much larger scale. The Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), were shown to be victims of corruption of the LA Superior Court (1998-2000 Rampart investigation), and were estimated at 8,000, 16,000, or 30,000 - depending on the source. They were almost exclusively black and latinos. They were never released, to this date - a decade later. They are still falsely imprisoned. It is a Human Rights disgrace of historic proportions… However, we are very conscientiously taking care of Human Rights offenders around the globe...

Joe Zernik

jz12345@earthlink.net

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

____________________________

No. 2

RE: SEEKING VICTIMS OF FLIMFLAMS BY THE LA SUPERIOR COURT – FOR A GROUP TRIP ABROAD TO A HUMAN RIGHTS COURT

Hi Shirley:

We have assembled a group of civil cases of LA Superior Court, where we claim that the records of the court itself are full evidence of the conduct of the LA-JR (alleged LA-Judiciary Racket) as an enterprise in a pattern of racketeering activity. Most are related to real estate, which originally the case of Richard Fine was just as well. I am now committed to this cause full time, and we are organizing a group to appear before an International Human Rights Court:

1) We are seeking criminal cases, where defendants believe that the records by themselves can demonstrate that they were bluffed by the LA Superior Court (see civil case of Poster Girl – Barbara Darwish, below).

2) We are seeking additional civil cases, where litigants believe that they were flimflammed by the LA Superior Court, and the flimflam can be evidenced from court records by themselves. A prime example is the case of Poster Girl – BARBARA DARWISH. She was bluffed in May 2002 to appear for a real estate litigation of the LA Superior Court in the Culver City Municipal Court, where a judge who remained unnamed in court records – as “Muni Judge” – ran on her a flimflam “bench trial” to take her 6-unit Santa Monica rental-property… I located her, and she provided a declaration – it was in fact Judge JOHN SEGAL who ran the flimflam with Atty DAVID PASTERNAK.

3) We are seeking people who were flimflammed by Atty DAVID PASTERNAK – acting for the LA Superior Court. Numerous Grant Deeds were retrieved from office of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorder, that are likely to be opined as FRAUD. They were falsely executed by Atty David Pasternak on behalf of the LA Superior Court. Anybody who was involved in a case related to real estate, where Atty DAVID PASTERNAK was involved, is likely to be of interest.
Would be grateful for any inquiries, and would provide additional information by email to all who write to me.

4) Judges that were documented as repeat actors in flimflams included so far: JACQUELINE CONNOR, JOHN SEGAL, TERRY FRIEDMAN, PATRICIA COLLINS, GERALD ROSENBERG. Anybody who was involved in such a case with these judges is likely to be of interest.

5) Judge DAVID YAFFE is of course of special interest. Anybody who believes that he/she was bluffed by him, is likely to be of interest.

6) Law firms that colluded with the court in flimflams – are too many to list here. Two of the largest are SHEPPARD MULLIN, LLP and BRYAN CAVE, LLP. Anybody who was involved in a case that he/she believes to be a flimflam, involving these two law-firms, is likely to be of interest.

7) Banks and financial institutions are often involved in the flimflams in litigations against individuals. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION – are documented as engaging in flimflams with the judges. Anybody who was involved in such case, involving these two financial institutions, is likely to be of interest.

Joe Zernik

jz12345@earthlink.net

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

____________________________

No. 3

RE: SEEKING ANONYMOUS TIPS FROM LOS ANGELES REAL ESTATE AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS.

Hi Shirley:

It is obvious that Real Estate and Criminal Defense attorneys know the story very well - for them it is a daily routine of the profession, as practiced in Los Angeles, California courts. However, most don’t dare to say a word. I got some tips, and they were very instrumental. The simplest way to do it – is to go to an Internet Café, and leave an anonymous comment on my blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

In such accounts Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR repeatedly appears as a figure that wields great power to intimidate attorneys, both criminal defense attorneys, and real-estate attorneys in civil litigations. In both cases, the goal is to coerce counsel not to effectively represent the client, or else - the threat is of sanctions that would tarnish the license to practice law, or even have the license lost. In fact, both happened to Richard Fine, and other attorneys who filed complaints about LA-JR judges. In criminal cases - counsel is pressured not to stand up for the client's rights, or object to evidence that Judge Connor wanted to have admitted, and in real-estate cases - I can state based on my account - no experienced Real Estate attorney would dare file any claims of Fraud and Deceit on behalf of the client, since the Fraud and Deceit are most likely by the LA-JR itself.

Accounts of coercion and threats are probably the easiest to tell without providing data that would clearly identify the counsel. However, even as a tip, such accounts should include some details that would provide some levels of credibility.

Joe Zernik

jz12345@earthlink.net

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

____________________________

No. 4

RE: BLUFFS, FLIMFLAMS, AND DENIAL OF ACCESS TO RECORDS…

Hi Shirley:

Bluffs, flimflams, and denial of access to records… This is where things are today with the Richard Fine case. I am writing to you hoping that you publicize the facts, since I am not good in that department. The details in general are kind of technical, both on the legal and on the computer systems side. I provide links to references at the bottom, including one I wrote for easy reading as fictionalized version of events - "An Urban Myth...". I also got some help along the way from a non-profit civil rights group.

1) Judge DAVID YAFFE, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles –

He eliminated the March 4, 2009 Proceeding, where Richard Fine was reported to be sentenced to "continuous confinement" and also arrested, from the records of the litigation. It simply never happened as far as the record is concerned. David Yaffe never issued a March 4, 2009 Warrant for the arrest of Richard Fine, either. The record of the March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt was false on its face (Invalid endorsement by Judge Yaffe - "Dated March 24, 2009" - on a record that was stamped on its face "FILED - March 4, 2009"), and an invalid court record (Lacking authentication and ineffectual). David Yaffe did generate, on the other hand, a March 4, 2009 Minute Order, which was written as if no sentencing ever took place. However, the March 4, 2009 Minute Order is not a valid court record either (Lacking authentication and ineffectual). It's all just little bluffs... In reading the Reporters Transcript, on the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that it was an "off the record" proceeding. And media, likewise, reported it (there were at least two reports) as if it were a true court proceeding, at the end of which Judge DAVID YAFFE sentenced Atty Richard Fine to "continuous confinement". Undeniably - the Warrant Detail indeed immediately went ahead and arrested Richard Fine, and led him out of the courtroom. Undeniably - he is jailed to this date - seven months later. However, there is no indication of that in the formal court records of the litigation. It all as if it happened by error... surely not by Judge DAVID YAFFE's intention...

This is what I call "The Double Books", or "The Fingerprints of the LA-JR". They appear in each and every one of the cases that we are selecting. The judges deliberately created records that would appear to a lay-person as true court records, but in fact, they deliberately made them "false on their face" and invalid. However, at the same time, they got these orders and judgments executed. I believe that these Fingerprints of the LA-JR are also some of the most effective evidence in documenting the conduct of an enterprise in a pattern of racketeering activity, because it is all based on the court records themselves. Atty Richard Fine's version of events, or Judge Yaffe's are not the central evidence at all. It cuts out all the "he said she said" out of the claims of the conduct of the LA-JR.

Denial of Access to Court Records at the LA Superior Court–

The LA Superior Court denies for months requests, pursuant to U.S. law (Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc, 1978) and First Amendment rights, to access the Richard Fine records:

a) Register of Actions (California Docket) – The LA Superior Court never producing the Register of Actions (California docket) during any of the proceedings in the LA Superior Court itself, during the Habeas Corpus review at the U.S. District Court, or during review of the Petition to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Likewise, the LA Superior Court continues to deny repeated requests to access the Register of Actions in this case in recent months. The reports that the two Petitions, which were filed on behalf of Atty Richard Fine were reviewed in these two U.S. Courts were ludicrous. There is no way that these Petitions could be reviewed by these two U.S. Courts, while the LA Superior Court never produced the Register of Actions. To make it simple - it is like writing a Book Review, but not only never reading the Book, also never bothering to read the Cliff's Notes, just writing the Book Review as a bluff, or a flimflam...

b) Other Electronic Litigation Records in Sustain – The case management system of the LA Superior Court, which the court falsely established as “privileged”.

Requests to access these records were forwarded to the Presiding Judge of the LA Superior Court - CHARLES MCCOY and the Clerk of the Court JOHN CLARKE. They never responded themselves, but instead I got lengthy letters from the Counsel for the Court, FREDERICK BENNETT, These letters are false and deliberately misleading. They also contradict each other, but never provide a reason why access is denied. It is also obvious why – because there couldn't possibly be a reasonable explanation why an honest court would deny access to the public records in this case.

2) Sheriff - LEE BACA, Sheriff Department, County of Los Angeles –

Conducted on Richard Fine a sham, warrantless arrest and sham booking, and is falsely imprisoning Richard Fine with no papers at all to provide a legal foundation for the confinement. The Sheriff entered false data in the online Inmate Information center. The arrest and booking of Atty Richard Fine were listed as if it were carried out by Municipal Department 86, in San Pedro. No such Department existed. However, it came in handy - the Sheriff Department then conveniently claimed that the arrest and booking papers were held by the Booking Agency - following standard procedures. After I made it clear that I knew that such agency never existed – the San Pedro Municipal Dept 86 - the Sheriff's Office would not answer any more questions regarding the papers. Richard Fine is in solitary confinement for 7 months, in a remote hospital room, with no access to the main jail facility, and practically is never out of his room. The most plausible explanation - he was never booked at all, and he is not on the Inmate County List of the jail. Therefore, he must never be present in the three-times a day Inmate Counts, he basically has to never exist in the jail... It really was not an arrest, and it really isn't jailing - the Sheriff was really just playing a little flimflam...

Denial of Access to Records of the Sheriff Department –

Arrest and Booking Records of Richard Fine – Through three weeks of almost daily communications, access is denied. The Sheriff’s office is refusing to allow inspection of the records, which are prescribed as public records by the California Public Records Act. It is also evident why – because there are no papers, and never were. The latest that I heard from Commander Laing was: “The Office of the Sheriff practices full transparency”. And if I wanted to see the records “You would have to get a court order for that”.

3) Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE and Judge JOHN WALTER, U.S. Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles –

Ran on Richard Fine a sham Habeas Corpus Petition proceedings. None of the papers that were the Orders, Report and Recommendations, and Judgment were real court records (authenticated, effectual). They were just playing a little bluff...

In addition, I raised concerns of dishonest handling of the paper records that were filed on behalf of Atty Richard Fine with the U.S. District Court, and the Supervisor of the Intake Unit – SHARON MCGEE – looked into it, and then told me that she concurred with my concerns, and that she raised the issues herself before the court. I then followed up with a written request, which was submitted to TERRY NAFISI - Clerk of the U.S. District Court - for investigation of such concerns. No reply whatsoever was received.

Denial of Access to Records of the U.S. District Court, LA –

a) The Richard Fine Habeas Corpus Petition Paper Record – Requests to access the original paper that was filed on behalf of Richard Fine as Habeas Corpus Petition are denied. On September 18, 2009, I appeared in the U.S. District Court Clerk’s office and hand delivered a written request. The Duty Clerk claimed that the petition, filed on March 19 or 20, 2009 (the stamp was hand altered, you can't tell for sure), was already shredded. I later requested to inspect documentation of the shredding. No response was received at all. There cannot possibly be a reasonable explanation why an honest court would deny access to this public records, or if it were indeed shredded – to the documentation of the shredding.

b) The Richard Fine Habeas Corpus authentication records – I was reliably informed by Richard Fine from jail that he had never received any authentication with any of the orders or judgment of the court. I therefore repeatedly requested in communications with TERRY NAFISI – Clerk of the U.S. District Court, and also in a visit on Sept 18, 2009 delivered by hand a written request – to inspect and to copy the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings – today’s instrument of authentication in the U.S. Courts). The request was explicitly denied by the Duty Clerk, with no explanation at all.

I later received a letter from the Clerk's Office that appeared as an offer to allow me access to the NEFs. I responded, and I am still waiting.

4) Chief Judge ALEX KOZINSKI and Circuit Judges RICHARD TALLMAN and RICHARD PAEZ, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit –

Followed suite - and ran on Richard Fine a sham Petition review. I figured it out even before they issued the denial. You can see my filing (Dckt #2), protesting sham court actions as a common, widespread severe abuse of Human Rights in the U.S. today - by the court that were charged with protection of such rights... Regardless, they issued the June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition (Dckt #4), which never was and never will be a real court order. I was on the service list, and I received that order by mail as well - it names Chief Judge ALEX KOZINSKI and Circuit Judges RICHARD TALLMAN and RICHARD PAEZ as those who issued the order. However, the order was undated, unsigned, and unauthenticated. And that is also the way that it appears in the court docket in Pacer - the electronic court records of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit... It was just a little flimflam...

Denial of Access to Records of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit –

a) The Richard Fine Petition Authentication Records – I was reliably informed by Richard Fine from jail that he had never received any authentication with the denial order. In addition – I was listed as Party in Interest, and I was served by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, with the June 30, 2009 Order (Dckt #4) of denial as well – a paper that carried the names of the three Judges of the Court of Appeals, but was undated and unsigned by them, with no authentication at all. Written requests for the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings - today's authentication records) remain unanswered.

The denial of access to the public records is not only denial of the rights of Richard Fine, but denial of the rights of all of us. The right to access court records is one of the oldest in Common Law. It must be considered as an integral part of the Habeas Corpus - The Great Writ. There simply is no way to practice Habeas Corpus with no access to court records. Trying to make it simple - it is as if the police were required as part of their duties to make sure that all drivers have valid driver's licenses and car registration and insurance, but police would not be allowed to ask drivers to show them the records...

What we are witnessing in Los Angeles County, today - 2009, are concerted efforts by the courts to establish and enforce new standards - false arrest, false imprisonment, false review of habeas corpus and related petitions, and repeal of the right to access court records... It is back to the deep past - by way of digital technology...

It is a grim picture for anybody who cares for his/her own Liberty. Surely, I never dreamed that I would witness anything like this in my lifetime.

Joe Zernik

jz12345@earthlink.net

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

____________________________

LINKS TO REFERENCES

I.Fictionalized account of the arrest and jailing of Richard Fine: 09-10-21-An Urban Myth....
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/10/09-10-21-an-urban-myth-b-letter-to.html

II. List of eight (8) records of the LA Superior Court that were related to the jailing of Att Richard Fine, all of which are of the type "false on their faces" - the Fingerprints of the LA-JR, with links to images of the records themselves, and notes detailing the defects in each record:

09-11-03 Jailing of Atty Richard Fine - Evidence of the conduct of an enterprise in a pattern of racketeering activity
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/11/connect-dots.html

III. Image and text of the false court record that was served by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit:

09-11-11 What do you call an unsigned order, denying a prisoner's petition received from Chief Judge, 9th Circuit, Alex Kozinski? SLEAZE? FLIMFLAM?
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/11/09-11-11-what-do-you-call-unsigned.html

IV. Overall easy language narrative explaining why none of the records were true court records, and efforts to access court records to establish more definitively that they are false and deliberately misleading records produced by the courts:

09-11-13 Hi Shirley - Updates on the Case of Richard Fine
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/11/09-11-13-hi-shirley-updates-on-richard.html

____________________________

CASE CAPTIONS

1) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Jailing of Atty Richard Fine was purported to originate from ancillary proceedings to -

Marina v LA County (BS109420)

2) U.S. Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was purported to be litigated under -

Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

3) U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

The Emergency Petition of Atty Richard Fine from his Habeas Corpus Petition was purported to be reviewed under -

Fine v Sheriff (09-71692)

____________________________

COURT RECORDS

Many or most court records in the three cases listed above and many more can be found archived at:

http://inproperinla.com/

Organization is far from perfect; however by default it is alpha-numeric, and the three cases above each starts with a market, respectively:

1)

• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-ma_______________________________LA_SUP_CT__MARINA_V_LA_COUNTY_(BS109420)

2)

• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-find______________________________US_DIST_CT_LA__FINE-V-SHERIFF-DEPT-OF-LA-COUNTY_(2-09-Cv-01914)

3)

• 00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sherifd__________________________US_APP_CT_9TH_FINE_V_US_DIST_CT_LA-no1_(09-71692)