Double Books at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit?

An Attempt to Disambiguate the State of the Records of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Relative to Petition Docketed Online Under the Name of Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine

____________________________________________________________

A) Background

The request below was sent to the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit, and it pertains to petition posted on the docket of the court, Fine v U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, No 09-71692, originating from Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County, No 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW. Such petition is posted as representing the putative Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandate and/or Prohibition of jailed Att Richard Fine, alternatively - his putative Habeas Corpus Petition.

The petition looks nowhere like the work product of an experienced attorney like Richard Fine. One couldn't even figure out what type of petition it was. Examples of Habeas Corpus Petitions filed and argued by Att Richard Fine before the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit, can be seen under xxx

The court records themselves reveal an inherent conflict in figuring out what type petition it was - a Habeas Corpus Petition, or an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandate and/or Prohibition: In the docketing text the petition is twice referred to as a Habeas Corpus Petition. However, in the letter by the Clerk of the Court (page 1 in Doc #1 in the docket) it is referred to as a Petition for a Writ of Mandate and/or Prohibition.

The main concern regarding the docketing of such petition is that careful review of the records of the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit must lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that the petition was in fact rejected, and that it was never accepted by the Court as a valid record, and therefore, it was never Filed and it was never Entered into a valid Court File in the records of the Court. Appearance of such petition in the online docket, with the letter from the Clerk of the Court acknowledging receipt (but neither Filing nor Entering of the petition), is surely going to mislead many to believe the contrary - that such petition was accepted by the Court as a valid record, that it was Filed and that it was Entered, and therefore - that it was/is going to be reviewed and considered by the Court in its capacity as a review panel.

Of yet greater concern is the fact that in similar situations in the past, the U.S. Court of Appeals- 9th Circuit issued orders on the matter, that were ambiguous as well. Such orders could be seen by some as recognition of the invalidity of the records. However, such orders could be claimed by others as reflecting a denial proper of a valid petition upon review and consideration. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Zernik v U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, No 08-72714, and (2)

This writer's opinion is that allowing such ambiguity to stand is uniquely harmful for the cause of Att Richard Fine. and also for public understanding of any rulings that may be issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit on this matter - and therefore - to the appearance of Justice being done by the Court of Appeals-9th Circuit. The public may not be able to understand the nuances of such situation.

Therefore, attempts are being made to disambiguate that which should have been made crystal clear had the public gained access to a Register of Actions of the Court, where it must state clearly relative to each and every record : Filed, and/or Entered, with clear identification of the Party or Counsel who transacted the filing, the Date of Filing, the Date of Entry, and valid Verifications of each and every one of the statements regarding filing and entry by a duly authorized Clerk of the Court.

All of these critical features are missing from the "Docket" provided for public access online. Therefore, there is no way for the public (including parties and counsel) to tell what the state is of such strange and unusual record as the petition posted in case No 09-71692 Fine v U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.

Let's hope that the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit, realize that allowing any such ambiguity to remain on such matters as whether a given record was filed and entered with the court, or not, amounts to compromised Due Process for Att Richard Fine, and that the state of such records must be disambiguated BEFORE any ruling is issued on the matter, not AFTER.

____________________________________________________________

B) June 25, 2009 Email to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit: A Request for Disambiguation.

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:03:23 -0700
To:
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Urgent: Re: Request for leave to file papers in sham litigation at U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

The matter is urgent, and time is of the essence.

.

Mr David Paris
Office of the Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit.

Mr Paris:

Thanks for the note.

A couple of questions:

1) As the text of the paper I sent for filing in court itself states, the term "Received" is an ambiguous one.
I request to know whether the paper was stamped "Filed" by the court,

2) Will I get my conformed copy? I enclosed an extra copy and a stamped, self addressed envelope.

3) In case the paper was stamped: "Filed", I also request to know how I may be able to tell if it will ever be "Entered", since the online docket on display to the public seems to consistently avoid the proper use of the term "Enter" relative to the papers received by the U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit.

4) In case it was "Filed" and "Entered", is there any idea when the request may be addressed? I would like to file a couple of other papers in this case, and I was hoping for a quick answer on the matter of leave to file.

5) Based on all the above, I must assume that the court has its own register system, where it clearly marks for internal use the status of each file. I cannot see how any court could work off the information the way it is displayed on the Pacer online. Assuming that such is the case, I believe that such register would be deemed court record, subject to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the right to access court records to inspect and to copy.
I therefore would like to know what it would cost and what method of payments are acceptable to copy the entire court register and all court papers listed as filed or as received in the following caption - - Fine v U.S. District Court, LA, 09-71692; Originating from: Fine v Sheriff Dept: CV 09-1914-JFW(CW)

I would be grateful for your response on the issues above.

Joseph Zernik

____________________________________________________________

C) June 23, 2009 Email from the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals-9th Circuit, Acknowledgement of Receipt of Paper in Fine v U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.

At 06:12 23/06/2009, you wrote:

Return Receipt

Yourdocument:

• Request for leave to file papers in sham litigation at U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

was received by:

• David Paris/CA02/02/USCOURTS

at:

• 06/23/2009 09:12:54 AM EDT

Request for leave to file papers in sham litigation at U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Richard I Fine
Petitioner
v
Sheriff of Los Angeles County
Respondent
_________________________________

Case No 09-71692

VERIFIED EX PARTE APPLICATION BY PRO SE FILER FOR A LEAVE TO FILE AS PARTY IN INTEREST IN FINE V SHERIFF DEPT OF LA COUNTY, NO. 09-71692.

Pro Se Filer, Dr Joseph Zernik, hereby requests that the Court grant him leave to file papers as Party in Interest in matter received from jailed Att Richard Fine now appearing in the Index of Cases of the Court, as Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County,No.09-71692. The Court itself surely holds the matter invalid, since it has already determined that it originated from a null action in District Court, LA. If allowed, Pro Se Filer would present the Court with detailed data regarding the prevalence, extent, and ways that Sham Litigations and Sham Court Actions are propagated in California today, of which such petition is an example. Pro Se Filer claims that Sham Actions are one of the most common severe abuses of Human Rights in California today.
Allowing such filing will further the cause of justice, but must not be construed as any admission of the validity of such petition. Pro Se Filer prays the Court make a clear and unambiguous pronouncement on the matter at bar, so that abuse of jailed Att Richard Fine will not have been in vain.

Date: June 18, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,
Joseph H Zernik,
Pro Se Filer


/s/
_______________________
By: Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net


THE FULL TEXT OF THE REQUEST CAN BE VIEWED AT:
http://inproperinla.com/09-06-18-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-09-06-18-req-leave-to-file-s.pdf

Surprisingly Quick Response by the U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit...

Another day in the trenches...

.

The U.S. Appellate Court 9th Circuit was surprisingly quick to respond to my newsletter... I distributed it in the early morning hours, and by afternoon the court corrected the irregularities in the docketing of Richard I Fine's Emergency Petition...[1]

I wish I was my own side-kick when I filed my own emergency petition with the 9th Circuit last year...

Regardless, my advice to Att Richard I Fine, had I ever talked with him, would have been not to build up any expectations for relief by the 9th Circuit Court... If he is positively surprised, that's great. But for me it was one of the worst points in the whole ordeal - the way I was treated by the 9th Circuit Court - because I had falsely exagerated expectations...
.
In a way it was also the "moment of clarity" - which comes after you "hit rock bottom" - using the Big Book of AA terminology...[2]
.
Also filed today was a 2-page complaint by fax to Steve Goldman, Chief, White Collar Crime Squadron, FBI Los Angeles - against Magistrate Carla Woehrle, her law clerk Donna Thomas, and pro se clerk Chris Sawyer, all at the U.S. district court, LA, for their handling of trial court litigation records in the cases of Richard I Fine...[3]

.

It was almost a copy of the letter I filed with Mr Goldman exactly a year ago regarding the handling of my own litigation records in Zernik v Connor et al by the same team... It looks like they are running out of new tricks... It is like deja vu all over again... as Yogi Berra used to say...

Also had an intersting discussion with the Pacer technical team in Texas... It always comes to me as a surprise, since I have never considered myself as a technical/computer expert... Yet, I must admit it is in my blood- both my brothers and two of my cousins are PhDs in Computer Science... With it came some interesting findings... It always surprises me when I realize that I am telling technical people about problems that they should be concerned about, but are not...

The Pacer technical team felt that the system was as secure as can be... After all, it is presumably under the wings of the DOD. I guess that such security arrangements protect Pacer against a surprise attack by Osama Bin Laden from his cave where he sits and plans with his wi-fi internet connection...

But they forgot to place some critical safeguards against the Carla Woehrles, Donna Thomases, and Chris Sawyers... Because just as is the case in the mortgage/banking industry - most or all of the frauds in the dockets are inside jobs...

____________________

[1] Now Att Richard I Fine's Emergency Petition is posted online in Pacer:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-emergency-petition-from-pacer-09-06-03.pdf

[2] The Big Book of AA, page 42

http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/

[3] Complaint letter to Chief of the White Collar Crime Squadron, Steven Goldman:

http://inproperinla.com/09-06-08-complaint-to-fbi-goldman-re-fine-v-sheriff-docs-22-23-24-s.pdf