Monday, June 8, 2009

Jailed Human Rights Activist Att Richard I Fine’s 9th Circuit Court Petition Demonstrates Vague and Ambiguous Filing Procedures...

The petition itself was denied the leave to be posted in the Pacer docket, albeit - neither the respective ruling, nor of its legal foundation were recorded. Reported refund of the filing fees was similarly neither recorded nor reasonably explained, resulting in a vague and ambiguous court filing…

.

Los Angeles, June 8, 2009, payments of ~$45,000 per judge per year, were taken by ALL Los Angeles Superior Court judges for years. Such payments were ruled in October 2008 as “Not Permitted”,[i] pursuant to the California Constitution, and would be called by a lay person “Bribes”.[ii] As part of alleged retaliation for his role in exposing such payments accomplished anti-trust attorney, former U.S. Prosecutor, human rights activist Att Richard I Fine was disbarred, and more recently - on March 4, 2009 - indefinitely jailed.[iii] Such jailing - for contempt - by Judge David Jaffe, came at the end of proceedings where Att Richard I Fine sought to disqualify Judge David Jaffe for a cause, since the judge was among the judges who took such payments…

Although the matter is of the highest public policy significance, major news outlets consistently fail to report on developments in this case. As reported by Full Disclosure Network, the ONLY consistently reliable news source in this matter, the ruling to jail Att Richard I Fine and conditions of his incarceration demonstrated alleged severe abuses of human rights in LA County, California, by judges of the LA Superior Court. Other ongoing human rights abuses of historic proportions by judges of the LA Superior Court were alleged in the continued incarceration of the estimated 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) - a full decade after the onset of the 2-year (1998-2000), 200-investigator probe that demonstrated that they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced.[iv]

Records and dockets of complaints, filed by Att Richard Fine at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, in attempt to restore his rights, evidenced further alleged abuses of Due Process rights, including, but not limited to setting of incarceration conditions that deliberately compromised Att Richard Fine’s ability to physically file his papers in court, and the failure to hear, to this date, his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on March 19, 2009.[ii] , [v]

On June 3, 2009, Att Richard I Fine therefore filed a petition with the U.S. Appellate Court, 9th Circuit. [vi] Data from the U.S. courts’ case management system Pacer of Att Richard I Fine’s and two other detainees’ petitions filed on or around the same date were copied below. Such records demonstrated the differential treatment and the vague and ambiguous nature of the docketing and filing of Att Richard I Fine’s petition.[vii]

Petitions of both other detainees were posted in full in the online docket, 44 pages in one, and 8 pages in the other. Only in the case of Att Richard I Fine, the petition itself was NOT posted online. Therefore the Pacer docket would not allow others to follow whatever takes place in this action.[viii] In addition, since the petition itself was not posted in the Pacer docket, one couldn’t tell with certainty: Was it a habeas corpus petition per se, or was it a petition for a writ of mandate, pertaining to the conduct of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles? What specific claims were made? What specific relief was sought by Att Richard Fine?

Furthermore, the 9th Circuit Court Pacer docket did not allow to ascertain who signed the petition. Was Att Richard I Fine himself? Was it his counsel? Was it another unknown party? Such questions were pertinent here, since part of the abuse cited in the Full Disclosure Network report was: “Since incarceration on March 4, 2009 Petitioner has been denied all access to writing materials and to all written materials and legal documents.” Moreover, regardless of the fact that such obstacles were deliberately set up by the LA County Sheriff’s Department, papers that Att Richard I Fine had filed with the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, were consequently stricken off the record of that court – at the request of the LA County Sheriff’s Department - for failure to bear signature of pro se petitioner or his counsel…

In fact, it was left unclear whether the 9th circuit court accepted this filing either. Such ambiguity was enhanced by the failure to state any schedule for proceedings, although the docket claimed "ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PETITIONER". Furthermore, the Full Disclosure Network reported a refund of the filing fees, which could indicate denial of the leave to file the petition as presented to the clerk. However, such refund was noticed by phone only, and no record was provided in the Pacer docket of the unusual decision to refund the fees, neither was any reasonable explanation provided for such decision.

Upon review, as a whole, the Pacer record of Att Richard I Fine’s petition may therefore be deemed as: (a) Substantially deficient, departing from the standards for docketing of other detainees’ petitions; (b) Demonstrating denial of the leave to post the petition itself in the docket, with no record of such ruling, or its reasons; (c) Possibly also demonstrating denial of the leave to file the petition in its current form – as reflected by the refund of the filing fees and failure to set up schedule – again – with no explicit recording of such ruling, if any, and its reasons, and (d) Overall - vague and ambiguous docketing and filing procedures.

Instant petition, like other cases, previously described [ii], demonstrates various alleged abuses of Due Process and First Amendment rights, all stemming from the failure to formulate standard, basic court procedures - pertaining to Pacer filing and docketing - as Rules of Court. Proposal was filed with the U.S. Congress over a year ago, to enforce the Rule Making Enabling Act on all case management systems in the courts – an essential measure for the safeguard of the integrity of the courts[ix].


[i] October 10, 2008 ruling by the California Court of Appeal, 4th District:

http://inproperinla.com/08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-county-judges-payments-not-permitted.pdf

[ii] Review of the case of “not permitted” payments, taken by the LA Superior Court judges:

http://inproperinla.com/09-04-16-rizzo-letter-to-congress-re-att-fine-s.pdf

[iii] Overview of the case of jailing Att Richard I Fine for contempt

http://inproperinla.com/09-04-08-full-disclosure-network-on-richard-fine-habeas-corpus.pdf

[iv] May 1, 2009 complaint filed in U.S. Court, District of Columbia: Zernik v Melson at al.(1:2009cv00805) alleging widespread corruption and racketeering by LA Superior Court judges and others:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-09-05-01-doc-001-1-petition.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-09-05-01-doc-001-2-peition-exhibits.pdf

[v] The Habeas Corpus petition and related dockets and papers can be viewed under http://inproperinla.com/ :

[vi] June 6, 2009 Full Disclosure Network report of the 9th Circuit Court petition filed by Att Richard I Fine:

http://inproperinla.com/09-06-06-att-richard-i-fine-filed-petition-with-us-app-ct-9th-cir-full-disclosure-network.pdf

[viii] 9th Circuit Court Pacer docket for Att Richard I Fine says only:
 06/03/2009 1 1 pg, 128.65 KB
 FILED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. DOCKETED
CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO
SE PETITIONER. (HC)
The Pacer docket of petition by another Pro Se detainee on the same day provides the full 44-page petition and the following Pacer docket text:
 06/03/2009 1 44 pg, 1.7 MB
 FILED PRO SE BIA PETITION FOR REVIEW AND MOTION FOR
STAY. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF
COUNSEL. Pursuant to G.O. 6.4 (c)(1)(3) A TEMPORARY STAY OF
REMOVAL IS IN EFFECT pending further order. Petitioner detained: Yes.
The schedule is set as follows: Certified Administrative Record due
07/29/2009. Response to motion for stay due 08/26/2009 for Eric H. Holder
Jr., Attorney General. (GR)

 The Pacer docket of petition by another detainee on the previous day provides the full 8-page petition and the following Pacer docket text:
 06/02/2009 1
 8 pg, 277.83 KB
 FILED (FAXED) BIA PETITION FOR REVIEW AND MOTION FOR
STAY. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF
COUNSEL. Pursuant to G.O. 6.4 (c)(1)(3) A TEMPORARY STAY OF
REMOVAL IS IN EFFECT pending further order. Petitioner detained: Yes.
The schedule is set as follows: Certified Administrative Record due
07/28/2009. Response to motion for stay due 08/25/2009 for Eric H. Holder
Jr., Attorney General. (BY)
[ix] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-conclusions-computers&courts-concerns&legistlative-proposal-s.pdf


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, June 4, 2009

LA Law - Neither False Judgments nor False Convictions Shall Be Reversed!

Rampart-FIPs - Where Are the Missing Minors?

All of us who live in LA, and in California in general, may have got a bit numb, and the U.S. Dept of Justice under the previous administration failed to send anybody here the wake up call, the coffee, the donuts, whatever it takes...

A judge who is reliably informed of “unprofessional conduct” by other judges or lawyers must initiate corrective action, pursuant to both State and U.S. codes of judicial ethics.

Standards of justice elsewhere in the U.S.
• February 2009 - two Pennsylvania judges were arrested in relationship to false convictions of
minors.
• March 2009 - the Pennsylvania Courts, of their own volition, within a month or less, set up panels to review and overturn the false convictions of such judges. The Pennsylvania judges did not engage in an extraordinary, heroic actions, they simply obeyed the law.


Standards of justice in Los Angeles County, California
• 1998-2000 - a 2-year, 200-investigator probe uncovered human rights abuses that were described as the worst abuses by police in the history of the U.S. However, at the end of the investigation, LAPD forgot to issue a report... to this date hardly any of the Rampart FIPs (falsey imprisoned persons) estimated at anywhere between 8,000-30,000 have been released, and hardly any of the perpetrators (estimated at 70-80) have been prosecuted...
• June 2001 - U.S. government and City of LA, LAPD enter a Consent Decree. Some judges and prosecutors had obviously been involved in “unprofessional conduct” relative to minors, since the case that resulted in the Consent Decree (June 2001) in the aftermath of the Rampart Scandal, U.S. v City of LA et al (2:2000cv11769), was framed around the mistreatment of minors, not adults. The cause of action was 42 USC § 14141 which prohibits "a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."
Newspapers reported that LA could be subject to penalties in the billions, and
also criminal liability for the mayor, city council, police chief, police commission, etc. Counsel for the City of LA and LAPD apparently concurred, since City of LA, the Mayor, LAPD, Police Commission, opted to yield and enter the Consent Decree.
• September 2008 and beyond - where are the records of any overturned convictions of minors?
Can't find them, neither before the appointment of the Overseer per the Consent Decree, nor after... called and wrote the Consent Decree Bureau – no response. A decade has passed, and no corrective action was taken by the LA Superior Court!

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Writs of Error Coram Nobis and Implied Rights to Honest Services - Att Ricahrd I Fine on Full Disclosure Network

Some nuggets...

Here are two quotes from a transcript of an interview of Att Richard I Fine with Leslie Dutton of Full Disclosure Network:

“ [T]hey violated ... what is called the implied or intangible right to honest services, and that's 18 United States Code, Section 1346, because ... when a judge takes money from an individual – or even a government – and then does not disclose it, he violates that particular code section.”

-- Attorney Richard I. Fine




“ Every case in which one of these judges has ruled against you, as an individual, or you had a problem with the County, can now actually be overturned, because of the fact that they've legislated this immunity and they've given them the immunity for this bad act or for this illegal act. We have what is known as a writ of coram nobis*. And the writ of coram nobis says that if there's a new fact that has come in to show that what's happened with the case, you can now come in and say, "Look, I want my case overruled and I want my case redone." So that is a side effect of this legislation. For every person that had a case that went bad under one of these judges, come in on the writ of quorum nobis and ask to have the case re-heard. That's one of the things that can take place.

RICHARD FINE: That is a case that involved the County. Now, to give you an idea of how wide that can be, that can deal with eminent domain, that could deal with any kind of a homeowner case, that could deal with child custody cases. If a county was involved in any type of a custody case or any type of a case with children or children's services, and the County paid the Children's Services Department or if the County gets involved with support payments, or if the County gets involved in a divorce case and suddenly the County's brought in as part of the child custody with respect to an evaluation or something and the judge is following that, you can get that case overturned because the judge could be biased in looking at what the County did in deciding the custody situation. So you have all of these cases that can go in and get overturned at this particular point in time.”

-- Attorney Richard I. Fine

* More often cited as "writ of error coram nobis" (error in our presence).

More:
May 5, 2009; Full Disclosure Network
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/539.php'
March 3, 2009 interview of attorney Richard I. Fine by Leslie Dutton of Full Disclosure Network, posted March 8, 2009
Video "Coercive Confinement; Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption," Full Disclosure Network, May 5, 2009

Additional notes and commentary:

Adapted and reprinted for a non-profit educational purpose.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Seeking Pro Bono Representation in U.S. Court, Washington DC

Papers evidencing racketeering by Countrywide and judges of the LA Superior Court are denied docketing by the Honorable Richard J Leon, U.S. Judge, albeit with no adequate record of such ruling.
.
by Joseph Zernik
.
IN ZERNIK v MELSON ET AL (1:2009cv00805), filed May 1, 2009, Plaintiff claims that USDOJ and FBI have allowed severe abuse of civil rights of the 10 million residents of LA County, California, for years. The complaint alleges widespread corruption of the courts in LA County, California, which is tolerated and patronized by USDOJ and FBI, going back at least as far as 1980's and the Iran-Contra scandal. Furthermore, when faced with congressional inquiries on the matter, KENNETH MELSON (Director, USDOJ), and KENNETH KAISER(Assistant Director, FBI) provided US Congress with alleged fraudulent responses. The complaint seeks relief in orders "to compel U.S. officers to perform their duties".
.
IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN LA: The Rampart-corruption investigation, a 2-year (1998-2000), 200-investigator probe, ended, but no report was ever written... The victims, the Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons), estimated in PBS broadcast from 2001 at 8,000 to 30,000, are still locked up 10 years later. Hardly any of the perpetrators (70-80 police officers per media reports) were prosecuted, after the jury conviction of three of the first four corrupt police was overturned by trial judge JACQUELINE CONNOR. In a ruling issued from home, December 22, 2000, she claimed that her own errors in jury instructions fatally biased the jury... The complaint alleges that such corruption is related to ongoing drug sales for profit by law-enforcement agencies, patronized by the courts. Of particular concern is the failure to identify any record of corrective actions relative to the false imprisonment or other abuse of minors among the victims, since the Consent Decree in U.S. v City of LA et al (2:2000cv11769), was framed under 42 USC § 14141 which prohibits "a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

IN THE CIVIL COURTS IN LA: Racketeering by judges is alleged in real estate litigations, in collusion with Los Angeles-based COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (CFC), now a subsidiary of BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION (BAC). The complaint alleges that corruption and large-scale fraud against the U.S. government at CFC were evidenced already in a complaint filed with FBI in January 2007. In March 2007 complaint, the liabilities to U.S. government were also correctly projected - at hundreds of billions of dollars. Regardless - FBI and USDOJ have refused to investigate such complaints ever since.

IN THE CIVIL COURTS IN LA: Fraud in the court's case management system SUSTAIN is alleged. The system, installed around 1985, at a time that RONALD GEORGE, today Chief Justice of the Cal Supreme Court was in leadership position at the courts, and is produced by a secretive corporation of the same name, controlled by THE DAILY JOURNAL - the largest newspaper in California. Neither MARTIN BERG (Editor), nor RONALD GEORGE would comment on the subject.

IN THE CIVIL COURTS IN LA: The complaint seeks protection of civil rights of Att RICHARD I FINE, a noted anti-trust attorney, former U.S. prosecutor, who is indefinitely jailed in LA on contempt after leading the efforts to expose that ALL judges in LA SUPERIOR COURT received for years payments, which were finally ruled in October 2008 "NOT PERMITTED" -- ~$45,000 per judge per year -- and would be called by a lay person "BRIBES". Moreover, ALL the judges and failed to disclose such payments.

IN U.S. COURT, DC: The complaint was assigned to the Honorable RICHARD J LEON, May 1, 2009. Request for his disqualification for a cause, based on service as Minority Counsel in Iran Contram, was stamped "Filed" May 13, 2009. Judge RICHARD J LEON refuses to recuse, and the Clerk of Court refuses to assign another judge to rule on the disqualification. Subsequent papers, including evidence of alleged criminal conduct by LA Superior Couret judges, by senior officers of CFC, and by others, were not docketed at all. Instead- papers were forwarded to chambers of Judge Leon. In repeated phone calls to DAVID SCOTT, Assistant Deputy Clerk in charge of Operations Department, no reasonable explanation, founded in the law, was provided for the failure to docket the papers in Pacer. Records of any ruling by the Honorable Richard J Leon pertaining to docketing, or denial thereof, fails to appear in the docket as well...

TO VIEW PAPERS THAT ARE DENIED DOCKETING - GO TO: www.inproperinla.com; scroll down to us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson and view both the docketed and the undocketed (marked "as mailed") papers.

SEEKING PRO BONO COUNSEL TO RESTORE FIRST AMENDMENT, DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN US COURT IN WASHINGTON DC.

Contact:
Joseph Zernik
Cell 310 435 9107
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, June 1, 2009

Letter to the Chinese Ambassador in re: Visit by U.S. Treasuy Secretary to China

The Chinese Government needs to be honestly informed regarding the causes underlying the current financial crisis, after all - with $2 trillion reserves denominated in U.S. currency, the Chinese government is a fully vested partner in the U.S. economy, and continued stability depends on its good will...


His Excellency Zhou Wenzhong

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

of the People’s Republic of China to the U.S.


RE: U.S. Treasury Secretary visit to China, and expectations of reforms in U.S. financial institutions, U.S. regulatory agencies, U.S. Human Rights record, and compliance with U.S. and international law.

Dear Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong:

I am a resident of Los Angeles County, California, and I write to this letter as a loyal citizen of the United States, with the peace and prosperity of both U.S. and China in mind. The timing of this letter is meant to coincide with the visit of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to China, to review economic policies[2]. The aim of this letter is to point out to Chinese officials specific areas where U.S. management of financial institutions, financial markets, regulatory agencies, and law enforcement are in need of improvement and monitoring. The underlying assumption is that the administration of President Obama is committed to such reforms after a number of years of reckless government conduct. Chinese support of stability of the U.S. economy in recent years, in the face of conduct in the U.S. that undermined its own economy, should be gratefully acknowledged by all U.S. citizens. Recent initiative by Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the People's Bank of China notwithstanding, China, with its large holding of foreign exchange reserves, estimated at $2 trillions, is a fully vested partner in the U.S. economy. This letter offers specific suggestions relative to ways in which the Chinese government can support and monitor progress in President Obama’s reform efforts, with emphasis on integrity of data collection, data analysis, reporting by financial institutions, conduct of U.S. regulatory agencies, human rights, and compliance with both U.S. and international law.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Request for Review of Clerk's Operations at U.S. Court, District of Columbia

Request was filed with the Clerk of the Court, copied to their Excellencies the Royal Ambassador of Norway and the Ambassador of the State of Israel, U.S. Congress, and others...

RE: Case #1:2009cv00805, Zernik v Melson et al.

Dear Ms Mayer Whittington and Mr Scott:

I am a pro se filer, and a resident of Los Angeles California. I deem my case, referenced above, and filed at U.S. Court, District of Columbia, politically sensitive.  In the past two weeks I had a number of phone calls with clerks of the U.S. Court, Washington DC, as part of my attempts to figure out the fate of my papers.  Such conversations left me convinced that I would be accorded honest treatment by most clerks of the court.  However, they left me concerned regarding some unclear details.

I am writing to request that special attention be provided to ensure honest processing of my future papers, and also to request that some facts be established regarding processing of my previous papers.

The full letter can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-05-29-letter-to-clerks-of-us-court-dc-s.pdf

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, May 28, 2009

And the Score is: California v Illinois - 2:0!

Seeking references of indictments, prosecutions, or convictions of judges on racketeering anywhere outside California...

Some of the best legal advice I got in recent years was from Sarah, the black old lady who vacuums at Kinko near the court downtown.  After a couple of times she saw me copying papers there, and after we compared notes about our kids, and about education in general, she told me: 

"Sir, you have no business spending your time in California Courts.  There are two cities that are the most corrupt in the U.S. - Chicago and Los Angeles. I lived in both, and let me tell you  the difference:  In Chicago we had style... in Los Angeles the corruption is crude!"

However, at present I claim Los Angeles in particular, and California in general, leave Chicago in the dust...  To wit - in the recent letter to the Ambassador of Norway I quote two cases of indictment and convictions of California judges on racketeering [1] in the past 15 years... Give me any case from Chicago, Illinois, or anywhere else in the U.S. to match that...

Any information would be greatly appreciated, since the claim in action in Washington DC court is of failure of FBI and USDOJ to accord Equal Protection in California. Therefore, the data is of significance...  Also pursuant to International Law - Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2], allowing the ongoing alleged racketeering of judges in LA is not permitted.

[1]  Allegations of racketeering by judges may appear scandalous.  Not so! California judges were previously prosecuted and convicted of racketeering:

a. Criminal RICO prosecution against U.S. Judge in California - USA v Robert P Aguilar:

Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, repeatedly resulted in an error message: 

  • "The webpage at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?59286 might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address."

This type of error message had never been encountered in any other case. The records in this case were not marked as sealed, they were simply excluded from the Pacer docket.  This writer is not aware of any Rule of Court or any law or regulation that allows selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets by the courts, at will.  In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978).

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-ct-supreme-usa-v-aguilar-515-us-593-1995.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-90-02-06-san-jose-federal-judge-aguilar-on-trial-in-a-racketeering-case-nyt.pdf

b. Criminal RICO prosecution against California State Judges - USA v Frega et al:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-docket.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-racketeering%20indictment.pdf f

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-adams.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-frega.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sd-usa-v-frega-et-al-verdict-malkus.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-96-10-18-san-diego-racketeering-judges-california-bar-journal.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/03-05-06-san-diego-judges-racketeering-met-news.pdf

c. Civil RICO complaints against LAPD - Hunter v Gates et al:

Attempts to download the U.S. District Court records of this case from Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system, revealed the following - Neither original complaint, nor first, second, nor third amended complaint are accessible online.  The records were not marked as sealed, they were simply not included in the Pacer docket.  This writer is not aware of any law, Rule of Court, or regulations, which allow the courts selective inclusion or exclusion from Pacer dockets,  at will.  In and of itself this practice may constitute violation of First Amendment and Common Law rights to inspect and to copy court records per Nixon v Warner Communications (1978).  Of note - the judge presiding in this case, the Honorable Gary Feess is the Overseer for Civil Rights in LA, per the Consent Decree!

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-hunter-v-gates-et-al-docket.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-huner-v-gates-et-al-02-02-14-order-to-dismiss-with-prejudice.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-04-20-racketeer-suits-in-rampart-ok-ed-lat.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/01-07-13-use-of-rico-law-in-rampart-cases-weakened%20-%20Los%20Angeles%20Times.pdf

[2]  Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 2: 
No distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs.
Article 7 
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Article 8 
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 10 
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)