Saturday, August 1, 2009

Sending today package #3 to the jailed Att Fine:

Attempts to access, to verify and to authenticate court records remain almost entirely pending, unanswered, or denied... in violation of Common Law, First and Sixth Amendment rights...

Hi Mardi:

The previous package earlier this week, included the Motions at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - for an Order on the Clerk of the Court of Appeals to provide access to NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) and digital signatures of the Court of Appeals records in petitions of Zernik v U.S. District Court (08-72714) [i] and Fine v U.S. District Court (09-71692),[ii] so that authenticated records can be definitively distinguished from unauthenticated records. Other Orders, which were requested from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were on the Court of Honorable Carla Woehrle, Magistrate, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, to allow access to NEFs of the Los Angeles court in Zernik v Connor et al (2-08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2-09-cv-01914), all pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). In the Nixon tapes decision, the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the Commons Law right of public access to judicial records, to inspect and to copy, the First Amendment right of the press to publish such public records, and the Sixth Amendment right for Public Trial.

Today's package includes the copy of the Motion at the U.S. Court, Washington DC, requesting NEFs and disambiguation by the Court of the Honorable Richard Leon, U.S. Judge and the Clerk of that Court, regarding Zernik v Melson et al (1-09-cv-00805) – and the nature of unauthenticated papers that appeared as personal correspondence from the Honorable Judge, and detailed, among others – denial of the request that US Dept of Justice provide Equal Protection of Att Richard Fine’s First Amendment rights by securing for him paper and pen, which were denied by the Sheriff Dept of LA County. The Washington DC Court was also requested to provide the rationale of operation of Pacer vs. ECF/CM, as duplicate systems for accessing U.S, court records, separate and unequal, and where the parties are segregated.[iii]

Today's package to the jailed Att Richard Fine – also includes the various meet and confer letters to the parties in Marina v County (BS109420) and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County, and Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (2:09-cv-01914), in attempt to figure out how a judgment that was purportedly entered on March 4, 2009, and was filed as evidence at the U.S. Court, LA on March 20, 2009, got verified by Judge Yaffe with the hand inscribed date of March 24, 2009. [iv], [v], [vi] The Meet and Confer letters also asked the parties to provide immediately copies of the Authenticated Register of Actions and the Judgment, if they have such record in their possession, since the LA Superior Court denies requests to authenticate such record, or for that matter - to provide access to them.

Requests for access to the Register of Actions and Judgment records in Sturgeon v LA County (BC 351286) – the litigation that yielded the “not permitted” ruling, was summarily denied by the LA Superior Court Clerk’s office – through letters by the Counsel for the court, which were deemed false and deliberately misleading. [vii], [viii], [ix] One must wonder how Judicial Watch was induced to participate for the past 2 years in litigation where trial records are concealed even from the party, when LA County and the LA Superior Court are both parties, and the LA Superior Court is also maker and keepers of the concealed records…

Today’s package also included requests to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, Terry Nafisi, to allow access to the NEFs and digital signatures in Zernik v Connor et al ( ) and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County ( ). [x] Clerk Nafisi was also requested to investigate concerns regarding the docketing and maintenances of court record, and the conduct of Magistrate Woehrle, her Courtroom Assistant - Donna Thomas, and Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer, relative to litigation records in Zernik v Connor et al, and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County. [xi]

So far, all requests, remain pending, unanswered, or denied, except for Ms Sharon McGee, Clerk Room Supervisor, who concurred with concerns regarding conduct relative to the record that was the March 4, 2009 Judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine, which may have been altered, or more likely adulterated, since such alterations, if any, were carried out without the consent of the jailed Att Richard Fine. Ms McGee informed me that she raised the issue before the Court of Magistrate Woehrle.

At this point, it looks likely that Att Richard Fine was and is falsely jailed based on a false judgment record. We should wait and see if the Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi, intends to get to the bottom of this unreasonable situation, and if and when any of the judges or justices, who would be reliably informed of "unprofessional conduct", would initiate the corrective action, as required by the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges, and also by the California Code of Judicial Ethics. [xii]

As a reminder - when two judges in Pennsylvania were indicted in February 2009[xiii] in relationship to false imprisonments of juveniles, that court set up within a month a panel to review and void judgments as necessary. [xiv] However, that has not been the custom in LA County in the past couple of decades...

Thousands of Rampart-FIPs are still falsely incarcerated,[xv], [xvi], [xvii]10 years after they were shown to be falsely convicted and falsely sentenced. Similarly - no judge ever proposed to review and void any of the judgments in trials where LA County was party, and which were adjudged and entered by courts during the period that the judges collected "not permitted" payments[xviii], which were called by media "bribes".

Therefore, it may still be necessary to file a Motion for Relief from Judgment, even if the facts become as clear and unforgiving as the August Los Angeles sun.

Joseph Zernik

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

Thursday, July 30, 2009

US Courts today: Requests for explanations filed with the Honorable Richard J Leon

Two duplicate systems for viewing court records - Pacer and ECF/CM - separate and unequal, where parties are segregated...

Plaintiffs Verified ex parte request for orders by and on the Court and on the Clerk of the
Court: (1) To serve forthwith Parties with copies of the Notices of Electronic Filings
(NEFs) from ECF/CM for all records on file in this matter; (2) To file statements on the
record explaining the conduct of the Court and the Clerk of the Court relative to
Plaintiffs papers, relative to Court papers, and relative to segregation of parties to
ECF/CM versus Pacer.
Plaintiff, a Pro Se Filer, recently received some papers by mail from the Court (Exhibits 1, 2, 3).
Such papers were inadequately verified by the Court, and entirely lacked any form of
authentication by the Clerk of the Court. Such papers could possibly be deemed as personal
communication by the Honorable Richard J Leon, U.S. Judge, but could not possibly be deemed
official service of paper by the U.S. Court, District of Columbia.
Plaintiff was and is denied access to ECF/CM with no explanation at all, and therefore, cannot
inspect Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFs) and digital signatures - the authentication of Court
records. Instead, the Court allows Plaintiff and other Pro Se Filers access only through Pacer,
where NEFs are omitted from all records. It is incomprehensible what rationale, which would
be even remotely related to the furtherance of justice, could possibly lead the U.S. Courts to
allocate substantial resources, to set up such duplicate, separate, and unequal systems, and to
segregate parties into one or the other. It is also incomprehensible how such duplicate, unequal
systems, and the segregation of parties could be founded in the law or the Rules of Court.
The requested orders, listed above, are meant to clarify Court conduct that otherwise remains
vague and ambiguous, but surely fails to appear as official service of Court papers by the Court.
Dated: July 30, 2009 Joseph H Zernik

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

The complete paper, including Exhibits 1,2,3 can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-mailed-09-07-30-req-nef-statements-on-record-s.pdf

Exhibit 4, a sample NEF from the U.S. Court at Louisiana, including digital signatures, can also be viewed in the same paper.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Justice in LA: Today: The Court joined Defendant as Intervenor, and litigation records are concealed


Act I.
 State of California judges' wages and benefits are paid by the State of California in Sacramento, pursuant to the California Constitution, In Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), Sturgeon and Judicial Watch, Inc, attempted to stop additional payments by LA County to LA judges, over $45,000 per judge per year, which were prohibited by law, but have been going on for over a decade. The LA judges also failed to disclose such payments to parties in litigations before them, where LA County was party to the litigation, out of compliance with the California Code of Judicial Ethics. In October 2008, the California Court of Appeals,4th District, finally ruled that such payments were "not permitted" on California Constitutional grounds. Media called such payments "bribes", since the judges never adjudged against LA County during some of the years when such payments were made.

 Act II.
 In response to the Court of Appeals ruling, the LA County judges hired a lobbyist who affected, within a few days, the passage of a law to allow such payments, to pardon any criminality related to the past taking of "not permitted" payments, and to immunize the judges for the future taking of "not permitted" payments. Such law was and is unconstitutional on its face, since the California Court of Appeal already ruled on the matter. On February 20, 2009 the Governor of California signed it into a law nevertheless.

 Act III.
 In response to the renewed payments, in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), Sturgeon and Judicial Watch, Inc, again attempted to stop the additional payments to LA judges, by requesting an injunction. The litigation is heard these days at the LA Superior Court, although LA Superior Court joined LA County in this case, as an Intervenor. The case was assigned to a judge who is a justice from Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Yesterday, request was made in writing to the Clerk of the Court - to access the litigation records in Sturgeon v LA County "to inspect and to copy", a Common Law and First Amendment right per the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications (1978). The response came within hours, as a lengthy letter from the Counsel for the Court, and access was denied. A second request was made, response still pending.

 Original Records:

1) California Court of Appeals, 4th District, ruling that payments by LA County to LA judge were "not permitted".
 http://inproperinla.com/08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-county-judges-payments-not-permitted.pdf

2) Bill SBX2-11 enacted without reference to committee or debate - allowing payments, which had been ruled by court unconstitutional by LA County to LA judges.
 http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-02-20-sbx-2-11-budge-bill.pdf

3) Request No 1 to access court records in Sturgeon v LA County BC351286 pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications (1978):
 http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-07-28-clerk-drapac-1st-req-access-to-records-s.pdf

4) The LA Superior Court's response:
 http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-07-28-court-counsel-resp-req-access-records.pdf

5) Request No 2 to access court records in Sturgeon v LA County BC351286 pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications (1978):
 http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-07-28-clerk-drapac-2nd-req-access-to-records-s.pdf

Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels:

Friday, July 24, 2009

Request Sent to Leon Panetta, CIA Director, for a Letter of Friend of the Court

Excerpt:


Mr Panetta:

Surely you realize that the request forwarded to you in this letter represents an unusual turn of events, where the CIA Director is perceived as concerned with civil rights of Americans and the furtherance of justice! This letter is forwarded to you together with a copy of a copy of a July 23, 2009 Letter of Meet and Confer, sent to attorneys representing the parties in Fine v U.S. Dist Court, LA, referenced above in preparation for filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, a Motion for Relief from Judgment and for Immediate Release of Att Richard Fine.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Letter of Meet & Confer Sent to Counsel in the Case of Att Richard Fine

Attorney Richard Fine is falsely jailed based on invalid, ineffectual, unauthenticated records.

Excerpts:

1) Marina v County (BS109420) – LA Superior Court
The key record – the purported Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment of Contempt was stamped “FILED” at the LA Superior Court, showing a date of March 4, 2009. It was incorporated as part of the Habeas Corpus Petition of Att Richard Fine (see below) and as such it was stamped “FILED” at the U.S. District Court, LA, showing a date of March 20, 2009. And yet, the verification/execution of the Judgment , which was attributed to Judge David Yaffe, showed the date of March 24, 2009.

2) Fine v Sheriff (2:09cv01914) – U.S. District Court, LA
A defective, uncertified, unauthenticated legal record, with insufficient or entirely absent legal foundation, was purported in the Magistrate Carla Woehrle June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendations to form the ground for the jailing of Att Richard Fine. Furthermore - the Report & Recommendation [5] - invoked the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 - as defining the purported applicable review standards. Combined – she found no fault in the conduct of the LA Superior Court and recommended denial with prejudice of the petition. Such Report & Recommendation was later adopted as the foundation for the Judge John Warner June 29, 2009 Judgment [6] denying Prisoner Att Richard Fine’s Habeas Corpus Petition.

3) Fine v US Dist Ct, LA (09-71692) – U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit
The Kozinski, Chief Judge, Paez and Tallman, Circuit Judges, June 30, 2009 Unsigned Order [7] failed to overturn such judgment of the U.S. District Court, LA.

D. Lack of any valid foundation for the jailing of Att Richard Fine
Briefly listed below are only some of the most clearly noticeable flaws in the legal foundation for the jailing of Att Richard Fine and review of such foundation by the courts.

1. Habeas Corpus petition was filed by Prisoner Att Richard Fine on March 20, 2009
The Prisoner Attorney Richard Fine March 20, 2009 Habeas Corpus Petition, which was the opening pleading in Fine v Sheriff (2:09cv01914), was in fact never responded to. In such petition Prisoner Att Richard Fine correctly named The Sheriff Department of LA County, who is depriving him of liberty, as Respondent.

2. No valid, sufficient Response was ever filed to the Habeas Corpus Petition.
Unbelievably, the Sheriff Department refused to respond or provide any records that formed the legal foundation for its holding of Att Richard Fine Prisoner. Instead, the Sheriff Department insisted that Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court provide the Response. Eventually, the Sheriff Department filed a Motion to Dismiss, but such motion to dismiss failed to respond to either the Petition, or to a subsequent Prisoner Att Richard Fine Ex Parte Application for an Order for his Immediate Release.

Judge Yaffe and the LA Superior Court eventually came forward and filed a Response, albeit, an insufficient pleading, beyond other deficiencies listed below, it was founded on declaration by counsel only. Neither Judge David Yaffe, nor any other Officer of the LA Superior Court filed a declaration to substantiate the Response.

5. Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendations
...defects could not reasonably avoid detection. The June 12, 2009 Magistrate Woehrle Report and Recommendation, which was later adopted in the June 29, 2009 Judge Walter Judgment in Fine v Sheriff (2:09cv01914) opens with the following statement:

The pro se petitioner, Richard I. Fine, is in the custody of the
Sheriff of Los Angeles County, at a Los Angeles County jail facility,
under a judgment and order of contempt.. both issued on March 4,
2009, by Hon. David P. Yaffe, Judge of the Superior Court, in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No.
BS109420.

Such statement was composed of a series of invalid, incomplete and/or insufficient legal statements, making it far from any type of reasonable legal foundation for depriving Att Richard Fine of his liberty.

E. The Standards of Review employed by Magistrate Carla Woehrle were inadequate and ignored established law on the matter without any reasonable explanation.
The direct review of the facts in the matter was the primary charge of the U.S. District Court, LA. What emerged from such review, was on the one hand neglect to address the real facts in the matter, and on the other hand – an attempt to cover-up such failure to address the facts by invoking Homeland Security and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. In the June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendation, Magistrate Carla Woehrle wrote:

Review of the Petition in this case is governed by provisions of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Under
AEDPA, a federal court may not grant habeas relief on a claim
adjudicated on its merits in state court unless the adjudication “resulted
in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States,” or “resulted in a decision that was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
“Clearly established Federal law” means “the governing legal principle
or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court
renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S.
Ct. 1166, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2003).
A decision by a state court is “contrary to” clearly established Supreme
Court law if it “‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in
[Supreme Court] cases’” or if it reaches a result different from Supreme Court
precedent on “materially indistinguishable” facts. Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634,
640, 123 S. Ct. 1848, 155 L. Ed. 2d 877 (2003) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529
U.S. 362, 405-06, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000)); see also Frantz v.
Hazey, 533 F.3d 724, 734 (2008)(en banc)(state court decision which uses “the
wrong legal rule or framework” constitutes error under “contrary to” prong of §
2254(d)(1)).

However, even such standard as invoked under AEDPA required adherence to “Clearly established Federal law”. The Report & Recommendation reflect disregard for clearly established federal law. Pro Se Party in Interest holds that clearly established federal law in this matter was and is Fay v Noia (1983), where the late Justice Brennan clearly pronounced the Supreme Court decision:

In a case of Habeas Corpus a U.S. Judge is petitioned to “to inquire into the legality of the prisoner's detention”, and the overriding standard of review in such inquiry is:
�
…if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with
the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is
entitled to his immediate release.
Fay v Noia (1963) pp. 401–402.

Party in Interest holds that Fay v Noia (1963) continues to be the law of the land, that the jailing of Att Richard Fine failed to conform with the fundamental requirements of the law, and that Att Richard Fine is entitled to his immediate release.

F. Request for records of Marina v County (BS109420) at the LA Superior Court.
Request is addressed to Counsel Fontana, McCormick, and Rosen, hoping that their cooperation in Meet and Confer would eliminate the need for actions at courts. The following records are deemed as minimal records that would allow to establish the legal foundation for the jailing of Att Richard Fine. Respondents failed to produce such records in the course of review of the Petition of Habeas Corpus, or produced records that were not authenticated.

Given the serious concerns regarding this matter, it is requested that all authentications requested would be by the Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, alternatively, that a document be furnished that such authentications were produced with the full knowledge and authority of John A Clarke.

1. Authentication that Marina v County (BS109420) was and is a case litigated by the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

2. Authenticated copy of the Register of Actions/Case History in Sustain of Marina v County (BS109420).

3. Authenticate copy of an Assignment Order of Marina v County (BS109420) to Judge David Yaffe as Presiding Judge for all purposes.

4. Authenticated copies of Notices of Appearance of Counsel of the various parties, certifying them as Counsel of Record for the respective party for the case of Marina v County (BS109420) at the LA Superior Court.

5. Authenticated copy of the purported Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment of Contempt. Such record should explicitly state that the record that is being authenticated was and is an effectual judgment of the Superior Court of California. It should also provide the references in the California Code and the Local Rules of Court of LA County whereby it was ascertained that the judgment was indeed entered in the manner required for entry of judgments and appealable orders, and evidence that it was determined to be effectual.

6. Declaration by Judge David Yaffe to support Response to Habeas Corpus petition of Prisoner Attorney Richard Fine

7. Declaration by Judge David Yaffe to explain the circumstances surrounding the signatures and dates on the various copies of the purported Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment of Contempt against Att Richard Fine.

_______________________________

5 Magistrate Carla Woehrle June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendation U.S. Dist Crt, LA (Dkt
#26) as recently seen in Pacer:

6 Judge John Warner June 29, 2009 Judgment, U.S. Dist Crt, LA (Dkt # ) as recently seen in
Pacer:
7 Justices Alex Kosinski, June 30, 2009, U.S. Crt of App, 9th Circuit (Dkt #3) unsigned order
as seen in Pacer:
_______________________________
The complete Meet and Confer Letter can be viewed online:

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

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Review and analysis - matters pertaining to Att Richard Fine

Review and Analysis: Reasons for the recent request for authentication of court records in (1) Marina v County, (2) Samaan v Zernik, & (3) Galdjie v Darwish, which remains denied, like all previous requests of this kind…

Multiple-track operation at the LA Superior Court includes:(1) Authentic Track of the Court, and (2) alleged Enterprise Track of the Court

The full 17-page report with 35 supporting records are posted online:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-review-and-analysis-case-of-fine-f.pdf

IN CONCLUSION:
.
1) The Courts involved in the matter reviewed above, under the various captions were: (a) LA Superior Court, (b) CA Court of Appeals, 2nd District, (c) U.S. District Court LA, and (d) U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
.
2) The conduct of none of these courts in the matter can be viewed as involving "Furtherance of Justice" or "Doing Substantial Justice".
.
3) Review of the conduct of the courts in the matter would lead a reasonable person to conclude, or at least entertain the doubt, that all of the above courts were fully aware that they were not engaging in "Furtherance of Justice" or "Doing Substantial Justice" in their conduct in the respective matters.
.
4) Review of the conduct of the various courts in the matters as well as the matters of Zernik and Darwish in the various courts, would lead a reasonable person to conclude, or at least entertain the doubt, that all of the above courts were fully aware that the LA Superior Court had been engaged for some 25 years in a scheme that must be deemed of criminal nature, relative to the entry of judgment in real estate litigations that were likely to be deemed part of the "Enterprise Track of the Superior Court".
.
5) Review of the conduct of the various courts in this matter as well as the matters of Zernik and Darwish in the various court, would lead a reasonable person to conclude, or at least entertain the doubt, that all of the above courts held the opinion that covering up the conduct of the LA Superior Court relative to entry of judgments and the "Enterprise Track of the Superior Court", was a worthy cause that justified their conduct relative to the cases of Fine, Zernik, and Darwish.
.
6) The analysis provided above is consistent with the disregard that Judge David Yaffe accorded to the various disqualifications by Att Richard Fine. Such disqualifications were irrelevant, or MOOT, since Judge David Yaffe had never held a true and authentic, due Assignment Order as Presiding Judge in Marina v County at the LA Superior Court in the first place.
.
7) The analysis provided above is consistent with the issuance of an invalid judgment on March 4, 2009 - no valid authentic judgment of the Superior Court of California can be issued in matters that are administered through the Enterprise Track of the Court.
.
8) The analysis of the conduct of the various courts, presented above, is consistent with the refusal of both the Sheriff Department, Judge Yaffe, and the LA Superior Court to state a clear and unambiguous response to the Habeas Corpus Petition of Att Richard Fine.
.
9) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the refusal of Judge David Yaffe or any other officer of the LA Superior Court to file a declaration in the response to the habeas corpus petition, and the filing of an insufficient pleading as response, instead.
.
10) The analysis, above, is consistent with the refusal of the Clerk of the LA Superior Court to authenticate the litigation records. as requested, in the three cases listed above - Samaan v Zernik, Galdjie v Darwish, and Marina v County.
.
11) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the failure of the Sheriff to file an opposition to either the Habeas Corpus or the Ex Parte application - and instead filing an unsubstantiated, insufficient pleading in the form of Motion to Dismiss.
.
12) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the deliberate invalid legal terms used by MJ Woehrle in reference to both the case of Marina v County and the March 4, 2009 judgment in her June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendation. Such usage was likely to be perceived by her as limiting her liability in this case. Had she used definitive legal terms, she would have been more likely to be deemed as engaging in fraud and perversion of justice.
.
13) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the need felt by the LA Superior Court, the Sheriff and the U.S. District Court to engage in alleged Extrinsic Frauds relative to the denial of pen and paper to Att Richard Fine, denial of access to the jail's library, and severe limitations on visitations and communications with the outside world during the period that he was expected to file his petitions.
.
14) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the opinion of Dr Zernik that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, treated both the petition of Fine and the petition of Zernik as invalid "Frivolous Prisoners' Petitions". Such opinion was originally reached based on analysis of the records shown on the docket online alone. Through the alleged designation of the Petitions as "Frivolous Prisoners' Petitions" the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal deemed itself exempt, a priori, from true review of the cases, which would have required entirely different actions by that court.
.
15) The courts of LA County, California, as reflected in such cases, are likely to be deemed in severe violation of Human Rights of the 10 million residents of LA County pursuant to International Law [32] upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction.
.
16) Dr Zernik's opinion is that Judge David Yaffe is officiating in Marina v County (BS109420) with no assignment order and no authority at all (even before any disqualification).
.
17) Dr Zernik's opinion is that in officiating in Marina v County, Judge David Yaffe is engaging in conduct that is not part of his judiciary responsibilities, and therefore, such conduct is not covered by any immunity, limited, or absolute, in any manner.
.
18) Dr Zernik's opinion is that the conduct of Judge David Yaffe, in officiating in Marina v County, must be deemed of criminal nature upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction.
.
19) Dr Zernik's opinion is that upon investigation and discovery, it is very likely that conduct of criminal nature would also be found relative to specific events that led to the appearance of the two copies of the March 4, 2009 Judgment, and that such likely criminal conduct would be attributed to: Judge David Yaffe, MJ Carla Woehrle, Law Clerk Donna Thomas, and Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer.
.
20) Dr Zernik's opinion is that upon investigation and discovery, it is very likely that conduct of the Executive Officer/Clerk of the LA Superior Court, Mr John A Clarke, would also be found of criminal nature.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Falsely Jailed Att Richard Fine Was Notified: Your Jailing Was Founded on Fraud in the Judgment Record Itself.

The jailing of Att Richard Fine was brought about through multiple alleged frauds. Here we focus only on the alleged frauds related to the judgment record itself.

Background: False Jailing of Att Richard Fine as Retaliation

Att Richard Fine has been indefinitely jailed on contempt since March 4, 2009, in what is widely perceived as retaliation by the judges of the LA Superior Court for his efforts in recent years to expose and terminate payments to LA County judges by LA County. Such payments were indeed ruled on October 10, 2009 “not permitted” and unconstitutional by the California Court of Appeals, 4th District.[1]

During some of the years that such payments were accepted by the judges and where records were studied, [2] no judgment by court was entered against LA County by judges of the LA Superior Court. Therefore, a lay-person would call such payments “bribes”.

Alleged Fraud #1:

The Purported Judge David Yaffe, March 4, 2009 Judgment for Jailing of Att Richard Fine was never entered and therefore was and is not an effectual judgment for any purpose.

Alleged Fraud #2:

The March 24, 2009 Judge David Yaffe Verification on the purported Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine, is false and deliberately misleading.

Copy #1 of the purported Judgment:

The purported Judgment from the Pacer records of the Habeas Corpus petition of falsely jailed Att Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), where it was included as Exhibit in the Petition per se (Doc #1):

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-03-04-judgment-contempt.pdf

Copy #2 of the purported Judgment:

The purported Judgment from the Pacer records of the Habeas Corpus petition of falsely jailed Att Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), where it was included as Exhibit A to Declaration of Att McCormick, Counsel for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court (Doc #16):

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-contempt-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf

Additional Information:

For detailed review of the frauds in these two purported Judgment records, please see:

http://inproperinla.com/09-07-11-alleged-fraud-in-judgment-record-s.pdf


[1] Sturgeon v County of LA

[2] Studying such question is complicated by the fact that LA County does not maintain a Book of Judgment or Index of Judgments, either on paper or electronic, where public access is permitted to inspect and to copy.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-cal-ct-app-2nd-entry-of-judgment-west-filipescu-tri-county-s.pdf

Failure to maintain a Book of Judgment is on its face in violation of the law – California Gov Code, California Code of Civil Procedure, and LA County Local Rules of Court:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-ca-code-la-rules-of-court-entry-of-judgment.pdf

.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, July 3, 2009

Barbara and David Darwish Were Notified

"You are victims of real estate fraud by the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court."

It took them some time to digest the news. They knew all along that they were deceived in litigation at the court, where they lost a 6- unit rental property at Yale Street in Santa Monica. However, they suspected that plaintiff alone was responsible for the fraud, together with his counsel, Att Mark Green (Green & Marker). They never suspected the judges...

As typical of such crimes at the LA Superior Court, the litigation fraud was not handled by one judge alone, but instead by about ten judges as a group effort. That way none of them would ever be taken to task. All of them presided with no assignment orders and with no authority at all.

The critical fraud was performed by a judge who in the computerized records was identified only as "MUNI JUDGE".

Barbara Darwish confirmed that it was Judge John Segal.

For litigation in a civil unlimited claim, on that day, in May 2002, she went for the trial at Santa Monica Superior Court, but then was told to go to the Culver City Municipal Court, At the Culver City Municipal Court, Judge John Segal conducted a sham trial by court that was the epitome of the fraud in this case.

The case - Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) is a classic case of the Enterprise Track of the Los Angeles Superior Court- cases that may look perfectly fine as cases of the court, but in fact are anything but...

Sham court actions designate herein such court actions where the judges, the clerks, and the counsel consider the court actions invalid on their face, but conceal that fact from some or all parties, to their detriment. Sham court actions typically benefit large corporations, government, or the judges themselves. Sham court actions can be founds in courts across the country, both state and federal, both trial courts and review courts, both civil and criminal. It is believed that the frequency of sham court action in the U.S. today is higher than most reasonable persons would ever imagine. Accordingly – they are likely to be the main form of severe abuse of human rights in the U.S. today.

Combined, the pervasive nature of sham court actions in the U.S. today, and the ease with which they can be identified, even by simple computerized search, and also the ease at which they could have been prevented by judges and clerks, but are not, must lead a reasonable person to conclude that what is likely seen by most people as severe abuse of human rights, and also criminal conduct, is seen by attorneys, U.S. and State Clerks , and Judges... probably as some kind of a practical joke or a prank for extra pocket money...

Posted by at 2 comments:

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Message to Eric Sheptock- Homeless in Washington DC

Mr Sheptock is likely to be the victim of sham litigation in U.S. Court...

Eric Sheptock, from what I gather, is a homeless person in Washington DC. Of the group of homeless persons, whose names appeared on the complaint in Sheptock v Fenty, he is the only one whose name remained in the Pacer docket.

I could not find any other way to contact him, except for the blog he runs on homelessness in Washington DC, at:

http://streatstv.blogspot.com/

Below is the message I left him as a comment on his most recent posting:

"DC Mayor Thinks Homeless Woman "CHOSE" To Die In Front Of Shelter"

Found at:

http://streatstv.blogspot.com/2009/06/hiv-homeless-woman-dies-in-front-of.html

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr Sheptock:
We have never met, and I know almost nothing about the facts related to the litigation that seems to go on in U.S. District Court in Washington DC, under the name Sheptock et al v Fenty et al.
I am also not an attorney, not even by a long shot.
Finally - the older I get the more I realize how clueless I am.
That said, I am writing t let you know that I looked at the records of this litigation online, in the court's Pacer system. There are some unusual feature in the litigation, which are likely to qualify it as "sham litigation". I believe that sham litigations are the most common severe abuses of human rights in the U.S.A. today.
.
Joseph Zernik
.
Cell 310 435 9107
.
Please support our petition:
CALLING UPON PRESIDENT OBAMA -
FREE THE 10,000 RAMPART-FIPs, FREE ATTORNEY RICHARD I FINE
.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
.
References
.
1) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from Guild Practitioner
.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
.
2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006)
.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
.
3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15,000 by criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001, updated 2005)
http://inproperinla.com/01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
.
4) Full Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine from jail
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

June 28, 2009 8:29 PM

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, June 25, 2009

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

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)