Conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, in its online dockets, is likely to be deemed false and deliberately misleading

August 17, 2009

Hi Chris:

Thanks for pointing out to me the latest posting by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in re: the falsely jailed Att Richard Fine [i] However, I would like to caution you regarding reliance on any records of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit that may be posted by the Court in the Courts online dockets, since many of such records should be deemed false and deliberately misleading.

For additional details please see below my attempt to review the reasons that led me to the conclusion that the conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, upon review by a competent international court of jurisdiction, may be deemed as severe abuse of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified international law. Moreover - such conduct may be deemed as intended to cover up alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.

Joseph Zernik


Conduct by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, in its online dockets, is likely to be deemed false and deliberately misleading and severe violation of Human Rights, moreover - intended to cover-up alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.

1. THE ONLINE DOCKETS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9^th CIRCUIT, ARE REPLETE WITH INVALID RECORDS OF SHAM COURT ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PREVIOUS ACTION UNDER: FINE V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (09-71692), AND ZERNIK V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (08-72714).

The U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit may indeed have given Att Fine this time around permission to engage in an authentic procedure. However, such conclusion could not be reached by direct reliance on the online paper. There were two indirect indicators of the intent to run an authentic procedure:
a) The Court set up a schedule, and
b) The Court demanded that Att Fine pay the filing fee or file a request to file in forma pauperis.
In the previous round, in the Emergency Petition under Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692). the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit engaged in the opposite conduct. The petition was posted in the online docket in a manner that most readers would consider it as a valid petition that was going to be reviewed by the court. However:
a) The Court never set a schedule, and
b) The Court sent Att Fine an immediate refund of the filing fee.
Such conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th District, was self-contradictory, vague and ambiguous. Later, in the same case, the Court engaged Att Fine in a sham court action. Accordingly I filed a request to file papers as Party in Interest in sham court action,[ii] which was indeed posted on the sham docket of Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692).

2. IN BOTH FINE V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (09-71692), AND ZERNIK V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (08-72714) THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, ISSUES AND POSTED ONLINE SHAM COURT ORDERS.

Such sham court action in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA came to their appropriate conclusion, with two sham June 30, 2009 Orders by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
a) The first of the two orders remained concealed from public view. [iii]
b) The second of the two orders, should be deemed a false and deliberately misleading court record, [iv] possibly even mail fraud. It was posted in the online docket, and it was also mailed by USPS to parties, including Party in Interest Joseph Zernik
Such order carried a blue header stamp:

Case: 09-71692 06/30/2009 Page: 1 of 2 DktEntry: 6974360"

Such order also displayed a stamp of the U.S. Court of Appeals, dated June 30, 2009:

FILED

JUN 30 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

However, such stamp failed to be endorsed by a hand signature of the clerk.
Such order was pronounced in the names of:

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

However, neither the copy online, nor the copies received by mail carried any hand signature of any of the three honorable justices, or even a stamp of any of them.
The docketing text that accompanied such order stated:

06/30/2009 4 Order filed (ALEX KOZINSKI, RICHARD A. PAEZ and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) The court is in receipt of petitioners original petition...

Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants 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 Cir. 1977). The petition is denied. [6974360] (KKW)

Such docketing text failed to make the critical statements that the Petition was ever filed or entered, it was only "received" - since the "Court is in receipt of the petition".
Moreover, such docketing text failed to make the critical statement that the June 30, 2009 Order itself was ever entered. Instead, it stated only "Order filed".
Furthermore, if one compared such docket to a similar docket, in Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA (08-72714), one could find the docketing text of an additional similar order - denying received but not entered Emergency Petitions which was by far more explicit: [v]

06/25/2008 3 Order filed (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON and MILAN D. SMITH, JR.) Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants 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 Cir. 1977).

...

No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order shall be filed or entertained. [Denied; Terminated on the merits after submissions without oral hearing; Written, reasoned, unsigned, unpublished;]

Yet another docket, of an appeal in Haddick v US Dist Ct LA (97-50090), should be seen as instructive regarding such conduct by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.. [vi]
In Haddick v US Dist Ct LA the docketing text stated:

07/14/1999 27 FILED MEMORANDUM OPINION: DISMISSED (Terminated on the Merits after Submission Without Oral Hearing; Dismissed/Frivolous; Written, Unsigned, Unpublished. Jerome FARRIS; Michael D. HAWKINS, author; Susan P. GRABER. ) FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [97-50090] (SW)

Most reasonable persons would surely wonder what the nature was of such papers, which were represented by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, as Court Orders and/or Judgments, were included in the online dockets, but were "written, reasoned, unsigned, unpublished".

3. ALREADY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE IV, I, AND U.S. CONGRESS IN ACT OF MAY 26, 1790 CONCERNED THEMSELVES WITH DEFINING THE AUTHENTICITY OF COURT PAPERS. [vii]

The question what was or what was not an authentic court paper, was a fundamental one, since court orders and judgments were the law of the land. Civilized societies, going back several thousand years attempted to document the law in written authentic records.
Accordingly, already the U.S. Constitution in Article IV, I says:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

And U.S. Congress, in Act of May 26, 1790 states:

That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records are, or shall be taken.

4. JUDGING BY BASIC ELEMENTS OF AUTHENTICATION, THE PAPERS AT HAND, GENERATED AND PUBLISHED BY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, ON ITS ONLINE DOCKETS, WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED COURT RECORDS.

The record at hand are not by any of the several states, but by a U.S. Court. Regardless, one may conclude that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, busied itself in constructing an online docket, and in issuing papers that were published on such docket, which lacked the basic elements of authenticated court papers certification by a judge and attestation by a clerk.

5. THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, IMPLEMENTED A VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS ONLINE DOCKET SYSTEM.

There is no way to make any clear conclusions regarding the nature of such papers as you pointed out to me. which originated from the online docket of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District regarding its dockets must be deemed vague and ambiguous hence - severe abuse of Civil Rights for Due Process and Human Rights for Fair Tribunals and Fair Trial. The court must not conduct its business in the style of the Oracle of Delphi.

6. THE U.S. COURTS, INCLUDING THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, IN PACER AND IN CM/ECF, IMPLEMENTED DUAL DOCKETING SYSTEMS, WHICH WERE SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL, WHERE PARTIES WERE SEGREGATED, AND WHERE ATTESTATIONS BY CLERKS WERE CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. SUCH CONDUCT AND SUCH SYSTEMS ARE LIKELY TO BE DEEMED FRAUDULENT UPON REVIEW.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, has recently completed the implementation of CM/EFC, in parallel to Pacer, and with that it joined other U.S. Courts in practices that are likely to be deemed upon review as fraudulent.
The authentication of court records in the system is founded today on attestations by the clerks that are implemented as digital signatures. Such attestations are displayed in records as long strings of alphanumeric characters that are encrypted digital signatures of the clerks of the courts. Such digital signatures are typically displayed as part of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEFs).[viii]
Accordingly, requests dated July 28, 2009, were filed with the U.S. Court Appeals, 9th Circuit, for an order to serve on parties the NEFs in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692) [ix], and also in Zernik v U.S District Court, LA (08-72714) [x] No response whatsoever was received so far.

7. THE CONDUCT OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, RELATIVE TO ITS ONLINE DOCKETS, ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE CONDUCT OF A COURT THAT OPERATED WITH NO ADEQUATE, PUBLISHED RULES OF COURT.

U.S. Court are required to operate by such published Rules of Court pursuant to the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC 2071 2077.
The Rule Making Act 28 USC 2071 states:
Rule-making power generally
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.
(b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.

Overall, the online docket of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit provided ample evidence of a court that operated with no adequate published Rules of Court, including, but not limited to the following concerns:
a) In and of itself the inexplicable common practice in the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, of concealing its records from the public in various ways, failed to be founded in any law or published Rules of Court, and appeared arbitrary and contradictory to basic notions of Due Process and the operations of an honest court.
b) The inexplicable common practice in the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, of publishing unauthenticated records, which are most likely invalid false and misleading records, could never be founded in any published Rules of Court.
c) The latest court action by Att Richard Fine in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA was designated the number (09-56073). However, the previous action of Att Richard Fine in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA was designated the number (09-71692). It was inexplicable what Rules of Court were the basis for strange numbering practice of court actions at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
In contrast, the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79 says:

Rule 79 (LII 2007 ed.). Records Kept by the Clerk

(a) Civil Docket.

(1) In General.

The clerk must keep a record known as the civil docket in the

form and manner prescribed by the Director of the Administrative

Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial

Conference of the United States. The clerk must enter each civil action in the docket. Actions must be assigned consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket where the first entry of the action is made.

d) The court implemented in Pacer and CM/ECF dual docketing systems, separate and unequal, where the parties are segregated. Through such conduct the public at large was denied the right to view attestations by the clerks that were the foundation for authentication of court records. Such practice may be deemed fraudulent upon review.
Combined, such conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, as described above, demonstrated the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, like other U.S. courts, was a court that was operating with no published Rules of Courts pertaining to one of the most critical aspects of the operations of any court - maintenance of court records.

8. FOR ALL THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE CONDUCT OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9^th CIRCUIT, UPON REVIEW BY A COMPETENT INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JURISDICTION, MAY BE DEEMED AS SEVERE ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS RATIFIED INTERNATIONAL LAW. MOREOVER SUCH CONDUCT MAY BE DEEMED INTENDED TO COVER UP ALLEGED WIDESPREAD CRIMINALITY AT THE LA SUPERIOR COURT.
Upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, is likely to be found as severe violation of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified International Law.
The fact that the U.S. District Court engaged in such dishonest manipulations were of particular concern, since in Fine v U.S. District Court LA, underlying matter was false imprisonment of civil rights activist, Att Richard Fine, now a political prisoner, base on purported March 4, 2009 Judgment by the LA Superior Court in and of itself a court record that bears false and deliberately misleading certification by Judge David Yaffe. Similarly, in Zernik v U.S. District Court LA, underlying matter was wrongful displacement of a person from his home under the threat of force, and the subsequent taking of a persons property for private use with no compensation at all. Such actions that were matters underling Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA were based on purported August 9, 2007 Judgment by the LA Superior Court in and of itself false and deliberately misleading record by Judge Jacqueline Connor.
One must also recall Judge Jacqueline Connors performance in derailing the first Rampart Trial (2000).[xi] Such conduct of the LA Superior Court resulted in the ongoing false confinement of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) a decade after the investigation into the corruption scandal was concluded.[xii]
In sum: Conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is likely to be viewed as severe violation of human rights in and of itself. Moreover such conduct may be deemed as intended to provide cover-up for alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.


[i] At 10:40 AM 8/16/2009, you wrote:
Look what I found:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18502225/9thCircuitCOAGranted081209
[ii] Request to File papers as Party in Interest in Sham Court Action, filed 6/129/09, listed as "served 06/19/09", Dkt #2:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-a-docket-09-06-30-2.pdf
[iii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-03-order-denying-s.pdf
[iv] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf
[v] Docket of Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA (08-72714):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor-a-docket-08-06-27-s.pdf
[vi] Docket of Haddick v US Dist Ct LA (97-50090):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-haddicks-v-us-dist-ct-la-97-50090-docket.pdf
[vii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-us-_authentication_%20defined-&-explained.pdf
[viii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-nef-w-digital-sig-louisiana.pdf
[ix] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-09-07-28-request-nefs-s.pdf
[x] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor_09-07-28-req-nefs-s.pdf
[xi] On December 22, 2000, Judge Jacqueline Connor reversed jury conviction of 3 LAPD police prosecuted following the Rampart corruption scandal investigation:
http://inproperinla.com/00-11-17-la-times-on-rampart-connor.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-23-rampart-verdicts-voided-los-angeles-times.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-los-angeles-judge-overturns-convictions-of--police-in-scandal-nyt.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-the-judge-s-decision-los-angeles-times.pdf
[xii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf

Requests for Interventions by U.S. & Cal Attorneys General, and Motions for Mistrial in Sturgeon v LA County

WHAT'S NEW?

1) Requests filed for Interventions and investigations by U.S. and California Attorneys General

Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) was a litigation of high public policy significance. It involved payments by LA County to ALL LA Superior Court judges, for over a decade, over $45,000 per judge per year, which were ruled in October 2008 by California Court of Appeals, 4th District as "not permitted" and were labeled by media as "bribes", and which involved criminal liability for ALL LA Superior Court judges.

Requests for interventions in said litigation were filed with the U.S. and California Attorneys General - on constitutional questions. The questions at hand involved the largest Superior Court in the U.S., serving more that 10 million residents of LA County, California, which in the past 25 years, operated with published Rules of Court that had no relationship to reality, and effective Rules of Court that were unpublished, and were concealed from the public. Such constitutional questions were particularly notable relative to the Rules of Court of the LA Superior Court regarding the Entry of Judgment. There was no way to know if and when judgments were entered in Sturgeon v LA County, if any.

Requests for investigations were filed with the U.S. and California Attorneys General - of alleged criminality of the LA Superior Court relative to alleged fraud in entry of judgments as seen in three other cases: First - relative to jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (BS109420), and second and third relative to the taking of real estate properties in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) and Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). Such alleged criminality involved in all three cases Judge David Yaffe, directly , or through the Department of Writs and Receivers, which he managed. The latter two cases directly involved alleged criminality by Judge John Segal and by Att David Pasternak, and the last case also directly involved alleged criminality by Judges Terry Friedman and Jacqueline Connor.

2) Motions were filed for Mistrial/To Vacate Judgments and Orders

Motions for Mistrial, alternatively - to Vacate Judgments and Orders were filed. The basis for Mistrial was Misconduct by the Court, which doubles as Intervenor in the case, and who engaged in - (1) The running of litigation with secret Rules of Court, as detailed above, (2) The denial of access to litigation records, in apparent violation of Nixon v Warner Communication, Inc (1978), (3) The use of apparent fraud to excuse the denial of access to litigation records - claiming that online published records were the Register of Actions of such litigation, and (4) The ambiguation of litigation records to the point of meaninglessness.

Intervenor, the LA Superior Court, generated and kept secret records of the litigation, and in parallel published online false and deliberately misleading records of such litigation. Among numerous discrepancies in such litigation records the following were noted:

1) In Sturgeon v LA County, Justice James A Richman claimed to preside, signing his papers as "Sitting by Assignment as Judge of the LA Superior Court", but Intervenor, the LA Superior Court, routinely referred to him as "Not an Assignment".
2) Intervenor failed to included in purported litigation records that were published online the rulings and opinions of the 4th District court of Appeals, San Diego, and there was no reason to believe that Intervenor deemed such rulings and opinions as effectual litigation records.
3) Intervenor failed to included in purported litigation records that were published online the rulings and judgments of Justice Richard A Richman of the 1st District Court of Appeals, San Francisco, and there was no reason to believe that Intervenor deemed such rulings and judgments as effectual litigation records.
4) Intervenor falsely listed various proceedings and rulings by Justice James A Richman as by another judge altogether.

BACKGROUND

1) LA Superior Court is allegedly controlled by a cult of criminality.

The requests for interventions and investigations claimed that the LA Superior Court was controlled by a cult of criminality, with full knowledge of law enforcement agencies, which were not ready, willing, or able to address the problem. It was claimed that such conditions of the justice system in LA County led to the ongoing false incarceration of the thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) almost exclusively black and Latinos, a decade after the investigation into the Rampart corruption scandal. The false incarceration of the Rampart-FIPs was claimed to be directly related to criminality by Judge Jacqueline Connor.

Conditions of the justice system in LA County were claimed to be in severe violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified International Law.

2) Demand for corrective actions by the U.S. Government

We who live in LA County expect and demand that the U.S. Government free us from the tyranny by the cult of criminality at the LA Superior court, accord us Equal Protection under the law, and establish Fair Tribunals, all pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified International Law.

FILING RECEIPT:

PAPERS FILED IN COURT CAN BE VIEWED AT:

http://inproperinla.com/

Under:

• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-ex-parte-application-orders-for-access-leave-to-file.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-i.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part1.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part2.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part3.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4a.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4ai.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4aii.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4b.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part5.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part6a.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part6b.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part7.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part8a.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-00_09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part8b.pdf

LA Superior Court issues alleged fraudulent statements to justify denial of access to records, and fraudulent records are published online

Why would an honest court deny access to its records, as required by law?

Dr Zernik requested access to court records in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), a case of high public policy

significance. Repeated requests for access, directed to the Clerk were denied.

Through such access it would have been possible either authenticate or invalidate the registration of the case as a case heard by the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (“LA Superior Court), the registration of the Assignment of Justice James A Richman as Presiding Judge in the case and the registration of his Orders and Judgments, as well as the Rulings of the California Court of Appeals, 4^th District. Registrations of all of these key elements of the litigation at present appear questionable at best.

In response to the request by Dr Zernik, Counsel for the Court responded in letter dated July 29, 2009:

“Finally, as a convenience, you can also access the Register of Actions for this case on line at the Court's web site, LASuperiorCourt.org, which also presents a summary of all of the pleadings, orders and hearings in the case, and by registering and paying the fee permitted by the California Rules of Court, you may download and print copies of the pleadings and orders.” (1)

The Registers of Action was never provided online. Moreover, the record that is provided online – “Case Summary”, (2) is a false and deliberately misleading record, which comes with a Disclaimer (3) by the Court that it should not be relied upon. Furthermore, the server from which such record is published triggers severe alerts (4) by Google browser, which states that the Court’s sever carries a false verification certificate.

In short – there are good reasons to believe that the conduct of litigation of Sturgeon v LA County, upon review, would be deemed fraud by the LA Superior Court upon the people.(5)

Why would an honest court deny access to its records, as required by law?

1) Request for access to court records and denial

http://inproperinla.com/09-07-28-29-la-superior-court-sturgeon-v-la-county-denial-of-access-to-court-records.pdf

2) Case Summary record is provided online by the court

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-06-la-superior-court-sturgeion-v-la-county-online-%20case%20sumary.pdf

3) Disclaimers by the court regarding its online records

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-case-summary-online-disclaimers-s.pdf

4) Security alerts triggered by the LA Superior Court server

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-11-la-superior-court-server-triggers-%20security-alerts.pdf

5) Comparison of Case Summary with other records- demonstrates alleged fraud

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-11-alleged-fraud-in-la-superior-court-online-records-of-sturgeon-v-la-county.pdf

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 9^th 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

---

[i] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor_09-07-28-req-nefs-s.pdf

[ii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-09-07-28-request-nefs-s.pdf

[iii] 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

[iv] http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-meet-and-confer-del-rey-rosen-s.pdf

[v] http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-meet-and-confer-la-sheriff-department-fontana-s.pdf

[vi] http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-meet-and-confer-la-sup-ct-yaffe-mccormick-s.pdf

[vii] http://inproperinla.com/09-07-29-bennett-response-no2--req-access-to-records.pdf

[viii] http://inproperinla.com/09-07-29-drapac-3rd-req-access-to-records-s.pdf

[ix] http://inproperinla.com/09-07-30-drapac-req-%233-addendum-s.pdf

[x] http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-request-to-access-records-s.pdf

[xi] http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-reques-for-investigation-s.pdf

[xii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-ca_code_judicial_ethics-08-09-08-s.pdf

[xiii] http://inproperinla.com/09-02-11-two-pennsylavnia-judges_indicted.pdf

[xiv] http://inproperinla.com/09-03-26-penn-court-corrective-action-s.pdf

[xv]http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf

[xvi] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf

[xvii] http://inproperinla.com/01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf

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

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.

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

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, 9^th Circuit, a Motion for Relief from Judgment and for Immediate Release of Att Richard Fine.

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:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-26-mj-woehrle-amended-r-n-r-09-06-12.pdf

6 Judge John Warner June 29, 2009 Judgment, U.S. Dist Crt, LA (Dkt # ) as recently seen in

Pacer:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-30-filed-09-06-29-judge-walter-judgment-dismiss-habeas-corpus.pdf

7 Justices Alex Kosinski, June 30, 2009, U.S. Crt of App, 9th Circuit (Dkt #3) unsigned order

as seen in Pacer:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf

_______________________________

The complete Meet and Confer Letter can be viewed online:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la_09-07-23-meet-and-confer-s.pdf