Habeas Corpus in the United States – the case of

Richard Isaac Fine

By Joseph Zernik, PhD
jz12345@earthlink.net
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Revised April 23, 2011

Former US prosecutor Richard Fine

Abstract
Former US prosecutor Richard I. Fine exposed and rebuked the taking by Los Angeles judges of
“not permitted” payments, which were labeled by media “bribes”. Consequently, the State Bar of
California disbarred Fine in 2007. From March 4, 2009 to September 17, 2010, he was jailed in
solitary "coercive confinement" in the Los Angeles Men’s Central Jail, albeit with neither warrant
nor valid and effectual conviction nor sentencing records.
His efforts to gain his own release through habeas corpus petitions to the US District Court, the
US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and the US Supreme Court were repeatedly denied.
However, all judicial reviews in the US courts were characterized by the falsification of court
records.
The case reflects widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, the largest county court in the United States, and cover-up of the same by the US
courts. Report regarding corruption of the Superior Court, including, but not limited to, the
imprisonment of Richard Fine, was incorporated by reference into the 2010 UPR (Universal
Periodic Review) Staff Report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, with a note
regarding “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law
enforcement in California”.
Coverage of the case was mostly left to off mainstream media. Large corporate media outlets
reports were incomplete and at times partial.
One of the central recommendations of the 2010 UPR report on the United States pertained to
restoration of the right for habeas corpus, with reference to detentions in Guantanamo Bay. As
documented in the case of Richard Fine, the right of habeas corpus was effectively denied also
on a US citizen, former US prosecutor, in the territorial United States, through effective denial of
access to honest courts.
Perhaps the most important insight gained from the case of Richard Fine pertains to the key role
of false and deliberately misleading computerized records in the courts and prisons in the United
States in the abuse of Human Rights.
Due to the unusual set of characters, the number of court cases filed by Richard Fine, and the
meticulous documentation, the case as a whole provides unparalleled study of the justice system,
st
Human Rights, and civil society conditions in the United States at the beginning of the 21
century.

1/9
Contents
1. Childhood, education, practice of law
2. Disbarment
3. Exposition of unconstitutional payments to California Superior Court judges
4. March 4, 2009 arrest and jailing
5. Failed petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an emergency petition
6. Arbitrary release
7. Public responses and media coverage
8. The Los Angeles Superior Court
9. Computerized records in the courts and prisons
10. References

1. Childhood, education, practice of law

Fine was born and raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to a middle-class family. He earned his
baccalaureate degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, his law degree from the University
of Chicago, and a doctorate from the London School of Economics. Fine served at the U.S.
Department of Justice (1968-72) in the Anti Trust Division. Later he served the City of Los Angeles
(1973-74) in anti-trust capacities.[ i ]
In private practice, Fine was successful as an anti-trust attorney in pursuing taxpayers' cases against the
County of Los Angeles and the State of California. [ ii ] His resume shows his efforts have returned
approximately $1 Billion US Dollars to California taxpayers. [ iii ]

2. Disbarment
Fine's disbarment in October 2007 was the outcome of administrative procedure of the State Bar of
California, where he was charged with "moral turpitude" for filing complaints against California
judges who had received illegal supplemental payments from Los Angeles County while ruling
favorably in cases in which Los Angeles County was a party. [ iv ] Effectively, he was punished for
representing his clients in court.
Fine alleged violations of his First Amendment rights in response. [ v ]
Fine's petitions for review his disbarment to the California Supreme Court, and later the US Supreme
Court were denied, allowing the disbarment to stand. Fine was listed as being "involuntarily inactive"
beginning 10/17/2007 and as of 3/13/2009 disbarred. [ vi ]

3. Exposition of unconstitutional payments to California Superior Court

judges
Richard Fine was the first to expose that unconstitutional payments were being made to Los Angeles
County judges. In August 2001, Fine's opening brief in the appeal of Silva v Garcetti, revealed that
payments of over $46,000 per judge, per year were being made by Los Angeles County to all (~430)

2/9
Los Angeles County judges (and ~140 Commissioners). [ vii ] The payments, now some $57,000 per
judge per year, have been made since the late 1980s, costing taxpayers over $300 million over a
decade, and figuring prominently in County's "budget crisis". [ viii ]
Fine also revealed that it had become practically impossible to win a case against the County at the
Superior Court during the same period. [ ix ]
Litigation, which originated from taxpayer objections to such payments, and where plaintiff Harold
Sturgeon was represented by Judicial Watch, Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles (BC351286) resulted
in a October 2008 decision by the California Court of Appeal, 4th District (San Diego) that the
payments were constitutionally "not permitted", as judges were to be paid only by their employers, the
State of California. [ x ] To counter potential civil and criminal liabilities to the California judges, and
the County supervisors who approved the payments, a bill was passed and signed into law by
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009, providing “retroactive immunity”
to all involved. [ xi ]
It should be noted that the California Constitution prohibits retroactive laws. Effectively, the
“retroactive immunity” amounted pardons to all involved.

4. March 4, 2009 arrest and jailing

Two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, Richard Fine was arrested by the Warrant Detail of Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department, at the end of a dramatic proceeding, represented as
"Sentencing" - in the presence of media - by Judge David Yaffe. Richard Fine was attempting to
disqualify Judge Yaffe. The basis for affidavits of disqualification for a cause was Judge David
Yaffe's accepting of such payments from a party to the litigation then at bar – Marina Del Rey
Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles (BS109420). [ xii ]
The entire proceeding later failed to appear in the publicly available litigation chronology, published
online by the court. Likewise, the court record that was the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of
Contempt, including what was represented as sentencing, which was widely reported by media, was
later discovered to be invalid on its face. [ xiii ]. The record was also lacking authentication. [ xiv ]
Throughout the habeas corpus petitions of Richard Fine, and to this date, the Los Angeles Superior
Court denies access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket – the official record of the
litigation) in the case of Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles.
Therefore, there is no way to tell whether the March 4, 2009 proceeding was at all listed as a court
proceeding by the court itself. The March 4, 2009 Minutes (protocol), remained unsigned, and
never mentioned any sentencing hearing at all.
Richard Fine was later held in the Men's Central Jail facility in Los Angeles - part of the Twin Towers
Jail complex, under unusual, possibly unprecedented conditions. [ xv ] He was held under continuous
solitary confinement, in a hospital room in the jail, albeit - no disease or disability were ever claimed
by jail authorities.

5. Failed petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an emergency petition to

the US courts
Richard Fine was held all along with no warrant at all. [ xvi ] The information provided by the Sheriff's
Department of Los Angeles County in this matter on its Inmate Information Center was false and

3/9
misleading. [ xvii ] The arrest and booking were listed as if they had taken place on location and by
authority of the Municipal Court of San Pedro.
However, no municipal courts had existed in Los Angeles for almost a decade at that time.
In the first few months of his jailing, Fine was denied access to pen and paper, and such conditions
undermined his ability to file habeas corpus and related petitions. Jail authorities also explicitly
attempted in the initial period to deprive him of the right to represent himself, and to coerce him to
accept representation by counsel, which Fine declined.
On June 7, 2009, the Los Angeles Times published report (considered unfavorable) by female
Journalist Victoria Kim, who purportedly managed to enter the Men's Jail, interview Fine, and emerge
out of the jail unnoticed, at a time that the Sheriff's Department and the court banned interviews with
Fine. [ xviii ]
Fine's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Fine v Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles (2:09-cv-01914)
[ xix ] was dictated by phone to a friend, and was filed on behalf of Richard Fine at the US Court,
Central District of California (Los Angeles), but without his hand signature, and without review by
him of the filed document. Key documents were later claimed missing from the docket. [ xx ]
The case was unusual in that the Sheriff, named as respondent, refused to respond.
Eventually, response was filed by the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe. However,
such response was filed by attorney Kevin McCormick, who failed to file the required certifications
indicating that he was indeed engaged as a Counsel of Record in the case by his clients, and therefore
authorized to file and appear in the case on their behalf. In Attorney McCormick's response there was
no evidence that he had ever communicated with his clients. The records which he filed, were all
derived from the Sheriff's Department, not from the Court, including a copy of the invalid March 4,
2009 Judgement and Order for Contempt, with no authentication. [ xxi ]
Attorney McCormick's filings also included a short declaration by counsel - not a competent fact
witness in this case - not by Judge David Yaffe or any officer of the Los Angeles Superior courts.
A scheme, involving representation by counsel - albeit not Counsel of Record - with "not
communications with client" clause - had been previously discovered and rebuked in an unrelated case
in Texas, in March 2008, and a 72-page Memorandum Opinion provided the details of such schemes.
[ xxii ]
The June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendations issued by Magistrate Carla Woehrle concluded by
recommending denial with prejudice. [ xxiii ] The 25 page review, carefully referenced, was
distinguished as habeas corpus review by the fact that it failed to ever explicitly state the caption of the
Los Angeles Superior Court case that was under review, or ever mention the word "warrant". [ xxiv ]
A June 29, 2009 Judgment issued by Judge John Walter, who presided in the case after a number of
recusals, accepted the recommendation.[ xxv ] However, both of these court papers, like all papers issued
by the U.S. District Court in this case lacked authentication, required to make court papers valid and
effectual, and were therefore invalid court records. [ xxvi ]
Likewise, a petition filed on Fine's behalf at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit - Fine v
Sheriff (09-71692), was denied, but the June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition, bearing the names of
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Richard Tallman was unsigned,
unentered, and lacked authentication as well. [ xxvii ]

4/9
Eventually, Fine filed petitions and applications to the US Supreme Court. However, the pattern of
pretense review and invalid court records and procedures persisted even in the highest court of the
land.
A Motion to Intervene was filed in the US Supreme Court, including detailed review of the false
records of the jail and the lower courts. [ xxviii ] However, the papers were never reviewed by the US
Supreme Court. Instead, they were “returned” by mail, in apparent violation of both US and
international law, with no review at all. [ xxix ]
Moreover, while the online dockets of the US Supreme Court indicated that the cases of Richard Fine
were reviewed and denied, attempts to access the records of the US Supreme Court, to inspect and to
copy the records, found no valid judicial records to support the notations in the online dockets. [ xxx ]

6. Arbitrary release
On September 17, 2010, Richard Fine was released by the Sheriff. Again, the release took place with
no valid order ever entered by the Los Angeles Superior Court. Instead, September 17, 2010 Minutes
were issued under caption of Marina v LA County (BS109420), where issuance of an order was
described, but no evidence of a signed order was ever found. The Minutes also failed to spell out that
an order was ever signed by Judge Yaffe to affect the release of Richard Fine on that date, either.
[ xxxi ]
The September 17, 2010 Minutes opening sentence states:
For reasons known only to himself, Fine is attempting to obtain his release…
Further, the September 17, 2010 Minutes justify the abrupt release as follows:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Fine’s conduct is irrational… His conduct is
bizarre, and that fact alone must be considered by this court…
The September 17, 2010 Minutes also failed to appear among the list of court records in the case,
which were published online by the Court. Likewise, the Case Summary failed to state that any Order
was signed by Judge Yaffe on September 17, 2010, or entered by the Court on that date.
Of note, a day earlier, Judge David Yaffe posted minutes, which denied Richard Fine’s request for
release. What caused the change of mind overnight and the abrupt release of Fine on Sepetember 17,
2010, remained unknown.
Combined, the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Richard Fine present an example of arbitrary and
capricious deprivation of liberty through collusion of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los
Angeles Sheriff’s Department.
The California Code of Regulations, Title 15: Crime Prevention and Corrections, §3273. Acceptance
and Surrender of Custody, states:
Wardens and superintendents must not accept or surrender custody of any prisoner
under any circumstances, except by valid court order or other due process of law.

5/9
 7. Public responses and media coverage
Most of the reporting on the Richard Fine case was through off mainstream media outlets and the
internet. [ xxxii ] When the case reached mainstream media outlets, it was often reported in an incomplete
and partial manner. [ xxxiii ]
Any mention of the case was persistently deleted from the English Wikipedia. [ xxxiv ]
Fine's jailing was perceived by many as false imprisonment, and became the center point for demands
for reform of the judiciary. Small rallies took place outside the Men's Central Jail, and fundraisers were
organized to help sponsor his legal expenses.[ xxxv ]
Embattled Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Alex Kozinski never
commented on the unsigned order issued in his name in this case, which appeared inconsistent with his
usual liberal, civil rights-sensitive, judicially-incisive reputation. [ xxxvi ]

8. The Los Angeles Superior Court

The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, is the largest county court in the United
States, serving over 10 million people. Government, expert, and media reported widespread corruption
of the Court for almost two decades. [ xxxvii ]
The fundamental judicial wrongdoing at the Los Angeles Superior Court, as alleged by those who
consider the case of Richard Fine False Imprisonment, should be viewed in perspective of the
widespread False Imprisonment instances of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) affected
by the same court.
Such false imprisonments had been documented already a decade ago, as part of the Rampart scandal
investigation (1998-2000), and were estimated by PBS Frontline at many thousands. [ xxxviii ] However,
the latest official Rampart scandal report by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel, titled Rampart
Reconsidered (2006), documented the Superior Court judges as key parties in the ongoing refusal to
free the Rampart-FIPs over the past decade.
The report recommended "external investigation" of the Los Angeles justice system, which was never
instituted. It also singled out the Los Angeles Superior Court as requiring review. [ xxxix ]
Such external investigation has never been instituted to this date.
Based on report of conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Human Rights Council 2010 UPR
(Universal Periodic Review) Staff Report referred to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession
and discrimination by law enforcement in California”. [ xl ]
One of the central recommendations of the 2010 UPR report on the United States pertained to
restoration of the right for habeas corpus, with reference to detentions in Guantanamo Bay. [xli ] As
documented in the case of Richard Fine, the right of habeas corpus was effectively denied also on
a US citizen, former US prosecutor, in the territorial United States.

9. Computerized records in the courts and prisons

United Nation reports promote the computerization of the courts as a measure that can enhance
transparency and integrity of the court. [ xlii ] However, the case of Richard Fine documented the
opposite effect. In all cases, the courts, and also the Sheriff’s Department, engaged in the same conduct

6/9
– publication of false and deliberately misleading records online, while denying access to true and
valid record – in violation of both US and international law. [ xliii ]
The agencies involved the case falsification of records in this case included:
1. The Los Angeles Superior Court;
2. The Sheriff’s Department;
3. The US District Court, Central District of California;
4. The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and
5. The US Supreme Court.
The case of Richard Fine prompted more extensive review of the records of the prisons and courts, and
the practice was found to be widespread. [ xliv ]
The rules pertaining to the maintenance of honest records in the English speaking courts evolved over
centuries, and were the core of due process. The case of Richard Fine documented in great detail that
the transition from paper to electronic records, which was conducted with insufficient public and legal
oversight, has undermined the integrity of the justice system in the United States. Similar risks are
posed to the justice systems of other nations.
The case of Richard Fine resembles in some of its aspects a contemporary Michael Kohlhaas. In fact,
some legal scholars believe that the United States has entered a new Robber Baron Era. [ xlv ]

6. References
i
Richard Fine’s biography
Hhttp://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
ii
09-06-07 Fighting Against Alleged Judicial Bias, Jailed For Contempt – Fox News
Hhttp://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-judicialbias0607,0,206146.story
iii
Richard Fine’s biography
Hhttp://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
iv
07-10-30 Richard I. Fine Asks State Bar Court to Reinstate Right to Practice – Metropolitan News Enterprise
Hhttp://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/fine10307.htm
v
08-06-25 Attorney Accuses State Bar of Violating First Amendment – Metropolitan News Enterprise
Hhttp://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/fine062508.htm
vi
08-08-29 Attorneys under Scrutiny: Richard Fine – Metropolitan News Enterprise
Hhttp://www.metnews.com/endmoaugust08.htmlH
09-02-12 California Supreme Court Orders Disbarment of Attorney Richard I. Fine – Metropolitan News Enterprise
Hhttp://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/fine021209.htmH
The State Bar of California
Hhttp://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_home.jspH
vii
Richard Fine’s biography
Hhttp://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
viii
2009 video interview with Richard Fine – Face Up to Fred
Hhttp://faceuptofred.com/season_2009/vol2n4.htmlH
09-11-14 The Fight Against Illegal Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption – Full Disclosure Network
Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/11/fight-against-illegal-judicial-benefits.html
ix
2009 video interview with Richard Fine – Face Up to Fred
Hhttp://faceuptofred.com/season_2009/vol2n4.html
x
11-01-03 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Sturgeon v LA County (D056266) in the California
Court of Appeals, 4th District - Opined as Elaborate Fraud on the California Courts – Human Rights Alert
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46230797/H
xi
09-02-14 SBX 2-11 - California Senate
Hhttp://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx2_11_bill_20090214_amended_sen_v98.htmlH
SBX2 11 (Steinberg): Judges: employment benefits – Around the Capitol
Hhttp://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SBX2_11/H
09-12-12 Irate Citizens Hijack Legislative Hearing, Cite Corruption & Courts As Problem – Full Disclosure Network
Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/labels/SBX2%2011.htmlH
09-08-19 Mardi Explains SBX 2-11 – Face Up to Fred
Hhttp://faceuptofred.com/wordpress/?p=104
xii
The case of Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles pertained to injunction requested by the Home Owners’
Association against permission granted by the County of Los Angeles for development in the Los Angeles marina area by large private
construction companies with connections to the Los Angeles County Supervisors.

7/9
xiii
In several copies, separately stamped by the clerk and separately endorsed by Judge David Yaffe, the record was stamped as "FILED" at
the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 4, 2009, but endorsed by Judge Yaffe as if on March 24, 2009.
For copies of the records, see the filing in the US Supreme Court, [xx], below.
xiv
10-03-09 Marina v LA County (BS109420) - False Hospitalization of Attorney Richard Fine
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28102563/H
xv
09-07-06 Jail Cell 9-1-1 Call Raises More Alarm – Full Disclosure Network
Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/71.phpH
09-03-18 911 Call From Attorney In Jail – Full Disclosure Network
Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/68.phpH
xvi
Free Fine – The Petition Site
Hhttp://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fineH
xvii
False and deliberately misleading records provided by Sheriff Lee Baca in letter to Los Angeles County Supervisor, Michael Antonovich,
in response to request for access to the California public records that were the non-existing warrant and booking records of Richard Fine.
For over a year, Sheriff Lee Baca insists on providing false records - claiming that Richard Fine was arrested on location and by authority of
the "San Pedro Municipal Court". No such court had existed for almost a decade:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/H
xviii
09-06-07 Lawyer takes a stand from his cell – Los Angeles Times
Hhttp://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/local/me-contempt7H
09-11-30 LA Times Female Reporter Sneaks Into L.A.Men's Jail: Judge Banned Interview... – Full Disclosure Network
Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/09/latimes-female-reporter-sneaks-into.html
xix
Docket-USDC-Habeas-July-16-2009-
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/17421132/
xx
09-11-25 Missing Documents & Federal Court Rules: The Richard I Fine Case – Full Disclosure Network
Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/09/video-missing-documents-federal-court.html
xxi
Detailed review of various false records pertaining to the arrest and purported review of the habeas corpus petitions of Richard Fine was
included in the Motion to Intervene, filed with the US Supreme Court:
a) April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court
i) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/H
ii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene s
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/
iii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/H
iv) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/H
v) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/H
vi) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendices
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34050423/H
b) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) - Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/H
xxii
08-03-07 Judge Bohm and the Culture of Incompetence – Calculated Risk
Hhttp://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/03/judge-bohm-and-culture-of-incompetence.html
08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248: Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's
litigation practices, Countrywide's false outside counsel scheme - appearances by counsel who are not Counsel of Record, with "no
communications with clients" clause:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/H
xxiii
09-06-12 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #26 - Report and Recommendation by US Magistrate Carla Woehrle
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/43992187/H
xxiv
In Fay v Noia 372 U.S. 391 (1963), the late Justice William Brennan, writing for he majority stated:
"The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to
the judiciary for a man's imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law,
the individual is entitled to his immediate release"
Hhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/372/391/case.htmlH
xxv
09-06-29 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #31: June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John Walter
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44302663/H
xxvi
Authentication of Court Orders and Judgments as stipulated pursuant to Article IV §1 of the United StatesConstitution, and U.S. Act of
May 26, 1790, U.S. Act of March 27, 1804, and implementation at the U.S. Courts of the dual docketing Case Management Systems -
PACER & CM/ECF, see Notice of Electronic Filing – Electric Law Library
Hhttp://www.lectlaw.com/def/a223.htmH
For further review of the issue of authentication, of lack thereof, in records of the US District Court, Central District of California, and US
th
Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit, see:
11-02-09 Press Release: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal from a
Pretense Judgment of the US District Court
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/H
11-04-14 PRESS RELEASE: Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has been asked to review the evidence of large-scale computer fraud
in the US courts
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52993968/H
xxvii th
Kozinski, Alex – US Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit
Hhttp://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/xtemplate_bio_record.asp?a=12&z=1H

8/9
 th
Paez, Richard A. – US Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit
Hhttp://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/xtemplate_bio_record.asp?a=15&z=1H
th
Tallman, Richard C. – US Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit
Hhttp://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/xtemplate_bio_record.asp?a=22&z=1H
09-06-30 Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, alleged Fraud in unsigned unauthenticated order (Dkt #4) issued
in the names of Circuit Judges Kozinski, Paez, and Tallman denying the Emergency Petition of Richard Fine
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27626788/H
xxviii
Motion to Intervene in the US Supreme Court, see [xx], above.
xxix
10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
xxx
11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47539382/H
xxxi
10-09-20 Marina v LA County (BS109420) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Ongoing Fraud by Judge Yaffe
Alleged - in Failing to Issue and Enter an Order for the September 17, 2010 Release of Richard Fine – Human Rights Alert
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/37800280/H
xxxii
Free Fine – The Petition Site
Hhttp://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
xxxiii
10-05-25 Richard Fine - CNN Blog - Correction of Error in CNN Reporting – Human Rights Alert
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/31908699/H
10-05-25 US Supreme Court Won't Hear Jailed LA Lawyer's Contempt of Court Case – Los Angeles Times
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/32226597/H
10-03-10 70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case – American Bar Association Journal
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28221190/H
xxxiv
Regarding editing of the English version of Wikipedia, see:
07-08-14 See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, The CIA, A Campaign – Wired Magazine
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47616724/H
11-03-07 Judicial Corruption and Human Rights Violations in the US? Not on Wikipedia – Human Rights Alert
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/50219758/H
xxxv
09-06-07 Fighting Against Alleged Judicial Bias, Jailed For Contempt – Fox News
Hhttp://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-judicialbias0607,0,206146.story
xxxvi
06-07 Searching for Alex Kozinski – Reason.com
Hhttp://reason.com/archives/2006/07/01/searching-for-alex-kozinski
xxxvii
11-01-07 Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California: Widespread Public Corruption and Refusal of US Department of Justice to
Take Action – Human Rights Alert
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46460640/H
xxxviii
08-07 Outcome of the Rampart Scandal Investigations – Public Broadcast Service
Hhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/later/outcome.html
xxxix
06-07-15 Rampart Reconsidered, The Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report – Los Angeles Police Department
Hhttp://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/rampart_reconsidered_executive_summary.pdfH
Hhttp://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Full%20Report.pdfH
Hhttp://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Appendices%20Final.pdfH
xl
10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review (UPR) of Human
Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report, with reference to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession".
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/H
xli
10-11-11 UN calling upon the US to ratify and comply with Human Rights treaties and conventions, abolish the death penalty, guarantee
habeas corpus rights, criminalize torture, close Guantanamo Bay... – Human Rights Alert
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/42218232/H
10-11-10 Outcome Document of the 2010 UPR of the United States: Wg.6 9 l.9 USA - United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights
Working Group
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/42157366/H
xlii
00-04-00 Report of the First Vienna Convention - Strengthening Judicial Integrity, CICP-6, United Nations Drug Control and Crime
Prevention Center (2000) (See p5-6)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/50364404/H
01-03-01 Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption CICP-10, United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2001)
(see p5-6)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/48103697/H
xliii
10-03-15 Richard Fine: Victim of Alleged Fraud by Four Justice System Agencies in Concert
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28433783/H
See also [xxviii,xxix], above.
xliv
Zernik, J: Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring,
Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38328591/H
Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring,
Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/H
xlv
0-01-21 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) at the Supreme Court of the United States - opinion of Prof
Chemerinsky and Wikipedia overview
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/41364083/H

9/9