Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
10-02-01 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - False appearances by counsel in a non-case in the US court

10-02-01 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - False appearances by counsel in a non-case in the US court

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13|Likes:
For those interested in fact-based discussion regarding the caption listed above, and alleged Willful Misconduct by Magistrate Carla Woehrle and US Judge John Walter, as well as alleged criminality by Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge David Yaffe, Judge Charles McCoy (Presiding Judge, LA Superior Court) and John Clarke (Clerk of the Court, LA Superior Court): Most records in the caption can be found at: http://inproperinla.com/ Use the "Find" function in your browser (typically "Control F") and query for "fine_v_sheriff" [underlines, but no quotes]. You would get to the section of the archive holding the relevant papers. Enjoy your readings in the fraudulent court system of the United States! jz At 04:14 PM 2/1/2010, joseph zernik wrote: Dear all: I copied into this new thread the facts I quoted regarding this case: FALSE APPEARANCES BY COUNSEL, WHO WAS NOT COUNSEL OF RECORD IN FINE V SHERIFF (2:09-cv-01914). In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), the NON-CASE of Richard Fine's habeas corpus petition, the following facts should be noted: 1. Sheriff was rightly named as Respondent, since he is holding Richard Fine. 2. Sheriff refused to respond [because Fine is held with no legal foundation]. 3. US Magistrate Carla Woehrle refused to release Fine, who filed ex parte application for his own release following refusal of the Sheriff to respond on a Habeas Corpus petition. 4. Eventually, Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court purported to respond in lieu of the Sheriff, albeit - they were never named Respondents by Richard Fine. They were not the ones holding him. 5. Purported appearances for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court were by Attorney Kevin McCormick from Ventura County, a relatively young attorney, of no significance, but relatively far away... 6. Kevin McCormick failed to file the required certifications for appearance as Counsel of Record for David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court. Regardless, Magistrate Carla Woehrle allowed him to appear. 7. Kevin McCormick filed briefs with Declaration by Counsel - himself, not a competent fact witness in this case at all. No declaration by any of his clients was ever filed. 8. Kevin McCormick filed false records as evidence, with no authentication at all. 9. None of the records McCormick filed originated from his purported clients. 10. Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge Yaffe, and the LA Superior Court refused to respond to repeated inquiries to ascertain that McCormick was appearing as Counsel of Record for such clients under the respective caption.
For those interested in fact-based discussion regarding the caption listed above, and alleged Willful Misconduct by Magistrate Carla Woehrle and US Judge John Walter, as well as alleged criminality by Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge David Yaffe, Judge Charles McCoy (Presiding Judge, LA Superior Court) and John Clarke (Clerk of the Court, LA Superior Court): Most records in the caption can be found at: http://inproperinla.com/ Use the "Find" function in your browser (typically "Control F") and query for "fine_v_sheriff" [underlines, but no quotes]. You would get to the section of the archive holding the relevant papers. Enjoy your readings in the fraudulent court system of the United States! jz At 04:14 PM 2/1/2010, joseph zernik wrote: Dear all: I copied into this new thread the facts I quoted regarding this case: FALSE APPEARANCES BY COUNSEL, WHO WAS NOT COUNSEL OF RECORD IN FINE V SHERIFF (2:09-cv-01914). In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), the NON-CASE of Richard Fine's habeas corpus petition, the following facts should be noted: 1. Sheriff was rightly named as Respondent, since he is holding Richard Fine. 2. Sheriff refused to respond [because Fine is held with no legal foundation]. 3. US Magistrate Carla Woehrle refused to release Fine, who filed ex parte application for his own release following refusal of the Sheriff to respond on a Habeas Corpus petition. 4. Eventually, Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court purported to respond in lieu of the Sheriff, albeit - they were never named Respondents by Richard Fine. They were not the ones holding him. 5. Purported appearances for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court were by Attorney Kevin McCormick from Ventura County, a relatively young attorney, of no significance, but relatively far away... 6. Kevin McCormick failed to file the required certifications for appearance as Counsel of Record for David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court. Regardless, Magistrate Carla Woehrle allowed him to appear. 7. Kevin McCormick filed briefs with Declaration by Counsel - himself, not a competent fact witness in this case at all. No declaration by any of his clients was ever filed. 8. Kevin McCormick filed false records as evidence, with no authentication at all. 9. None of the records McCormick filed originated from his purported clients. 10. Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge Yaffe, and the LA Superior Court refused to respond to repeated inquiries to ascertain that McCormick was appearing as Counsel of Record for such clients under the respective caption.

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Feb 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/23/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
Dr ZDr ZDr ZDr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhDPO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
 
Blog:http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs 
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2010
10-02-01 Fine v Sheriff, US v City of LA, SEC v BAC: Fraud pandemic in the courts of the UnitedStates - introduction to Non-Cases, Non-Counsels, Non-Orders, Non-Judgments..
 
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:36:48 -0800To: lawsters@googlegroups.comFrom: joseph zernik 
Subject: Re: FACT BASED DISCUSSION:
 Fine v Sheriff 
(2:09-cv-01914),Judge John Walter, Magistrate Woehrle, and the ongoing false hospitalization of Richard Fine.
 Dear All:For those interested in fact-based discussion regarding the caption listed above, and alleged Willful Misconduct by Magistrate Carla Woehrle and US Judge John Walter, as well as alleged criminality by Attorney Kevin McCormick,Judge David Yaffe, Judge Charles McCoy (Presiding Judge, LA Superior Court) and John Clarke (Clerk of the Court,LA Superior Court):Most records in the caption can be found at:http://inproperinla.com/ Use the "Find" function in your browser (typically "Control F") and query for "fine_v_sheriff" [underlines, but noquotes]. You would get to the section of the archive holding the relevant papers.Enjoy your readings in the fraudulent court system of the United States! jz
 
Page 2/9 February 1, 2010
 At 04:14 PM 2/1/2010, joseph zernik wrote:
 Dear all:I copied into this new thread the facts I quoted regarding this case:
FALSE APPEARANCES BY COUNSEL, WHO WAS NOT COUNSEL OF RECORD IN
 FINE V  SHERIFF 
(2:09-cv-01914).
 
In
 Fine v Sheriff 
(2:09-cv-01914), the NON-CASE of Richard Fine's habeas corpus petition, the following factsshould be noted:
 
1. Sheriff was rightly named as Respondent, since he is holding Richard Fine.2. Sheriff refused to respond [because Fine is held with no legal foundation].3. US Magistrate Carla Woehrle refused to release Fine, who filed ex parte application for his own releasefollowing refusal of the Sheriff to respond on a Habeas Corpus petition.4. Eventually, Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court purported to respond in lieu of the Sheriff,albeit - they were never named Respondents by Richard Fine. They were not the ones holding him.5. Purported appearances for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court were by Attorney KevinMcCormick from Ventura County, a relatively young attorney, of no significance, but relatively faraway...6. Kevin McCormick failed to file the required certifications for appearance as Counsel of Record for David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court. Regardless, Magistrate Carla Woehrle allowed him to appear.7. Kevin McCormick filed briefs with Declaration by Counsel - himself, not a competent fact witness in thiscase at all. No declaration by any of his clients was ever filed.8. Kevin McCormick filed false records as evidence, with no authentication at all.9. None of the records McCormick filed originated from his purported clients.10. Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge Yaffe, and the LA Superior Court refused to respond to repeatedinquiries to ascertain that McCormick was appearing as Counsel of Record for such clients under therespective caption.
In short
- there was no evidence in the court file that Kevin McCormick had ever communicated with JudgeDavid Yaffe or the LA Superior Court.Needless to say, no order or judgment were ever entered in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).
 
Page 3/9 February 1, 2010
Such NON CASE for the habeas corpus of Richard Fine, and such appearances by false counsel were used toaffect deprivation of Liberty. As a reminder
THE ESSENTIALS OF A NON CASE:NON-CASES - the cornerstone of judicial corruption in the United States today, in both stateand US courts, are surely another subject that is never taught in law school. Therefore, let meoffer you the overview:
1.
Commencing records must be defective
 
2. Termination records must be defective as well.3. No valid commencement of jurisdiction may be entered (no valid assignment to a judge, no validreference, etc).4. No valid dispositive order on jurisdiction may be entered (no valid order on disqualification, eitherdenying or granting it).5. All executable orders that may be issued by the court during the course of a NON-CASE must bedefective, and none must be entered, which explains the plethora of unsigned orders and judgments inthe US today.6. No court fee may be collected, where any mention is explicitly provided that such fees were for courtservices.
7.
Public access to court records that would provide definitive evidence of the racketeering by the judgesmust be denied - today - often achieved through implementation of fraudulent case managementsystems at the courts.
 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group.To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en.
  _________
Scott:Let's try to keep this fact-based:a) [Defendants] "had adequate and competent representation by counsel" -
 How did you establish that in US v City of LA et al Defendants were represented by Counsel, or  for that matter, that Defendants appeared at all? 
Fraud in US courts regarding appearances by counsel who was not counsel of record is pandemic, especially when

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->