Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2010

10-03-15 Richard Fine – Victim of Alleged Fraud by Four Justice System Agencies in
Concert

Richard Fine

Los Angeles, March 15 – in postings at the American Bar Association Journal online site, [1] Dr Joseph Zernik, Los
Angeles County resident, alleged coordinated fraud by four justice system agencies, which enable alleged false
imprisonment of Attorney Richard Fine, 70-year old, former US prosecutor and a political dissident, who exposed
widespread corruption of the judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Dr Zernik further alleged
that such fraud by justice system agencies was facilitated by the failure to require publicly-accountable validation of the
case management systems of the agencies involved. Such conditions resulted in Human Rights abuses of historic
proportions in Los Angeles County, California.

Political Dissident Richard Fine – Alleged False Imprisonment in Los Angeles for a Full Year.

Richard Fine exposed that ALL judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – the largest county
court in the US, took for over a decade payments (~$47,000 per judge per year) from Los Angeles County, which were
“not permitted”. In parallel, it became practically impossible to win a case against LA County at the Court. Such exposure
led the California Judicial Counsel to urge passage of “Retroactive Immunities” of dubious validity for the respective
judges, and the judges were likewise reported to have paid a lobbyist to affect the passage of the same. On February 20,
2009, such “Retroactive Immunities” were signed by the California Governor. Less than two weeks later, on March 4,
2009, Richard Fine was taken by the Warrant Detail of the Sheriff’s Department from the court of Judge David Yaffe,
albeit – with no warrant at all, and with no judgment/conviction/sentencing ever having been entered. Richard Fine has
been falsely hospitalized ever since under solitary confinement. His habeas corpus petition to the US Court and a
petition to the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit were claimed to have been denied. However, instant writing alleged that in

Page 2/4 March 15, 2010

fact – no orders/judgments were ever entered in either petition. Integrity of the case management systems and the
records was challenged in all four justice system agencies, which were involved in the case.

Lack of Validation of Case Management Systems Allowed Agencies to Post False and Deliberately
Misleading Records Online.

The records of all four involved agencies should be deemed duplicitous. The Courts themselves never deemed such
records as honest, valid, and effectual records. [3] However, such records were published online in a manner that
affected alleged fraud by the Courts and the Sheriff’s Department both on Richard Fine and on the people, as well as
alleged false imprisonment.

1) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

Upon investigation, discovery, and competent review, it would be concluded thatMarina v LA County, the caption in
ancillary proceedings of which Mr Fine was purported to have been judged, convicted, sentenced, arrested, and jailed,
failed to include even a single honest, valid and effectual record of Minutes, Order, Judgment/Conviction, or Sentencing.

2) Richard I Fine, (Los Angeles County Booking Record #1824367), at the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los
Angeles, California.

Upon investigation, discovery, and competent review, it would be concluded that the records pertaining to Richard I
Fine (Booking #1824367) at the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County, failed to include even a single honest, valid
and effectual record pertaining to the March 4, 2009 Arrest and Booking of Richard I Fine.

3) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - at the US District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles.

Upon investigation, discovery, and competent review, it would be concluded that Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), the
caption which was purported as the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of Richard Fine, failed to include even a single
honest, valid and effectual record of Minutes, Order, Opinion, or Judgment.

4) Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) - at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

Upon investigation, discovery, and competent review, it would be concluded that Fine v Sheriff (09-71692), the caption
which was purported as the petition of Richard Fine originating from the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, failed to
include even a single honest, valid and effectual record of an Order, Opinion, or Judgment.

All four agencies published online records that failed to include adequate verification (missing, false, or faulty
implementation of digital signatures) and authentication/ certification (missing, false, or faulty implementation of
attestations by the Clerk of the Court/ Records Supervisor of the Sheriff's Department). Upon detailed review of such

Page 3/4 March 15, 2010

systems it would be concluded that they were deliberately designed and operated to generate vague and ambiguous
records in the Los Angeles County justice system, at US District Court, Los Angeles, and at the US Court of Appeals,
9th Circuit. The justice system of Los Angeles County, California produced over the past 2 decades Human Rights
disgraces of historic proportions.

The Proposed Solution – Publicly Accountable Validation of Case Management Systems of the
Agencies [4]

The case of Richard Fine demonstrated the urgent need to establish requirements for publicly accountable validation
(certified, functional logic verification) of case management systems of the justice system of the US and the several
states. Publicly accountable validation of the case management systems of the courts, jails, and prisons, is essential in
order to restore compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – ratified International Law.

Links/Comments:

[1] March 10, 2010, ABA Journal: "70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case" and readers'
comments:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-
year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#comments

[2] The term "honest, valid, and effectual" as used above, pertained ONLY to review of the respective records "on their
faces". IE, the term implied that based on ministerial review alone, such records should have never been published
online in a manner that implied their entry as valid and effectual court records, which required “full faith and credit”.
Neither should such records have been served on parties. Instead, such records should have triggered discrepancy
procedures. The term, as used above, explicitly excluded any review of the records relative to the legal matters inherent in
them, i.e. - judicial review.

Examples:

(a) The question whether the record, which was purported to be March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt
in Marina v LA County (BS109420) was adequately verified by Judge David Yaffe and adequately authenticated,
was deemed a ministerial question.

(b) The question whether the June 29, 2009 Judgment in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) by Judge John Walter was
adequately authenticated and certified by the Clerk of the US Court, was deemed a ministerial question.

(c) The question whether the June 30, 2009 Order in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and
Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Richard Tallman was adequately verified by the three judges and adequately
authenticated and certified by the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, was deemed a ministerial question.

Page 4/4 March 15, 2010

(d) The questions whether Judge David Yaffe should have been disqualified, or the question whether he had any judicial
authority in Marina v LA County to begin with, were deemed questions that required judicial review.

(e) The question whether Richard Fine should have been released immediately upon refusal to respond by the Sheriff,
Respondent in Fine v Sheriff, the habeas corpus petition, was deemed a question that required judicial review.

(f) The question whether Attorney Kevin McCormick filed the required certifications to establish his authority to
appear as a Counsel of Record for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court, was deemed a question that
required ministerial review.

(g) The question of sufficiency of the pleadings by Attorney Kevin McCormick, including no declarations by Intervenors
Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court, but only a declaration by Counsel, who was not a competent fact
witness in this case, was deemed a question that required judicial review.

[3] The diagnosis and remedies described above for the justice system were both equally applicable to US financial
institutions, banking regulators, and SEC. The failure to validate critical computer systems of the US financial
infrastructure incurred unreasonable risks to the US economy and US global standing. Furthermore, such risks were not
amenable to assessment. The failure of the US government to establish by and enforce requirements for the validation of
such computer systems of the US financial infrastructure contradicted its explicit duties pursuant to the Basel Accords on
international banking, which the US claimed to be a good faith party to.