Case No 09-A827

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

______________

RICHARD I. FINE,

Petitioner,

v.

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent.

______________

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
______________

VERIFIED MOTION TO INTERVENE

JOSEPH ZERNIK
In Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne, CA
Mail:PO Box 526
La Verne, CA 91750
Phone:323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net

Digitally signed by
Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@earth
link.net, c=US
Location: La Verne,
California
Date: 2010.04.15
17:25:34 -07'00'
 ii

Table of Contents

Notice of Motion & Motion …1

A. Points & Authorities …1
B. Claims …5
C. Case Status …7
D. Request For Intervention & Prayer for Relief …8
Certificate of Compliance … 10
Statement of Verification … 11
Proof of Service & Certificates of Mailing … 11

List of Appendices
Appendix I: Notices of intent to intervene and attempts to confer
a) Attorney Paul Beach - Notice and requests for clarifications
b) Sheriff Leroy D Baca – Notice and attempt to confer
c) LASC – Notice and attempt to confer
d) Richard I Fine – Notice and attempt to confer
Appendix II: Table 1 – Summary of cases of Richard I Fine and Joseph Zernik
Appendix III: Sheriff’s Department: Richard I Fine, Booking #1824367
a) January 8, 2010 Records that were provided by the Sheriff in response to
inquiry by Los Angeles County Supervisor, the Hon Michael Antonovich.
Appendix IV: Sheriff’s Department: Joseph Zernik, Booking #2235341, #1343449.
a) Multiplicity of false arrests and booking records.
b) Complaint by Dr Zernik regarding his arrests and jailing.
Appendix V: Sheriff’s Department: Inmate Information Center
a) Data survey, inmate Jose Martinez
b) Data survey, inmate Jose Rodriguez
c) Data survey, inmate John Smith
d) Data survey, inmates of consecutive booking numbers
 iii

e) Data survey, inmates Jose Martinez, Jose Rodriguez – comparison of data in

VINE and in Inmate Information Center.
f) Data survey, inmate Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk
Appendix VI: Registrar/Recorder: Grant Deed #20072759874
a) Opinion Letter of highly decorated fraud expert, FBI veteran James Wedick
Appendix VII: LASC: Marina v LA Couty (BS109420) – false judgment records
pertaining to arrest and imprisonment of Richard Fine
a) March 4, 2009 Removal/Remand Order.
b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt
Appendix VIII: LASC: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – false judgment records pertaining
to the taking of Dr Zernik’s property for private use with no compensation at all
a) August 9, 2007 Judgment and August 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary
Judgment;
b) November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Pasternak Receiver;
c) November 9, 2007 Transcript
d) November 21, 2007 Order to Sheriff to evict Zernik from his own home and
property, to the degree that it was possible” in an order “like unflawful detainer
after entry of judgment”
e) November 21, 2007 Transcript of ex parte proceeding
f) December 7, 2007 Indemnity Agreement to Mara Escrow, a subsidiary of Old
Republic International.
g) December 7, 2007 Transcript of ex parte proceeding #1
h) December 7, 2007 Transcript of ex parte proceeding #2
Appendix IX: LASC: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – exerpts from January 7, 2010
Register of Actions
Appendix X: LASC: Correspondence with the Court re: Access to court records
Appendix XI: USDC-CADC: False Appearances by Counsel
a) March-April 2010 Correspondence with California Judicial Council, in attempt
to ascertain the nature of involvement of Attorney Kevin McCormick as
 iii

counsel in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), and Attorney Sarah Overton as

counsel in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).
b) Complaints filed with Office of Comptroller of the Currency against Bank of
America Corporation regarding false appearance of counsel.
Appendix XII: USDC-CADC and USCCA9th: Integrity of Court records
a) March 25, 2010 Request for expert opinion
b) March 27, 2010 Addendum #1 to request for expert opinion
c) April 5, 2010 Addendum #2 to request for expert opinion
d) Correspondence with clerk Terry Nafisi, US District Court regarding concerns
of lack of integrity in court record at the US District Court, CAC
e) March 25, 2010 Complaint to Chief Judge Audrey Collins re: Integrity of
Records of the US District Court CAC in cases of Fine and Zernik
f) Notice of investigation by the US Court Counsel of allegations by Dr Zernik
regarding integrity of court records at the US District Court, CAC.
Appendix XIII: US Bankruptcy Court, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Three Recreated Letter
by CFC.
Appendix XIV: US Bankruptcy Court, Houston, Texas Memorandum Opinion re:
Litigation Practices of CFC.
Appendix XV: US Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General

a) Clarifications to Complaint to US DOJ-IG by Dr Zernik

b) Letter from the office of the Hon Dianne Feinstein re: Inquiry on OCC

c) Letter from the office of the Hon Dianne Feinstein re: Inquiry on Inspector
General.

d) Letter by Dr Zernik to 5 key Chairs of Congressional Committees asking them

to join the Hon Feinstein in inquiries on US DOJ-IG and Director of OCC.

Table of Authorities

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24 … 1,2,3

Fay v Noia (1963) …2
 iii

Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1968) …2

US Rule Making Enabling Act, 28 USC §2071-7 …2
General Order 08-02, USDC CAC …9
California Code of Civil Procedure, §664 …9
California Code Civil Procedure, §664.5
California Government Code § 69844.7
California Rules of Court, Rule 1.2 …9
California Rules of Court, Rule 10.500 …9
County of Los Angeles, Local Rules of Court, Rule 3.0: …2
County of Los Angeles, Local Rules of Court, Rule 8.96 …2
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1/18

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH ZERNIK’S NOTICE OF MOTION & VERIFIED MOTION TO

INTERVENE

TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES please notice Joseph Zernik (“Zernik”) Motion to
Intervene in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County et al (09-A827), filed herein
pursuant to FRCivP, Rule 24.
Concomitantly filed under separate covers, with and in support of the Motion to Intervene:
1. Motion to Intervene;
2. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer;
3. Request for Correction of Errors in US Supreme Court Records;
4. Request for Incorporation by Reference.
5. Appendices

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 15, 2010 Joseph Zernik

By: ______________________
Joseph Zernik
[Proposed] Intervenor
In Pro Se
PO Box 256
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

A. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. Zernik claims Intervention of Right pursuant to FRCivP 24(a)
Zernik claims timely Intervention of Right: Zernik was informed by Clerk Counsel Danny
Bickell on April 12, 2010, that filing was timely and permitted as long as the Petition was
pending. Zernik claims an interest that is the subject of the action, based on his allegations of
schemes employed in lower courts, as described in Appendix II, which were almost identical in
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2/18

the case of Richard I Fine (“Fine”) – pertaining to the ultimate Deprivation of Liberty and in the
case of Zernik – pertaining to the ultimate Deprivation of the Right to Property. Through such
schemes, Zernik was forced in 2007 to leave his home, and his property was taken for private use
with no compensation at all. Such schemes are the core claims that Zernik asks the Honorable
Court to address in both cases, and pertaining to which the Court is requested to provide relief.

Furthermore, Zernik was recently subjected twice to arrests and jailing by Respondent Sheriff of
Los Angeles County (“Sheriff”), which upon review by this Court would be found to have failed
to conform with the fundamental requirements of the law, similar to treatment that Fine was and
is subjected to, to this date (Appendix IV).

Zernik further claims that no party adequately represents his interests. His core claims were not
brought up by Fine. It is believed that Fine was not cognizant of the detailed facts relative to
such schemes, and/or had no access to key records. Zernik therefore claims that he is so situated
that disposing of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect his
interest – in fact – to protect his fundamental Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

Beyond his individual interest, Zernik claims that his intervention is in the public interest and in
the interest of the furtherance of justice:

a) Instant Motion to Intervene documents various schemed, which were employed against
Petitioner Fine, and the alleged deprivation of various Fine’s Human, Constitutional, and
Civil Rights, which would lead this Honorable Court to conclude that there was and there
is no record to provide the foundation for the holding of Fine, which complied with the
fundamentals of the law, and that Fine was entitled to his immediate release, Fay v Noia
(1963). (Appendix III, Appendix xx, Appendix xx)

b) Instant Motion to Intervene documents the alleged deprivation of various Human,

Constitutional, and Civil Rights of numerous other inmates in the Los Angeles County
jails, who were and are held by Respondent Sheriff with no records that conform with the
fundamentals of the law to provide the foundation of their holding, Fay v Noia (1963).
(Appendix V)

c) Instant Motion to Intervene documents the alleged deprivation of various Human,

Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all 10 million residents of the County of Los Angeles,
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3/18

California, relative to conditions instituted by Respondent LASC, where First

Amendment Right to Access Court Records – to inspect and to copy pursuant to Nixon v
Warner Communications, Inc (1968), is routinely denied, where the Due Process Right to
Service and Notice is routinely “waived” by the Court, where Local Rules of Court are
false and deliberately misleading – particularly relative to entry of judgment – Rule 3.0,
and Rule 8.96, failing to comply with California Law - California Code of Civil
Procedure, §664 & §664.5, and California Government Code § 69844.7. In contrast,
Respondent LASC claims to keep no Book of Judgments, and although an Index of
Judgments was likely to be found upon discovery in its case management systems – the
public is denied access to such Index of Judgments. Such condition left residents of the
County of Los Angeles exposed to various schemes by the Court relative to entry of
judgment. (Appendix II, IX, X). The claims of fraud by Respondent LASC relative to
entry of judgment are core claims in both the case of Petitioner Fine and [Proposed]
Intervenor Zernik.

d) Instant Motion to Intervene also documents the alleged deprivation of various Human,
Constitutional, and Civil Rights of at the US courts, relative to the design and operations
of the public access (PACER) and case management (CM/ECF) systems; relative to
failure of such courts to establish the foundation of their new practice and procedure,
which are inherent in such systems in the Local Rules of Court pursuant to US Rule
Making Enabling Act 28 USC §2071-7; relative to denial of Public Access to Court
Records – to inspect and to copy – the authentication records – NEFs (Notices of
Electronic Filings) and NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity); relative to denial of Notice
and Service of authentication records on pro se filers, and relative to alleged dishonest
design and operation of such systems in general. Further deprivation of rights in the US
courts documented in instant Motion pertain to false appearances at US Courts by
counsel who was not counsel of record, on behalf of large corporations or government, in
the cases of both Petitioner Fine and [Proposed] Intervenor Zernik. (Appendix XII)

Zernik further alleges that when he previously attempted to address his grievances in US courts –
he was effectively denied access to the courts, through further dishonest schemes at the US
Courts, as outlined above. Therefore, if he is denied the right to intervene in instant action, he
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4/18

may be deprived of the ability to protect his interests and his fundamental rights.

2. Alternatively, Zernik claims Permissive Intervention pursuant to FRCivP 24(b)

Zernik alternatively claims that the Court should allow Permissive Intervention, since Zernik
shares with Fine the main claims of abuse of rights by Respondent LASC, and failure of the US
District Court, Central District of California (“USDC-CAC”), and US Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit (“CCA9th”), national tribunals for protection of rights, to protect his rights (Appendix
II). Therefore, there is commonality of law and of facts in his intervention and current actions
under the caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827).

3. Zernik fulfilled requirement for Notice and Service pursuant to FRCivP 24(c)
Zernik provided Notice of Intent to Intervene (Appendix I), and also attempted to Confer with
Respondents Sheriff and LASC. Sheriff refused to confer. No response was received from
LASC.

Zernik served instant Motion to Intervene on parties pursuant to the Service List, below, and a
Certificate of Service and Certificate of Mailing are provided herein.

Zernik claims that evidence provided in Appendix I and in Appendix VIII, and additional
discovery would lead this Court to rule that counsel that were listed in various records as counsel
for respondents Sheriff and LASC in instant action at the Supreme Court of the US, were not true
counsel of record for respective parties in the case at hand. Therefore, service was executed on
parties Sheriff and LASC themselves.

Therefore, the Clerk of the Court must not refuse to file instant Zernik’s papers, even if not in the
form prescribed by FRCivP or by a local rule or practice.

5. Zernik should be permitted by the Court to intervene in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827).

WHEREFORE, Zernik respectfully requests that this Court:

1) Grant Zernik’s Motion to Intervene;

2) Order the immediate release of Richard I Fine,

3) Order the immediate return of Zernik’s lawful property to his possession, and
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5/18

4) Grant Zernik additional and further relief pertaining to the rights of inmates held by
Respondent Sheriff- with no evidence of honest records to support their holding;
pertaining to the rights of residents of Los Angeles County – relative to conduct of
Respondent LASC – in denial of access to court records –to inspect and to copy, and in
routine waiving of the right to notice and service, and pertaining to the rights of all US
residents through conduct of lower US courts – relative to denial of access to
authentication records (NEFs, NDAs) in the courts’ public access systems (PACER),
pursuant to the claims and relief sought in the Motion and adjoining records, and as the
Honorable Court deems just and equitable.

B. CLAIMS

[Proposed] Intervenor Zernik’s core claims are:

1) Respondent LASC: In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), Zernik was and is the victim of
ongoing real estate through litigation, which is fraud in its entirety, and which was enabled
through false and deliberately misleading employment of the LASC’s public access and case
management system and false court records. There simply is no way to explain the
fundaments facts pertaining to the litigation consistent with the conduct of a true litigation
under the LASC. (Appendix xx)

Such fraud in litigation was further advanced by false appearances by counsel for large
financial institutions. In Zernik’s case, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc (“CFC”), and Bank of
America Corporation (“BAC”), have been appearing for the past 2.5 years under the false
party designation of “Non Party”, through false and deliberately misleading appearances by
counsel who is Bryan Cave, LLP, similar to schemes which were employed by CFC
elsewhere, and which were described in case of Borrower William Alan Parsley (05-90374),
Dkt #258 (Appendix xx) - appearances by counsel who was not counsel of record, with “no
communications with client” clause. Additional schemes employed by Countrywide were
similar to those employed by the corporation in case of Borrower Sharon Diane Hill (01-
22574), where “Recreated Letters” were filed as evidence. (Appendix XIII)
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 6/18

It is alleged that similar conduct by LASC, relative to litigation fraud, would be found upon
discovery also in the case of Fine in Marina v LA County (BS109420) in general, and
appearances of counsel for large corporation in particular.

Such schemes culminated in the cases of both Zernik and Fine in the issuance of judgments
by judges of the LASC, which were never entered in compliance with the law. Nevertheless,
such void Judgments, which were never effectual for any purpose, were enforced by LA
County agencies. (Appendix II, Appendix VII, VIII).

2) Respondent Sheriff and Los Angeles County agencies –

a) Office of Registrar Recorder – colluded with LASC in condut of the real estate fraud
against Zernik, through the recording of records that were opined as fraud by the highest
reputation fraud expert (Appendix III). Zernik’s Human, Constitutional, and Civil Righst
were deprived. Zernik is therfore entitle to Equal Protection by US agencies, and return of his
lawful property to his possession.

b) Sheriff’s Department – colluded with LASC in conduct of alleged false imprisonment of

Fine, and jailing of Zernik (Appendix II, III, IV), through records that are alleged as fraud.
Fine’s Human, Constitutional, and Civil Righst were deprived. There simply is no records
that conforms with the fundamentals of the law to provide the foundation for his holding.
Fine is therfore entitle to his immediate release, Fay v Noia (1963). Appendix xx Appendix
xx

c) Sheriff’s Department – was also used by the LASC to engage in threat of force on Zernik,
unlawful but credible, to take his property for private use, with no compensation at all, and
with no legal foundation for such conduct. (Appendix VIII)

3) USDC-CACD - in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) the US District Court failed to

protect Zernik’s rights, and such conduct was enabled through false and deliberately
misleading employment of the courts public access and case management system, false court
records, false appearances by counsel for large corporations and for the LASC. Such conduct
almost exactly paralleled the treatment of Fine in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) at the US
District Court (Appendix I, XI, XII).
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 7/18

4) CCA9th - In Zernik v US District Court, CAC (08-72714) the Court failed to protect his
rights. Such conduct was enabled through false and deliberately misleading employment of
the courts public access and case management systems, and false court records. Such conduct
almost exactly paralleled the treatment of Fine in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) and Fine v Sheriff
(09-56073)) (Appendix I, XII).

5) The common conduct in all three courts named above included:

a. Installation of public access and case management systems, which amounted to sea
change in operations of the courts, without founding such changes in Rules of Courts
pursuant to US Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC §2071-7.

b. Denial of Access to Court Records – to inspect and to copy – to key litigation records in
the case management systems, including but not limited to – the Registers of Actions
(California civil docket). When Zernik was allowed limited access to his Register of
Actions in his case, he discovered there evidence of alleged racketeering activity by
Respondent LASC and CFC/BAC. (Appendix IX) In Zernik’s action at the USDC-CAC,
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01914), the LASC – through false appearance by false
counsel, entered false records instead of the true Register of Actions, and the USDC-
CAC refused to rule on Zernik’s objections and OSC Contempt, relative to such conduct.

No access at all was allowed to the Register of Actions of Fine in Marina v LA County
(BS109420) (Appendix X). The review of Fine’s habeas corpus at the USDC-CAC and
related actions at CCA9th were all incredibly conducted absent such foundation record. It
is alleged that upon discovery of the Register of Actions in Marina v LA County
(BS109420), evidence would be found that such litigation was never a true matter
litigated under the LASC.

c. Denial of Notice and Service, and/or false Notice and Service by the Courts. At the
LASC, the Court routinely inserted into court files minutes, orders, and judgments that
were not entered in compliance with the law, and which were never adequately served
and noticed. At the USDC-CAC, pro se filers Zernik and Fine were subjected to false
notice and service – with invalid NEFs – lacking the digital Stamp Court. CCA9th
served orders, which were unsigned, with no authentication records (NDAs) at all.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 8/18

Nevertheless such records were listed by USDC-CAC in the PACER docket as “entered”
– through transactions executed by a person who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk.
The Clerk of the USDC-CAC, for months refuses to answer simple questions regarding
the dockets in these cases. Complaint was filed with the Chief Judge, and investigation
regarding integrity of such litigations at the USDC-CAC was instituted. (Appendix XII)

d. Appearances of false counsel permitted by the courts. (Appendix XI)

6) The Sheriff’s Department of LA County likewise implemented a public access and case
management systems that permit the holding of numerous persons with no records to provide
the foundation for the holding, which conform with the fundamentals of the law. (Appendix
III, IV, V)
C. CASE STATUS
The only litigation that Zernik is purported to be currently involved in is Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) at LASC. It is claimed that upon review of the matter, this Court would conclude
that such caption was never a true court action of LASC. None of the conduct in the purported
litigation conformed with the law of California and/or the US.
D. [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR ENTERS HIS REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION AND
PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
WHEREFORE [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR PRAYS this honorable Court issue
equitable relief as follows:
1. Declaratory relief that Respondent LASC March 4, 2009 Oder and Judgment of Contempt
re: Richard I Fine in Marina v LA County (BS109400) was void, not voidable.
2. Declaratory relief that Respondent LASC August 9, 2007 Judgment, and November 9, 2007
Order Appointing David Pasternak Receiver in Samaan v Zernik (SC08700) were both void,
not voidable.
3. Declaratory relief that March 4, 2009 Remand/Removal Order generated by Respondent
LASC, and arrest and booking records that were generated by Respondent Sheriff pertaining
to Richard I Fine were fraud on their face.
4. Declaratory relief that conveyance of title executed on behalf of Respondent LASC on
Zernik’s property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills California, 90212 was fraud on its
face, as opined by highly decorated fraud expert, FBI veteran James Wedick.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 9/18

5. Order Respondent Sheriff to immediately release Petitioner Richard I Fine.

6. Ordedr Respondent Sheriff to immediately return Intervenor Joseph Zernik’s property at
320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212 to his possession.
7. Declaratory relief that the public access and case management systems, which were
implemented by Respondent Sheriff are false and deliberately misleading.
8. Order Respondent Sheriff to implement public access and case management systsems for
the Los Angeles jails, which were subjected to publicly accountable validation (certified,
functional logic verification).
9. Declaratory relief that the the public access and case management systems, which were
implemented by Respondent LASAC are false and deliberately misleading.
10. Order Respondent LASC to implement public access and case management systsems in the
courts, which were subjected to publicly accountable validation (certified, functional logic
verification).
11. Order Respondent LASC to respect First Amdndement Rights – to Access Court Records –
to inspect and to copy.
12. Order Respondent LASC to respect Due Process Rights – for Notice and Service of all
Court minutes, orders and judgments, and cease the practice of waiving such rights of
parties in litigations.
13. Order Respondent LASC to implement a Book of Judgments, pursuant to Califonria Code,
which is a public record, to which public access must be allowed.
14. Order Respondent LASC to implement an Index of All Cases, Registers of Actions, and
Caledar of the Courts, that are true and correct, and where public access is allowed, as
required by California and US Law.
15. Order Respondent LASC to update its Local Rules of Court to reflect the true procedures
and practices of the Court today.
16. Enter mandate to lower US courts - to implement public access and case management
systems in the courts, which were subjected to publicly accountable validation (certified,
functional logic verification), and were honestly founded in the Local Rules of Court.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 10/18

17. Enter mandate to lower US Courts – to respect First Amendment Rights – to Access Court
Records – to inspect and to copy – including, but not limited to authentication records in
CM/ECF (NEFs and NDAs).
18. Enter mandate to lower US Courts – to respect Due Process Rights – for Notice and Service
– particularly of pro se filers, who must be served all authentication records received by
other parties in litigation, in a manner that does not deprive pro se filers of any information
inherent in such records.
19. Enter mandate to lower US Courts – to respect the Rule Making Enabling Act and update
their local Rules of Court to reflect the changes in court practice and procedure related to
electronic public access and case management systems.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik respectfully asks the Honorable Court to grant
him such declaratory, injunctive, mandate and other relief as it deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted on April 15, 2010 by:

Joseph Zernik

By: _______________________________
[Proposed] Intervenor
In Pro Se
PO Box 256
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the MOTION TO INTERVENE is proportionately spaced, has a type face of 12
points, and contains 3,224 words according to the Word 2000, the word processing system on
which it was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1-10, excluding this Certificate of
Compliance.

Executed on this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph Zernik
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 11/18

By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd.
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
Motion to Intervene

I, Joseph Zernik wrote and read instant Motion to Intervene, and I know the content thereof to
be true and correct, it is true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, except as to
those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and as to to those matters, I
believe them to be true and correct as well.
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant
to the laws of California and the United States.

Executed here in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, on this 15th day in April, 2010.

____________________
Joseph Zernik

PROOF OF SERVICE
&
CERTIFICATES OF MAILING AND/OR E-MAILING

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as:

Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene
on Respondents in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed
envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

1) Richard I Fine – Petitioner

Inmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 12/18

LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL

450 Bauchet St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County - Respondent

Leroy D Baca, Sheriff
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
4700 Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 323 526 5000
Fax: <13232676600@efaxsend.com>
Email: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>

3) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe -
Respondents
John A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone 213 974 5401
Fax: 213 621 7952
Email: <jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org>

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Executed this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph H Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 13/18

Reserved for certificates of mailing by USPS, to be added in copy filed with the Court.
 Case No 09-A827

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

______________

RICHARD I. FINE,

Petitioner,

v.

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent.

______________

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
______________

REQUEST FOR LENIENCE BY PRO SE FILER

JOSEPH ZERNIK
In Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne, CA
Mail:PO Box 526
La Verne, CA 91750
Phone:323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1/6

[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S VERIFIED REQUEST FOR LENIENCE AS PRO SE

FILER
Concomitantly filed under separate covers, with and in support of the Motion to Intervene:
1. Motion to Intervene;
2. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer;
3. Request for Correction of Errors in US Supreme Court Records;
4. Request for Incorporation by Reference.
5. Appendices

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO PARTIES: [Proposed] Intervenor Joseph

Zernik herein requests the Court for Lenience as pro se filer.

1. United States law provides lenience for pro se filers.

[Proposed] Intervenor Zernik requests the Court’s lenience for his "inartful pleading",1 as
accorded by US law to pro se filers. In particular, Pro Se Filer Zernik is not qualified in assessing
the validity of legal theories. He therefore asks the Court to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous
legal theory that he might claim, and to do take into consideration the facts themselves, as well
as the claims, if they can be supported by some other valid legal theory.2

2. Sections of the code were often left unspecified.

For such reasons routine use was made in the Motion to Intervene and adjoining records of
language implying violations of the law, without spelling out the specific section of the code.

3. Conduct amounting to racketeering activity pursuant to 18 USC §1961, by Respondent

LASC was alleged, but never fully elaborated.

[Proposed] Intervenor Zernik alleges that the facts and the claims detailed in his Motion to
Intervene, adjoining papers, and additional evidence not directly relevant to the case at hand,
should be sufficient to support criminal RICO investigation, and probably also prosecution, of
various parties. The essence of such racketeering was in concerted obstruction/ perversion/

1
Ericson v Pardus et al, US Supreme Crt, June 4, 2007 (06–7317); 551 US (2007)
2
Haddock v California Board of Dental Examiners, US Crt App 9th Circ, Nov 26, 1985; 777 F.2d
462
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2/6

corruption of justice at the LASC. Evidence presented in the Motion to Intervene documented
such conduct against both Fine and Zernik. Complaints were filed with FBI and US Department
of Justice, but both agencies refused to investigate the matter. As detailed in Appendix XV,
complaint on such refusal to investigate is now pending before the US Department of Justice
Inspector General – Glenn A Fine, with an inquiry by the Hon Dianne Feinstein, Senator from
California, on that office.

RICO prosecutions are a specialized field even for fully accomplished attorneys, and fully
formulating a RICO complaint was surely beyond Zernik’s ability. The claims are based on four
elements: (a) conduct (b) of an enterprise (c) through a pattern (d) of racketeering activity.3 Each
of these element requires additional analysis. Zernik believed that all these fundamental elements
of RICO could be credibly argued in this case.

Zernik believed that predicated acts could be credibly argued, per 18 USC §1961 relative to: (a)
Robbery per state law; (b) Mail fraud per 18 USC §1341; (c) Wire fraud per 18 USC §1343; (d)
Financial institution fraud 18 USC §1344; (e) Obstruction of justice 18 USC §1503; (f)
Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant 18 USC §1513; and (g) Engaging in
monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity 18 USC §1957.

4. Zernik is effectively denied access to counsel.

Once Zernik uncovered the collusion by judges of the LASC and large financial institutions in
the malicious litigation against him in early 2007, Zernik was no longer able to find honest
counsel to represent him. One counsel described Zernik, already in mid-2007, as “radioactive” –
explaining that any counsel who would honestly represent him would suffer consequences.

5. For all the reasons listed above, [Proposed] Intervenor Zernik respectfully requests that
the court accord him lenience as pro se filer, pursuant to US law.

Therefore, Zernik respectfully requests that the Court accord him lenience as due to pro se filers
in US courts.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 14, 2010 Joseph H Zernik

3
See Kenda Corp. v. Pot O’Gold Money Leagues, Inc., 329 F.3d 216, 233 (1st Cir. 2003).
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3/6

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
In Pro Se
[Proposed] Intervenor]
PO Box 256
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the Request for Lenience is proportionately spaced, has a type face of 12
points, and contains 790 words according to the Word 2000, the word processing system on
which it was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1-3, excluding this Certificate of
Compliance.
Executed on this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd.
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S VERIFIED REQUEST FOR LINIENCE AS PRO SE FILER
I, the undersigned, Joseph Zernik, wrote and read instant [Proposed] Intervenor’s Verified
Request For Lenience As Pro Se Filer, and I know the content thereof to be true and correct, it is
true and correct based on my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4/6

as based upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and
correct as well.
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant
to the laws of the United States.
Executed here in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, on this 15th day in April, 2010.

____________________
Joseph Zernik

PROOF OF SERVICE
&
CERTIFICATES OF MAILING AND/OR E-MAILING

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as: Request for Lenience as
Pro Se Filer on Respondents in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was
enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed as
follows:

1) Richard I Fine – Petitioner

Inmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
450 Bauchet St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County - Respondent

Leroy D Baca, Sheriff
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
4700 Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 323 526 5000
Fax: <13232676600@efaxsend.com>
Email: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>

3) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe -
Respondents
John A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5/6

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Phone 213 974 5401
Fax: 213 621 7952
Email: <jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org>

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Executed this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California

Joseph H Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net
 Case No 09-A827

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

______________

RICHARD I. FINE,

Petitioner,

v.

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent.

______________

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
______________

REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT OF THE US

JOSEPH ZERNIK
In Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne, CA
Mail: PO Box 526
La Verne, CA 91750
Phone:323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1/5

[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE US
Concomitantly filed under separate faces:
1. Motion to Intervene;
2. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer;
3. Request for Correction in US Supreme Court Records;
4. Request for Incorporation by Reference.
5. Appendix

TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: [Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik herein requests that
the Court correct records of the Supreme Court of the US, in the case at hand, as detailed herein.

1. The dockets and papers under case number 09-A827 are inconsistent relative to case
caption.

The case caption in the case at hand is inconsistently listed in Court records. [Proposed]
Intervenor followed in this respect the caption used by Petitioner Fine.

2. Court records are inconsistent relative to denial, or lack thereof, of instant Petition on
March 12, 2010, by Association Justice, the Honorable Anthony Kennedy.

Local Rules of Court state that such denial had to be inscribed on the face of the Application.
Copy of the Application in case 09-A827, obtained from office of the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the US file by [Proposed] Intervenor, showed no such inscription on the face of the
Application. Likewise, no denial was listed among the orders and rulings of the Court listed
online on or about March 12, 2010. Yet – the docket, as publicly accessible online, stated that
the Application was denied on March 12, 2010.

3. Attorney Paul Beach was listed as Counsel for Respondent Sheriff.

It is alleged that evidence provided in Appendix I, and additional discovery would show that
Paul Beach was never Counsel of Record for Respondent Sheriff of Los Angeles County in
instant Application by Richard I Fine. Instead, it is alleged that additional discovery would
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2/5

reveal that he was part of a scheme of counsel who was not counsel of records with “no
communications with client” clause, as described by the Hon Jeff Bohm in Appendix XIV.
Evidence is presented in the Motion to Intervene and in Appendix XI that such was the case also
for Attorney Kevin McCormick, who was represented as counsel for Judge David Yaffe and the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

4. Therefore, the Court is respectfully requested to correct the records as the Court deems fit.

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 15, 2010 Joseph Zernik

By: ______________________
Joseph Zernik
PO Box 256
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the Request for Corrections in Court Records is proportionately spaced, has a
type face of 12 points, and contains 405 words according to the Word 2000, the word processing
system on which it was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1-2, excluding this
Certificate of Compliance.

Executed on this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd.
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3/5

PROOF OF SERVICE
&
CERTIFICATES OF MAILING AND/OR E-MAILING

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as:

Request for Correction of Court Records
on Respondents in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed
envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

1) Richard I Fine – Petitioner

Inmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
450 Bauchet St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County - Respondent

Leroy D Baca, Sheriff
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
4700 Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 323 526 5000
Fax: <13232676600@efaxsend.com>
Email: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>

3) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe -
Respondents
John A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone 213 974 5401
Fax: 213 621 7952
Email: <jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org>

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4/5

Executed this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph H Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net
 Case No 09-A827

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

______________

RICHARD I. FINE,

Petitioner,

v.

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent.

______________

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
______________

REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

JOSEPH ZERNIK
In Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne, CA
Mail: PO Box 526
La Verne, CA 91750
Phone:323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1/5

[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF

DOCKETS AND RECORDS OF OTHER CASES AT THE US COURTS
Concomitantly filed under separate faces:
1. Motion to Intervene;
2. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer;
3. Request for Correction of Errors in US Supreme Court Records;
4. Request for Incorporation by Reference.
5. Appendices

TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: [Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik herein requests that
the Court permit incorporation by reference of the dockets and papers of other cases in US
Courts, as detailed herein.

1. The dockets and papers of the captions, where incorporation is requested, include crucial
evidence for instant Motion to Intervene.

(a) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - at the US District Court, Central District of

California, and

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

(c) Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) – at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

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

(e) Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) – at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

(f) Borrower William Alan Parsley (05-90374) - at the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern
District of Texas, Houston. In particular: Dkt #248, March 5, 2008 Memorandum
Opinion – describing fraudulent litigation practices by CFC, and Dkt #256-260 – filings
by Zernik describing in details the alleged fraud in litigations in Los Angeles County,
which resulted in real estate fraud, as opined by highly decorated fraud expert – James
Wedick.

(g) Borrower Sharon Dianne Hill (01-22574) - at the US Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2/5

Relative to the records in all cases – request is for incorporation by reference not only of the
PACER records, which are publicly accessible, but of all other records that are accessible to the
Court in CM/ECF, including, but not limited to authentication records that are NEFs (Notices of
Electronic Filings) and/or NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity), where the public is denied access.

Relative to records in (a) through (e), where incorporation is requested by reference, such request
was never intended to imply that such records were honest, valid, and effectual court records. On
the contrary, such are records are mostly deemed as false and deliberately misleading court
records, and are incorporated in order to allow this Court to review such allegations.

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 15, 2010 Joseph Zernik

By: ______________________
Joseph Zernik
PO Box 256
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the Request for Incorporation by Reference is proportionately spaced, has a type
face of 12 points, and contains 359 words according to the Word 2000, the word processing
system on which it was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1-2, excluding this
Certificate of Compliance.

Executed on this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd.
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3/5

Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

PROOF OF SERVICE
&
CERTIFICATES OF MAILING AND/OR E-MAILING

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as:

Request for Incorporation by Reference
on Respondents in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed
envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:

1) Richard I Fine – Petitioner

Inmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
450 Bauchet St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County - Respondent

Leroy D Baca, Sheriff
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
4700 Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 323 526 5000
Fax: <13232676600@efaxsend.com>
Email: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>

3) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe -
Respondents
John A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone 213 974 5401
Fax: 213 621 7952
Email: <jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org>

I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4/5

Executed this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph H Zernik

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net