Case No 09-

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
______________

AMENDED 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: 2010.04.18
01:07:19 -07'00'
 ii

"The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a

civilized society... if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with
the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his
immediate release". Fay v Noia (1963)

Table of Contents

Table of Contents … ii

List of Appendices … iii

Table of Authorities … vi

Notice of Motion & Motion …1

A. Points & Authorities on Motion to Intervene …2

B. Points & Authorities on Intervention Per Se …6

C. Claims … 16

D. Case Status … 19

E. Request For Intervention & Prayer for Relief … 20

Certificate of Compliance … 23

Statement of Verification … 24

Proof of Service & Certificates of Mailing … 25

 iii

List of Appendices

Appendix I:
I Notices to parties 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:
II Table form summary of cases of Petitioner
Petitioner Richard I Fine and

[Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik

Appendix III:
III LA County Sheriff’s Department:
Department: False arrest and booking

records re: Inmate Richard I Fine, #1824367;

#1824367; Inmate Joseph Zernik,

#2235341, numerous other inmates

a) January 8, 2010 Records that were provided by the Sheriff in

response to inquiry by Los Angeles County Supervisor, the Hon

Michael Antonovich.

b) Los Angeles County Booking Records, re: Joseph Zernik, Booking

#2235341

c) Zernik’s Complaint, filed with the Sheriff’s Department, alleging

unlawful arrest and jailing and other violations of the law.

Appendix IV:
IV Department: Marina v LA Couty
LA County Sheriff’s Department:

(BS109420) – false records pertaining to arrest and imprisonment of

Richard Fine
 iv

a) March 4, 2009 Removal/Remand Order

b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt

c) LA County Sheriff’s Department -Removal Order for In Custody

Defendant – blank form of

Appendix V: Registrar/Recorder: Recording of a Grant Deed

V LA County Registrar/Recorder:

#20072759874, which was opined as fraud

Opinion Letter of highly decorated fraud expert, FBI veteran James

Wedick

Appendix VI:
VI LASC: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – false and deliberately
LASC:

misleading judgment/appealable records

a) August 9, 2007 Judgment and August 9, 2007 Order Granting

Summary Judgment;

b) November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Pasternak Receiver;

c) November 21, 2007 Order “like unlawful detainer after entry of

judgment”

Appendix VII: LASC: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – exerpts from January

VII LASC:

7, 2010 Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik

Appendix VIII:
VIII LASC:
LASC: Correspondence with the Court re: Access to court

records and Rules of Court pertaining to Entry of Judgment

a. June 3, 2008 Letter by Assistant Presiding Judge Charles McCoy to Zernik –

denial of access to Book of Judgments records of LASC.

 v

b. July 28-30, 2009 Zernik’s correspondence with office of the Clerk and Court

Counsel regarding denial of access to records, false local rules of courts, failure

to maintain books of judgments.

c. October 15, 2009 Zernik’s request for honest, valid, effectual local rules of

court of LASC re: Entry of judgment-

d. October 28, 2009 Court Counsel Bennett’s response to Dr Zernik re: Denial of

Access to Records, Registers of Actions, Books of Judgments.

Appendix IX: LASC Microfilm Judgment Archive records

a. 08-07-28-la-sup-ct-judgments-copied-from-archives-s

b. 10-04-16 declaration request for help by judgment microfilm room and records

found.

Appendix X:
X LASC and USDC-
USDC-CADC:
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 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.

c) April 2010 Refusal of California Judicial Council to respond on any

questions pertaining to retainer of Attorney Sara L Overton in

Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)

 vi

Appendix XI: USDC-

USDC- CAC

a) March 14, 2010 Repeat complaint filed with Clerk of the Court, Terry

Nafisi

b) March 25, 2010 Complaint filed with Chief Judge Audrey Collins

c) February 19, 2010 Notice of investigation by Court Counsel, Lydia

Yurtchuk.

Table of Authorities

California Code of Civil Procedure, §664 … 10

California Government Code § 69844.7 … 10

California Government Code, § 6250 - 6276.48

(California Public Records Act) …6

California Rules of Court, Rule 1.4 …11

County of Los Angeles, Local Rules of Court, Rule 3.0: … 10

Fay v Noia (1963) … 3,15

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24 … 1,2,4,5

General Order 08-02, USDC CAC … 14

Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1968) …4

US Rule Making Enabling Act, 28 USC §2071-7 … 4,21

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1/31

PRO SE FILER JOSEPH ZERNIK’S

ZERNIK’S NOTICE OF MOTION & VERIFIED MOTION

TO INTERVENE

TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES please notice Joseph Zernik’s Motion to

Intervene in Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County et al (09-A827), filed

herein pursuant to FRCivP, Rule 24, and Supreme Court Rules, Rule 21.

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 Corrections in US Supreme Court Records;

4. Request for Incorporation by Reference, and

5. Appendices

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 18, 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
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2/31

[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR JOSEPH ZERNIK’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

A. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES – PERTAINING TO MOTION TO INTERVENE

1. Zernik claims Intervention of Right pursuant to FRCivP 24(a)

a) Joseph Zernik ( “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 Application was pending.

b) Zernik claims an interest that is the subject of the action, based on his

allegations of schemes employed at the Los Angeles Superior Court (“LASC”), as

outlined in Appendix II,

II which were almost identical in the case of Richard I

Fine (“Fine”) – pertaining to the Deprivation of Liberty (Appendix

Appendix III),
III and in

the case of Zernik – pertaining to the Deprivation of the Right to Property

(Appendix
Appendix V).
V Through such schemes, Fine was arrested on March 4, 2009, and

is held to this date by Respondent Sheriff of Los Angeles County (“Sheriff”), with

no honest, valid, and effectual records to support the arrest and holding.

Likewise, Zernik was forced in 2007 to leave his home, and his property was

taken for private use with no compensation at all, with no honest, valid, and

effectual record to support the taking. Such schemes are the core claims that

Zernik wishes to bring to the Honorable Court’s attention in both cases, and

pertaining to which the Court is requested to provide relief.

c) Furthermore, Zernik was recently twice subjected to arrests and jailing by

Sheriff, which upon review would be found to have been conducted with no

honest, valid, and effectual warrants, similar to treatment that Fine was and is
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3/31

subjected to, to this date (Appendix

Appendix III b).
b

d) Zernik further claims that no party adequately represents his interests. His core

claims were not brought up by Fine, perhaps because Fine had no access to key

records. Bringing such records to the attention of the Court, is the primary

purpose of Instant Motion. 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 – to protect his fundamental Human, Constitutional, and

Civil Rights.

e) Beyond his individual interest, Zernik claims that his intervention is in the

public interest and in the interest of the furtherance of justice:

i. Instant Motion to Intervene provides critical records pertaining to instant

Application, absent which the Court may err in its judgment (Appendix
Appendix III,

IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X)

X

ii. Instant Motion to Intervene also pertains to 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).

iii. Instant Motion to Intervene also pertains to the alleged deprivation of

various Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all 10 million residents of

the County of Los Angeles, California: Relative to conditions instituted by

Respondent LASC, where First Amendment Right to Access Court Records –

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4/31

to inspect and to copy - pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc

(1968), is routinely denied; Relative to the Due Process Right to Service and

Notice, which is routinely “waived” by the Court, and relative to Local Rules

of Court, which are false and deliberately misleading – particularly relative

to entry of judgment.

iv. Instant Motion to Intervene also pertains to the alleged deprivation of

various Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights at the US courts concerning

the design and operations of the public access (PACER) and case

management (CM/ECF) systems: Relative to failure to establish the

foundation of the new practices and procedures of the courts, 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.

f) 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 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)

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5/31

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

Appendix II).
II Therefore, there is

commonality of law and of facts in instant [Proposed] Intervention and current

action under the caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827).

3. Zernik fulfilled requirement for Notice and Service pursuant to FRCivP 24(c)

a. Zernik provided Notice of Intent to Intervene (Appen

Appendix
Appendix I),
I and also attempted

to Confer with Petitioner Fine, Respondents Sheriff and LASC.

b. Zernik served instant Motion to Intervene and related papers on parties

pursuant to the Service List, below, and a Certificate of Service and Proof of

Mailing, which are provided herein.

c. Zernik claims that evidence provided in Appendix I and X,

X 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.

d. 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

(09--A827).
A827).
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 6/31

WHEREFORE, Zernik respectfully requests that the Court grant Zernik’s Motion to

Intervene.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES – PERTAINING TO INTERVENTION PER SE

B. POINTS

1) Records that were provided Respondent Sheriff in the January 8, 2010 Letter by Hon

Michael Antonovich, LA County Supervisor, as Petitioner’s Fine arrest and booking

records (Appendix III) were false and deliberately misleading, void, not voidable

records.

a. Arrest and booking records are California public records, pursuant to the California Public

Records Act - California Government Code § 6250 - 6276.48. Therefore, Zernik

was within his rights in repeatedly requesting for some six months to access the

arrest and booking records of Petitioner Fine and other inmates as well.

Respondent Sheriff refused to provide Zernik any written response. Therefore,

Zernik requested assistance by LA County Supervisor, the Hon Michael

Antonovich. The letters and the attached records, which were provided by

Respondent Sheriff to Zernik, through the Hon Michael Antonovich included

false information:

b. In a number of phone calls and faxes prior to the issuance of the responses by

Sheriff to the Supervisor, Zernik alerted Sergeant Burson and Commander

Liang at the Sheriff’s Headquarter to the false nature of the information posted

online by Respondent Sheriff re: Arrest and booking of Petitioner Fine. Zernik

also requested correction of such false online records.

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 7/31

c. Respondent Sheriff refused to correct such false records. Respondent Sheriff

continues to deny access to the California public records, which are the arrest

and booking papers of Fine and other inmates. Moreover, Respondent Sheriff

provided false and deliberately misleading records as response to inquiry by the

Hon Michael Antonovich. Respondent Sheriff explicitly stated such false

information in the November 4, 2009 letter received through Supervisor

Antonovitch with the January 8, 2010 letter.

The November 4, 2009 letter stated:

Mr. Richard Fine was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs
Department (LASD) on March 4, 2009, at II :05 a,m., in San Pedro
Court Municipal Division 86, He was booked by LASD personnel on
the same date, San Pedro Court, at 12:23 p.m.
Mr. Fine's confinement to the Sheriff's Custody is the result of a court
remand order dated March 4, 2009, case number 135109420.

e. No such entity as the San Pedro Municipal Court existed for almost a decade.

Moreover, media and other witnesses provided evidence that Fine was arrested

on March 4, 2009 at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, the

Central District Courthouse, North Hill St, City of Los Angeles. The same

information was listed in the “Remand Order” (see below).

f. Booking at the Municipal Court of San Pedro could not possibly take place, for

the same reason. Moreover, Zernik is informed and believes that the Superior

Court of California, County of Los Angeles, San Pedro Annex, has no booking

facility. The Sheriff Deputy on location denied that Richard Fine was ever

booked there.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 8/31

g. The printout from the online Inmate Information Center, which was attached to

the November 4, 2009 letter, repeated the same false and deliberately

misleading information.

h. The unverified, unauthenticated online “Inmate Information Center” printouts

could not possibly be deemed true and valid State of California and/or County of

Los Angeles arrest and booking records. (As to form - see example of Los Angeles

County Booking record Re: Joseph Zernik, Inmate #2235341 – Appendix III b).
b

i. Such false arrest and booking records were employed for execution of an invalid

judgment and warrantless arrest on Petitioner Fine (see below). They paralleled

the grant deed in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), which was employed to execute

an invalid judgment on Zernik, and was opined as fraud. (Appendix

Appendix V)
V

j. Therefore, the Honorable Court should find the records produced by the Sheriff

in response to request for arrest and booking records of Fine as false records,

void, not voidable, and likewise – the grant deed recorded on Zernik’s property

as a false grant deed – void, not voidable.

2) Records (Dkt #16-

#16-2) titled (i) March 4, 2009 Remand/Removal Order, and (ii)

March 4,
4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt, (Appendix IV) which were filed

USDC-CAC Fine v Sheriff (2:09-

in the habeas corpus petition at USDC- (2:09-cv-
cv-01914) were

false and deliberately misleading records, void not voidable.

a. Such records were filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick, appearing on behalf of

Respondents LASC and Judge David Yaffe in the action referenced above.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 9/31

Attorney McCormick failed to file certification as Counsel of Record, required by

local Rules of Court of USDC-CAC. Moreover, correspondence with California

Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts (Appendix

Appendix Xa),
Xa revealed

that he was retained under a false case caption.

b. Attorney McCormick failed to file any declaration by his clients. He filed only a

declaration by counsel, who was not a competent fact witness in the case.

c. Attorney McCormick failed to file the foundation record for the documents in

#16-2, which was the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina
Dkt #16-

Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of L.A. Marina v LA County

(BS109420). In fact – Respondent LASC to this date denies access to the

Register of Actions in the case. (Appendix

Appendix VIII).
VIII Zernik managed to gain limited

access to the Register of Actions of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) (Appendix

Appendix VII),
VII

which is alleged as evidence of criminality under the pretense of court action.

Based on a number of Registers of Actions that Zernik managed to gain access

to, Zernik believes that it is very likely that the Register of Actions of Marina v

LA County (BS109420), likewise, once discovered, would provide evidence of

criminality.

d. The record that was titled March 4, 2009 Remand/Removal Order could not

possibly be a valid authority for the arrest of Petitioner Fine. Appendix IV c is a

form obtained by Zernik in the course of his jailing, titled “LA County Sheriff’s

Department -Removal Order for In Custody Defendant”. The title, in and of

itself, explicitly states that such order is applicable only to “in custody
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 10/31

defendant”. Zernik claims that upon additional discovery the same would be

found true for “Removal Orders”. Fine was not in custody defendant on March 4,

2009. Therefore, such order was not applicable to Fine on March 4, 2009.

e. The record that was titled March 4, 2009 Remand/Removal Order was never

listed among the court file record, images of which are provided online by the

LASC.

f. The record that was titled “March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt”

could not possibly be an honest, valid, and effectual court judgment, since it was

stamped “FILED” with the date of March 4, 2009 on its face, and was verified by

the hand-signature of Judge David Yaffe on the final page, with the hand

inscribed date of March 24, 2009.

g. Both records failed to be adequately authenticated. Such defect paralleled the

defect in August 9, 2007 Judgment and November 9, 2007 Order Appointing

Receiver in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). (Appendix

Appendix VI)
VI

h. LASC failed to enter the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment in Marina v LA

County (BS109420) in a manner that would have rendered it “effectual for any

purpose”, pursuant to Cal Code Civ Proc §664. Such conduct paralleled the

failure to enter the August 9, 2007 Judgment and November 9, 2007 Order in

Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) (Appendix VI . (See ¶3, below)

Appendix VI)

i. Therefore, the Honorable Court should find the records under Dkt #16-
#16-2 in Fine v

Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) as false records, void, not voidable.

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 11/31

3) No judgment was ever entered in either Marina v LA County (BS109420) or

Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). The judgment records were void,

void, not voidable.

a. Cal Code Civ Proc § 664 says:

" ... In no case is a judgment effectual for any purpose until entered."

b. Cal Gov Code § 69844.7 permitted the use of alternative media for the

traditional paper Books of Judgments. However, Cal Gov Code § 69844.7 clearly

stated:

“Nothing contained herein shall eliminate the requirement for a

judgment book where judgments and decrees are required to be
entered.”
c. Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court. Rule 3.0 (d) states to this date:

(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees.

Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court, which are
required by law to be entered, shall be entered by the clerk in
judgment books kept by him/her either in the Public Services Division
of the Central District, or the clerk’s office in each of the several
districts. The judgment, order or decree shall be entered in the
judgment books in the district wherein the same was rendered and no
other entry thereof shall be required.

d. Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court. Rule 1.4(e)16(e) states to this date:

1.4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

…
(e) Powers and Duties. Pursuant to Section 69898 of the Government
Code and Rule 10.610 Superior Court of California County of Los
Angeles Ch. 1 Pg. 5 of the California Rules of Court, the court declares
that, under the direction of the Presiding Judge, the powers and duties
of the Executive Officer shall include:
…

(16) To exercise and perform all of the powers, duties and

responsibilities of the County Clerk and Clerk of the Superior Court
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 12/31

required or permitted by this Court to be exercised or performed by the

Executive Officer in connection with judicial actions, proceedings and
records under subdivision (d) of Section 69898 of the Government
Code. Such powers, duties and responsibilities include:
…
e) To enter orders, findings, judgments and decrees; to accept
confessions of judgment for filing; to authenticate records; to certify
abstracts of judgment; to keep a judgment book or its equivalent.

e. Zernik repeatedly attempted to access the LASC Books of Judgments in the past

three years. In all cases, he was informed by Clerk’s Office Supervisors that no

Books of Judgments existed at the LASC in the past quarter century, since case

management systems (CMSs) were introduced in the court.

f. Numerous complaints were filed by Zernik with the LASC Clerk of the Court

and Presiding Judge and also requests to update the Local Rules. LASC refused

to update the Local Rules to this date.

g. In October 16, 2009 letter to Presiding Judge McCoy (Appendix

Appendix VIIIc),
VIIIc Zernik

requested disclosure of the Local Rules of Court pertaining to entry of judgment.

h. In October 28, 2009 response, LASC Court Counsel Frederick Bennett (Appendix
Appendix

VIIId)
VIIId stated:

Judgement Book [sic –jz]

Prior to 1974, all judgements of the superior, municipal, and justice
courts were entered in a "Judgement Book." Code of Civil Procedure
section 668. Although courts in some counties continue to enter
judgments in a judgment book, section 668 no longer provides the
exclusive means of entry. Code of Civil Procedure section 668.5
authorizes alternatives, including making a microfilm copy of the
individual judgement, as is done in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 13/31

k. In a visit to the underground archives of the LASC on July 28, 2008, almost a

year after the August 9, 2007 Judgment in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was

falsely stated to have been entered, Zernik found no entry of such judgment in

the West District Microfilm Judgments reels. (Appendix

Appendix IXa)
IXa

l. In a visit to the underground archives of the LASC on April 16, 2010, over a year

after the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt Re: Richard I Fine in

Marina v LA County (BS109400) was falsely executed on Fine, Zernik found no

entry of such judgment in the Central District Microfilm Judgments reels.

(Appendix
Appendix IXb)
IXb On April 16, 2010, again, no entry was found for either the

August 9, 2007 Judgment, or the November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Receiver

in Samaan v Zernik (SC08740), both of which were executed on Zernik.

m. Therefore, the Honorable Court should find that in neither Samaan v Zernik

(SC087400) nor Marina v LA County (BS109420), were the judgments ever

entered, in both cases such records were ineffectual court records, void, not

voidable.

n. Therefore, the Honorable Court should find that in both the cases of Fine and

Zernik, LASC judgments in the respective cases, were falsely executed.

(Appendix
Appendix III,IV,V)
III,IV,V

4) Both Fine and Zernik attempted to protect their rights through actions at the

USDC-
USDC-CAC. Such efforts were frustrated through false conduct and false records

at the USDC-
USDC-CAC.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 14/31

a. Both Fine in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik in Zernik v Connor et al

(2:08-cv-1550) attempted to protect their rights by filing actions at the USDC-

CAC.

b. In both cases the actions were purported to have been denied with prejudice,

through judgments of the USDC-CAC.

c. In both cases, Zernik was seeking for over half a year to gain access to US court

records – NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) – and paper records filed by pro se

filers, yet access was denied. (Appendix

Appendix XI)
XI

d. In both cases, Zernik alleged adulteration of court records in the commencing

records of the actions: Summons in Zernik v Connor et al (2:09-cv-1550), and the

petition itself in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). (Appendix

Appendix XI)
XI

e. In both cases, Zernik alleged that false dockets were displayed in PACER, which

were largely constructed by Ms Donna Thomas, who Zernik was informed and

believed was not a Clerk Deputy.

f. In both cases, Zernik recently managed to gain access to the NEFs, and

discovered that defective NEFs were issued on minutes, orders, and judgments –

failing to include the digital court stamp.

g. The USDC-CAC failed for about a decade to establish its new practices and

procedures inherent in PACER and CM/ECF in Local Rules of Court.

h. General Order 08-02 was claimed by the USDC-CAC as the legal foundation for

such practices. In pertinent part – ¶ IV(o) General Order 08-02 states:

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 15/31

O. Certification of Electronic Documents.

Documents Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification
described herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained
by the Clerk of Court.
The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification
of the United States District Court for the Central District of
California as the sender. An encrypted verification code appears in the
electronic document stamp section of the NEF. The electronic
document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming the
authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with the
Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically
filed into CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the
document kept in the custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides
certification that the associated document(s) is a true and correct copy
of the original filed with the court.

i. Pursuant to General Order 08-02, such minutes, orders, and judgments in the

cases of Fine and Zernik at USDC-CAC, which were issued with no encrypted

verification code, failed to be adequately authenticated – they lacked the

verification necessary for “... the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the

transmission and associated document(s)”.

j. Such unauthenticated minutes, orders, and judgments, could not possibly be

deemed honest, valid, and effectual records of the USDC-CAC.

k. Zernik filed repeated complaints with Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi, and Chief

Judge Audrey Collins, and an investigation was noticed as instituted. (Appendix

Appendix

XII)
XII

l. Therefore, the Honorable Court should find all actions of the USDC and CCA9th

pertaining to the cases of Fine and Zernik as void, not voidable.

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 16/31

4) There was and there is no valid record to provide the legal foundation for the

holding of Petitioner Fine that conform with the fundamentals of the law. Fine is

entitled to his immediate release.

a. The above Points and Authorities documented that there was and there is no

valid record to provide the legal foundation for the arrest and holding of

Petitioner Fine.

b. In Fay v Noia (1963) the Court stated:

"The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a

civilized society... if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform
with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to
his immediate release".

c. Therefore, the Honorable Court should find that Petitioner Fine is entitled to his

immediate release.

WHEREFORE, Zernik respectfully requests that the Court grant Fine’s petition,

and immediately release the prisoner, and grant Zernik the relief he requested,

including, but not limited to the return of his lawful property to his possession.

C. CLAIMS

[Proposed] Intervenor Zernik’s core claims are:

1) Respondent LASC: In Marina v LA County (BS109420) and Samaan v Zernik

(SC087400), Fine and Zernik, respectively, were subjected to execution of

judgments, which were never entered, and therefore - were never effectual for

any purpose. Such judgments were and are void, not voidable.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 17/31

Such conduct was enabled through:

a. False and deliberately misleading employment of the LASC’s online public

access and case management systems.

b. Failure and refusal to establish the Court’s practice and procedures

pertaining to entry of judgment in the Local Rules of Court, for over a quarter

century.

c. Ongoing denial of access to court records – to inspect and to copy, such as

electronic records in the Court’s case management system.

d. Routine “waivers” by the Court of the right for Notice and Service.

e. Allowing appearances by false counsel:

In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Bryan Cave, LLP, has been appearing for 2.5

years for Countrywide, later Bank of America, while not Counsel of Record,

under false party designation “Non Party”. Similar schemes were employed

by Countrywide elsewhere in the courts, and which were described in detail

in the case of Borrower William Alan Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248 -

appearances by counsel who was not counsel of record, with “no

communications with client” clause. Other conduct of Countrywide and Bank

of America at the Los Angeles Courts, which was alleged as racketeering was

detailed in Zernik’s filing under Borrower Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #256-260.

In Marina v LA County (BS109420) the same is likely to be true regarding

appearances of Attorney Joshua L Rosen for two large private developers, one

– whose name was omitted from the online records, and the other, whose
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 18/31

name was falsely listed, both under party designation of “Real Parties in

Interest”.

3. Respondent Sheriff – In Marina v LA County (BS109420) and Samaan v Zernik

(SC087400), Respondent Sheriff was employed by the Respondent LASC to affect

the execution of void, not voidable judgments.

a. In Marina v LA County (BS109420) Respondent Sheriff has been willfully

colluding with the LASC in the false holding of Petitioner Fine.

b. In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Respondent Sheriff was employed to exert a

threat of force, unlawful, but credible, to take Zernik’s property with no

foundation in the law.

c. Respondent Sheriff – like the courts, has established dual systems, which are

the case management system – Los Angeles Booking Records, and online

public access records – the Inmate Information Center, which facilitate the

false arrests and holding of thousands of persons in Los Angeles County.

3. USDC-CAC – in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and in Zernik v Connor et al (2:09-

cv-1550), Fine and Zernik, respectively, were subjected to dishonesties and false

conduct at the USDC-CAC. Such conduct was employed to effectively deny them

access to national tribunals for protection of rights, and as collusion with LASC

and Sheriff in deprivation of rights.

Such false conduct and effective denial of access to the court were enabled

through:
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 19/31

a. False and deliberately misleading employment of the USDC-CAC’s dual

systems - the online public access system – PACER, and the case

management system - CM/ECF.

b. Failure to establish the Court’s practice and procedures pertaining to PACER

and CM/ECF in the Local Rules of Court, for over a quarter century.

c. Ongoing denial of access to court records – to inspect and to copy, such as

electronic records in the Court’s case management system – NEFs (Notices of

Electronic Filings).

d. Routine failure of the court to keep Notice and Service to pro se filers that is

identical to that provided to others.

e. Allowing appearances by false counsel:

In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) –false appearance of Attorney Kevin

McCormick for Respondents LASC and Judge David Yaffe (Appendix

Appendix X).
X

In Zernik v Connor et al (2:09-cv-1550) appearance of Bryan Cave, LLP for

Bank of America, and most likely also appearance of Sarah L Overton for

LASC (California Judicial Council would not answer any questions in this

regard- Appendix X).

X

4. LA County 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

Appendix V),
V and refusal

to take any corrective actions, even after discovery of the fraud.

D. CASE STATUS
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 20/31

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, the

Honorable 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.

E. [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR ENTERS HIS REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION

AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR

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) 21/31

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. Order Respondent Sheriff to immediately initiate review of all records that

support the holding of inmates in LA County, and release all those who have no

valid records to support the arrests and jailing.

10. Declaratory relief that the the public access and case management systems,

which were implemented by Respondent LASC are false and deliberately

misleading.

11. 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).

12. Order Respondent LASC to respect First Amdndement Rights – to Access Court

Records – to inspect and to copy.

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 22/31

13. 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.

14. Order Respondent LASC to implement Books of Judgments, pursuant to

Califonria Code, which is a public record, to which reasonable access must be

allowed.1

15. 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.

16. Order Respondent LASC to update its Local Rules of Court to reflect the true

procedures and practices of the Court today.

17. 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.

18. 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).

19. 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

1
At present – only one location – underground archives downtown LA. On recent visit – obtaining copy of a
judgments, or finding out that no such copy existed took a total of about three hours, out of which 2.5 hours
were waiting in line. No online access is provided. No access in court locations is provided.
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 23/31

records received by other parties in litigation, in a manner that does not deprive

pro se filers of any information inherent in such records.

20. 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,
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 18, 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 5,302 words according to the Word 2000, the word processing system on
which it was prepared. The words counted are those on pages 1-23, excluding this Certificate of
Compliance.

Executed on this date, April 18, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph Zernik
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 24/31

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 18th 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 parties 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) 25/31

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 18, 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