Case No 09Case No 09Case No 09Case No 09----A827 A827 A827 A827IN THEIN THEIN THEIN THESUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ RICHARD I. FINE,Petitioner,v.SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,Respondent. ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpusto the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ AMENDED REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF SUPREMECOURT OF THE USJOSEPH ZERNIK

In Pro Se

1853 Foothill BlvdLa Verne, CA Mail: PO Box 526La Verne, CA 91750Phone:323.515.4583Fax: 323.488.9697Email <jz12345@earthlink.net

Digitally signed by Joseph HZernik DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o,ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=USLocation: La Verne,CaliforniaDate: 2010.04.19 00:24:21-07'00'

Fine v Sheriff

(09-A827) 1/5

[[[[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OFPROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OFPROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OFPROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OFTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE USTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE USTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE USTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE USConcomitantly 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. AppendixTO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: [Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik hereinrequests that the Court correct records of the Supreme Court of the US, in the caseat hand, as detailed herein.

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

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

Fine v Sheriff

(09-A827) 2/5

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 theClerk of the Supreme Court of the US file by [Proposed] Intervenor, showed no suchinscription on the face of the Application. Likewise, no denial was listed among theorders and rulings of the Court listed online on or about March 12, 2010. Yet – thedocket, as publicly accessible online, stated that the Application was denied onMarch 12, 2010.

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

It is alleged that evidence provided in Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I, and additional discovery wouldshow 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 thatadditional discovery would reveal that he was part of a scheme of counsel who wasnot counsel of records with “no communications with client” clause, as described bythe Hon Jeff Bohm in Appendix XIV. Appendix XIV. Appendix XIV. Appendix XIV. Evidence is presented in the Motion toIntervene and in Appendix XI Appendix XI Appendix XI Appendix XI that such was the case also for Attorney KevinMcCormick, who was represented as counsel for Judge David Yaffe and theSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

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

Respectfully submitted,Dated: April 18, 2010 Joseph Zernik