Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
10-04-21 Chief Justice Roberts Asked to Secure Integrity of Richard Fine Docket

10-04-21 Chief Justice Roberts Asked to Secure Integrity of Richard Fine Docket

Ratings: (0)|Views: 408|Likes:
The same type of problems that plague the dockets of lower courts, appear in dockets of the US Supreme Court as well.
The same type of problems that plague the dockets of lower courts, appear in dockets of the US Supreme Court as well.

More info:

categoriesBusiness/Law, Finance
Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Apr 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Human Rights Alert 
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Chief Justice Roberts Asked to Secure Integrity of Supreme Court Docket in Case of FalselyImprisoned Former US Prosecutor Richard Fine
Los Angeles, April 21- in notice to Deputy Clerk of the US Supreme Court Gary Kemp, Dr Joseph Zernik,Los Angeles County resident and founder of Human Rights Alert, asked that Chief Justice Robert act pursuantto the Code of Conduct of US Judges, and secure the integrity of US Supreme Court docket in Application of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827). The application was submitted on March 30, 2010 to Associate Justice RuthGinsburg, and is scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010. The request came following failure of DrZernik’s filings in the case, received by the Court on April 20,
to appear on the docket. On April 21, 2010Mr Danny Bickell, clerk’s office staff counsel consented that he held Dr Zernik’s filings in his hands, butrefused to state whether the filing of the papers, or even their rejection would be listed on the docket. MrBickell stated that he was not Deputy Clerk by authority, nevertheless indicated that he would make thedeterminations in the matter.The delays by Mr Danny Bickell of notation in the docket of either the filing, or rejection of the filing of DrZernik’s papers received by the Supreme Court on April 20 were particularly alarming, since one of DrZernik’s filings was a Request for Correction of Supreme Court records, pertaining to Mr Bickell’s previoustransactions in the case. The correction request pertained to the original submission of the Application byRichard Fine to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, which was noticed by Mr Danny Bickell to the parties asDenied by Justice Kennedy on March 12, 2010, and was also listed as “denied” in the Court’s docket,
albeit – an unverified court record. In contrast, the listing of orders and rulings of the US Supreme Courtshowed no such ruling or order on or about March 12, 2010.
Moreover, although the Rule 22(3) of the USSupreme Court explicitly state “A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon,” a copy of theApplication, obtained from the US Supreme Court file on March 22, 2010, failed to show any such note byJustice Kennedy on the Application.
In a phone call on April 21, 2010, Mr Danny Bickell refused toprovide any explanation for such discrepancies in the US Supreme Court records, or the basis for his notice toparties in the case of a March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy.Moreover, the core of the claims in April 20, 2010 papers filed by Dr Zernik was of dishonesty in docketing inother justice system agencies in the case of Richard Fine:[5] 
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department employed unverified and unvalidated online public accesssystem (OPAS) and unvalidated case management system (CMS) to present the false pretense that
 Richard Fine
(1824367) was arrested and booked at and by the authority of the non-existent MunicipalCourt of San Pedro.
The Los Angeles Superior Court, where Mr Fine was in fact arrested, likewise employed unverified andunvalidated OPAS and unvalidated CMS, to present the false pretense of a March 4, 2009 Judgment forContempt against Richard Fine in
 Marina v LA County
(BS109420). In fact, such March 4, 2009Judgment was never adequately verified by a judge, was never authenticated, and was never entered bythe Los Angeles Superior Court as an honest valid and effectual Court Judgment.
The US District Court, Los Angeles, where Mr Fine filed a habeas corpus petition –
Fine v Sheriff 
(2:09-cv-01914), likewise employed unverified and unvalidated OPAS and unvalidated CMS, to present the
Page 2/3 April 21, 2010
false pretense of June 29, 2009 Judgment denying the habeas corpus petition. In fact, new records (NEFs- Notices of Electronic Filings) from the US District Court case discovered by Dr Zernik and specificallyreferenced in his filings with the US Supreme Court,
showed that the US District Court neverauthenticated such June 29, 2009 Judgment and never adequately noticed and served it on Richard Fine.
The US Court of Appeals, 9
Circuit, falsely presented a June 30, 2009 Denial of Richard Fine’s Petition -
Fine v Sheriff 
(09- 71692), and a February 12, 2010 Mandate from the Appeal -
Fine v Sheriff 
(09- 09-56073) – both were never adequately served, noticed or entered as valid records by the Courts.Accordingly, Dr Zernik’s April 20, 2010 papers filed with the US Supreme Court claimed that there wasnever any valid record as foundation for the imprisonment of Richard Fine, and that Richard Fine wastherefore entitled to his immediate release.In addition, Dr Zernik requested that the US Supreme Court issue a mandate to lower courts to establish theirOPASs and CMSs as validated systems in the Local Rules of Court, as required by law.Richard Fine has been held in solitary confinement since March 4, 2009. Prior to his imprisonment he hadexposed and protested “not permitted” secret payments of about $45,000 per judge per year for over a decadeto all Los Angeles Superior Court judges.
During the same period, as Mr Fine had shown, it had becomepractically impossible to win a case in court against the payer – Los Angeles County. On February 20, 2009,less than two week prior to Mr Fine’s warrantless arrest, the Governor of California signed into law“retroactive immunities” (pardons) for all judges who had taken the “not permitted” payments.In recent submission to the United Nations 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the UnitedStates, Human Rights Alert and Dr Zernik highlighted the role of unverified and unvalidated OPASs andCMSs in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the US justice system, and pervasive alleged abuses of Human Rights by the US government. The submission called for international monitoring of the Californiaand US courts.
April 20, 2010 Receipts for Dr Joseph Zernik’s filings in
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827) by US Supreme Court
[2] April 21, 2010
US Supreme Court unverified docket of Fine’s Application
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827),showing March 12, 2010, denial by Justice Kennedy
Listing of orders of US Supreme Court on or about March 12, 2010, failing to show denial of Fine’sApplication Fine v Sheriff (09-A827)http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306238/10-03-22-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Copy-of-the-Application-from-US-Supreme-Court-file-failing-to-show-note-of-its-March-12-2010-denial-by-Justice-Ken 
March 22, 2010 copy of the Application
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827), obtained from the US Supreme Courtfile later than March 12, 2010, failed to show any note of denial by Justice Kennedy on the Application.http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306238/10-03-22-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Copy-of-the-Application-from-US-Supreme-Court-file-failing-to-show-note-of-its-March-12-2010-denial-by-Justice-Ken 

You're Reading a Free Preview

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