Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
13Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
10-07-08 Marina v LA County (BS109420) Complaint Filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles, against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights in Imprisonment of Richard Fine s

10-07-08 Marina v LA County (BS109420) Complaint Filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles, against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights in Imprisonment of Richard Fine s

Ratings: (0)|Views: 516|Likes:
Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.
221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
By certified mail, by fax: 213-894-6269, 213-894-0141

TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s Complaint against David Yaffe - Judge, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke - Clerk, and Frederic Bennett – Counsel, all of the Superior Court of California, and against Lee Baca – Sheriff of Los Angeles County – for public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in re: False imprisonment of Richard Fine.

Executive Summary
Complaint was filed July 8, 2010, with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California, against DAVID YAFFE – Judge, CHARLES MCCOY – Presiding Judge, JOHN A CLARKE – Clerk, and FREDERIC BENNETT – Counsel, of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and LEE BACA – Sheriff of Los Angeles County, for public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in the matter of Richard Fine.
The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to hold Richard Fine (#1824367) in solitary confinement at the Central Men’s Jail since March 4, 2009, with no legal foundation at all for the imprisonment.
Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California.
No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in Richard Fine’s case.
Instead, the complaint alleged that the accused engaged since March 2009 in the production and publication of fraudulent records, including, but not limited to records filed in the habeas corpus of Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) at the US District Court, Los Angeles and records produced by the Sheriff in response to inquiry by Los Angeles Supervisor Michael Antonovich.
The complaint further claimed that inherent to the conduct of the accused was failure of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles for over a quarter century, to publish honest Local Rules of Court pertaining to the entry of judgment - in violation of due process rights, and refusal of the Court to allow access to court records, which were the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS109420), the case where Richard Fine was purported to have been arrested and imprisoned – in violation of First Amendment rights.
Moreover, the complaint detailed refusal of Presiding Judge McCoy and Clerk Clarke to initiate corrective actions relative to the alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine, to correct false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Court repeatedly published by the Court pertaining to the entry of judgments in Los Angeles County, to publish valid and effectual Local Rules of Court, and to allow access to the Register of Actions in Marina v LA County (BS109420).
Instead, in 2009-10 Court Counsel Frederic Bennett sent a series of false and deliberately misleading letters to complainant Dr Zernik, with no authority at all, pertaining to Local Rules of Court and denial of access to court records.
Combined, the complaint alleged that the four accused conspired to falsely imprison Richard Fine, under the color of law, as retaliation, harassment and intimidation of a victim, witness and informant.
The complaint further alleged that the conduct of the Court relative to the ongoing publication of fraudulent Local Rules of Court, refusal to disclose and publish honest Local Rules of Court, and denial of access to court records amounted to severe violation of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all residents of Los Angeles County.
The complaint requested the US
Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.
221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
By certified mail, by fax: 213-894-6269, 213-894-0141

TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s Complaint against David Yaffe - Judge, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke - Clerk, and Frederic Bennett – Counsel, all of the Superior Court of California, and against Lee Baca – Sheriff of Los Angeles County – for public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in re: False imprisonment of Richard Fine.

Executive Summary
Complaint was filed July 8, 2010, with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California, against DAVID YAFFE – Judge, CHARLES MCCOY – Presiding Judge, JOHN A CLARKE – Clerk, and FREDERIC BENNETT – Counsel, of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and LEE BACA – Sheriff of Los Angeles County, for public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in the matter of Richard Fine.
The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to hold Richard Fine (#1824367) in solitary confinement at the Central Men’s Jail since March 4, 2009, with no legal foundation at all for the imprisonment.
Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California.
No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in Richard Fine’s case.
Instead, the complaint alleged that the accused engaged since March 2009 in the production and publication of fraudulent records, including, but not limited to records filed in the habeas corpus of Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) at the US District Court, Los Angeles and records produced by the Sheriff in response to inquiry by Los Angeles Supervisor Michael Antonovich.
The complaint further claimed that inherent to the conduct of the accused was failure of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles for over a quarter century, to publish honest Local Rules of Court pertaining to the entry of judgment - in violation of due process rights, and refusal of the Court to allow access to court records, which were the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS109420), the case where Richard Fine was purported to have been arrested and imprisoned – in violation of First Amendment rights.
Moreover, the complaint detailed refusal of Presiding Judge McCoy and Clerk Clarke to initiate corrective actions relative to the alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine, to correct false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Court repeatedly published by the Court pertaining to the entry of judgments in Los Angeles County, to publish valid and effectual Local Rules of Court, and to allow access to the Register of Actions in Marina v LA County (BS109420).
Instead, in 2009-10 Court Counsel Frederic Bennett sent a series of false and deliberately misleading letters to complainant Dr Zernik, with no authority at all, pertaining to Local Rules of Court and denial of access to court records.
Combined, the complaint alleged that the four accused conspired to falsely imprison Richard Fine, under the color of law, as retaliation, harassment and intimidation of a victim, witness and informant.
The complaint further alleged that the conduct of the Court relative to the ongoing publication of fraudulent Local Rules of Court, refusal to disclose and publish honest Local Rules of Court, and denial of access to court records amounted to severe violation of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all residents of Los Angeles County.
The complaint requested the US

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Jul 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/10/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
Human Rights Alert 
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
 
Blog:
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ 
 Scribd: 
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
 
10-07-07 In re: Richard Fine - Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Los Angeles Superior Court, and LosAngeles Sheriff Lee Baca and others – for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights.
Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012By certified mail, by fax: 213-894-6269, 213-894-0141
 
TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’sComplaint against David Yaffe - Judge, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke - Clerk, andFrederic Bennett – Counsel, all of the Superior Court of California, and against Lee Baca – Sheriff of LosAngeles County – for public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in re: Falseimprisonment of Richard Fine.
 
Executive Summary
Complaint was filed July 8, 2010, with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California, against DAVID YAFFE – Judge, CHARLES MCCOY – Presiding Judge, JOHN A CLARKE – Clerk, and FREDERIC BENNETT – Counsel, of theSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and LEE BACA – Sheriff of Los Angeles County, for publiccorruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in the matter of Richard Fine.The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to hold Richard Fine (#1824367) in solitary confinement at theCentral Men’s Jail since March 4, 2009, with no legal foundation at all for the imprisonment.Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "notpermitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactiveimmunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine wasarrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California.No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in Richard Fine’s case.Instead, the complaint alleged that the accused engaged since March 2009 in the production and publication offraudulent records, including, but not limited to records filed in the habeas corpus of Richard Fine – 
Fine v Sheriff 
(2:09-cv-01914) at the US District Court, Los Angeles and records produced by the Sheriff in response to inquiry by LosAngeles Supervisor Michael Antonovich.The complaint further claimed that inherent to the conduct of the accused was failure of the Superior Court of California,County of Los Angeles for over a quarter century, to publish honest Local Rules of Court pertaining to the entry of judgment - in violation of due process rights, and refusal of the Court to allow access to court records, which were theRegister of Actions (California civil docket) in
Marina v LA County 
(BS109420), the case where Richard Fine waspurported to have been arrested and imprisoned – in violation of First Amendment rights.Moreover, the complaint detailed refusal of Presiding Judge McCoy and Clerk Clarke to initiate corrective actions relativeto the alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine, to correct false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Courtrepeatedly published by the Court pertaining to the entry of judgments in Los Angeles County, to publish valid andeffectual Local Rules of Court, and to allow access to the Register of Actions in
Marina v LA County 
(BS109420).Instead, in 2009-10 Court Counsel Frederic Bennett sent a series of false and deliberately misleading letters tocomplainant Dr Zernik, with no authority at all, pertaining to Local Rules of Court and denial of access to court records.Combined, the complaint alleged that the four accused conspired to falsely imprison Richard Fine, under the color of law,as retaliation, harassment and intimidation of a victim, witness and informant.The complaint further alleged that the conduct of the Court relative to the ongoing publication of fraudulent Local Rules ofCourt, refusal to disclose and publish honest Local Rules of Court, and denial of access to court records amounted tosevere violation of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all residents of Los Angeles County.The complaint requested the US Attorney, Central District of California, provide equal protection for Richard Fine and all10 million residents of Los Angeles County, and investigate and prosecute, if appropriate, the accused to the full extentof the law.
 
Digitally signedby Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph
 
Zernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=USDate: 2010.07.0817:35:28 +03'00'
 
Page 2/7 July 8, 2010
1. Complainants
Joseph Zernik, PhD, resident of Los Angeles County, CaliforniaHuman Rights Alert (NGO)Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750Tel: 323-515-4583Fax: (preferred) 323-488-9697Email: (preferred) jz12345@earthlink.net 
2. Accused:
a) DAVID YAFFE - Judge,b) CHARLES MCCOY – Presiding Judge,c) JOHN A CLARKE - Clerk,d) FREDERIC BENNETT CounselSuperior Court of California, County of Los AngelesAddress:Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 110 North Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90012 e) LEE BACA – Sheriff of Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles Sheriff’s DepartmentAddress: 4700 Ramona Blvd, Monterey Park, CA 91754Work: 323-526-5000Fax: 323-267-6600Email:shb@lasd.org,webemail@lasd.org 
3. Complainants are NOT Attorneys
Complainants are not attorneys, and are not represented by attorney in any of the matters described ininstant complaint either. For such reason, in most case, no section of the code was cited. The USAttorney is requested to apply the correct sections of the code. In case errors were made, where sectionsof the code were mentioned, the US Attorney is requested to disregard such errors, and instead, considerthe facts themselves and apply the correct sections of the code, as he deems fit.
4. General Claims:
It is alleged that conduct of the accused amounted to:
a) Public Corruptionb) Fraud,c) Wire/fax Fraud,d) Honest Services Fraud,e) Extortion, f) Conspiracy,g) Obstruction of Justice,h) Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant,i) Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, j) Mail Fraud,
5. Related Records:
Please accept as integral part of instant complaint additional records, linked below. In particular, the Appendixto Motion to Intervene filed with the US Supreme Court in
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827) includes many of therecords, which are the pertinent evidence in the matters described below.a) April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US SupremeCourt
 
Page 3/7 July 8, 2010
i) 10-04-20
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik with stampsshowing receipt by the US Supreme Court shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/  ii) 10-04-20
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/ 10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-1-Amended-Motion-to-Intervene-siii) 10-04-20
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filerhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/  iv) 10-04-20
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme CourtRecordshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/  v) 10-04-20
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Referencehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/  vi) 10-04-20
Fine v Sheriff 
(09-A827) 5 Amended Appendiceshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34050423/  b) 10-07-04 Human Rights Alert Complaint against the California Judicial Council Chaired by CaliforniaChief Justice Ronald George and Attorney Kevin McCormick for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights.http://www.scribd.com/doc/33879469/  c) 10-06-28 Human Rights Alert Complaint filed with US Attorney Office Los Angeles Re Large Scale FalseImprisonments in Los Angeles Countyhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33647477/  d) 10-06-21 Dr Zernik s Complaint Filed with Us Attorney Office Los Angeles against Mr David Pasternak for Public Corruption Deprivation of Civil Rightshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33354641/  
6. General
a) California Code of Civil Procedure requires that the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,maintain Judgment Books, regardless of the media such books are maintained in: paper, microfilm, digitalmedia, tapes, etc.b) California Code of Civil Procedures further states that judgment that was not entered in a Judgment Book was “not effectual for any purpose”.c) Letter by Court Counsel Frederic Bennett claimed, albeit – with no authority at all - that since 1974 theSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angles did not maintain paper Judgment Books, and insteadmaintained a microfilm Judgment Book.d) The California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles continues to this day to publish Local Rules of Court stating the Judgment Books are maintained at the Public Departments of the Office of the Clerk ineach District of the Court.e) Deputy Clerks and Supervisors of the Office of the Clerk repeatedly claimed that NO Judgment Bookswere maintained in the Public Departments of the Office of the Clerk.f) Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke refused to disclose the true andvalid Local Rules of Court pertaining to Books of Judgments and entry of judgments at the Court, andcontinue to publish false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Court, stating that Books of Judgments are maintained at the Public Departments of the Office of the Clerk of each District of theCourt.g) The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles maintains Registers of Actions (California civildockets) pursuant to California Government Code as part of its case management system – Sustain.h) Letters by Court Counsel Frederic Bennett made various false and deliberately misleading, self-contradictory claims in this matter. For example, in one letter the Counsel falsely claimed that the Courtpublished the Registers of Actions online. In another letter, the counsel falsely claimed that “at themoment” the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, did NOT maintain Registers of Actionsat all.

Activity (13)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
mike carvell added this note
gets my read total support for human rights work thanks ever so much father mike
mike carvell liked this
robertgarvin liked this
techjimk liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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