Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
10-07-25 Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States - Records of Denial of the Application s

10-07-25 Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States - Records of Denial of the Application s

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,238|Likes:
William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz
Los Angeles, July 25 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed request with William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States to certify the online dockets of Applications pertaining to former US prosecutor Richard Fine and Attorney Orly Taitz, and provide copies of the dockets from the Court’s own case management system. [1]
Request pertained to Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), applications for stay of executions, submitted to Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively.
Both applications originated from penalties imposed on counsel who represented clients in causes that were not favored by government.
In the former – Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the secret taking by all Los Angeles Superior Court judges of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”), which necessitated the signing by the California governor of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for all such judges. Richard Fine was arrested on March 4, 2010, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. However, no warrant was ever issued in his case, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”.
In the latter – Orly Taitz filed complaint pertaining to native, natural born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were consequently imposed on her.
In both cases, denial of the applications were noted in online Court dockets and in letters by Counsel Danny Bickell. However, in both cases, review of the records [2] [3] raised serious concerns regarding contradictions, defects, and invalidity of both the dockets and the respective letters by Danny Bickell.
Moreover, the online public access system of Supreme Court dockets appeared as vague and ambiguous in both design and operation.
Human Rights Alert filed in April 2010 report with the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States, which focused on the role of invalid online public access and case management systems in undermining integrity of the courts. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.


LINKS
[1] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-and-Taitz-v-MacDonald-10-A56-Request-for-Certification-of-Dockets-by-William-Suter-Clerk-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-t
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835965/
[2] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Records-in-Application-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/
[3] 10-07-25-Taitz-v-Macdonald-10-A56-Records-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/
William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz
Los Angeles, July 25 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed request with William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States to certify the online dockets of Applications pertaining to former US prosecutor Richard Fine and Attorney Orly Taitz, and provide copies of the dockets from the Court’s own case management system. [1]
Request pertained to Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), applications for stay of executions, submitted to Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively.
Both applications originated from penalties imposed on counsel who represented clients in causes that were not favored by government.
In the former – Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the secret taking by all Los Angeles Superior Court judges of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”), which necessitated the signing by the California governor of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for all such judges. Richard Fine was arrested on March 4, 2010, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. However, no warrant was ever issued in his case, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”.
In the latter – Orly Taitz filed complaint pertaining to native, natural born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were consequently imposed on her.
In both cases, denial of the applications were noted in online Court dockets and in letters by Counsel Danny Bickell. However, in both cases, review of the records [2] [3] raised serious concerns regarding contradictions, defects, and invalidity of both the dockets and the respective letters by Danny Bickell.
Moreover, the online public access system of Supreme Court dockets appeared as vague and ambiguous in both design and operation.
Human Rights Alert filed in April 2010 report with the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States, which focused on the role of invalid online public access and case management systems in undermining integrity of the courts. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.


LINKS
[1] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-and-Taitz-v-MacDonald-10-A56-Request-for-Certification-of-Dockets-by-William-Suter-Clerk-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-t
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835965/
[2] 10-07-25-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Records-in-Application-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/
[3] 10-07-25-Taitz-v-Macdonald-10-A56-Records-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/

More info:

Categories:Business/Law, Finance
Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Jul 25, 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

10/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
Human Rights Alert 
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
 
Blog:
 Scribd: 
10-07-25
Fine v Baca 
(09-A827) – Records of the US Supreme Court
The following Court records are attached herein:1) Online public access system of the Court: Opening page for dockets search2) Online public access system of the Court: Docket in
Fine v Baca
(09-A827)3) Online public access system of the Court: Log -
2009 Term Court Orders
 4) Online public access system of the Court:
Order List 
- Monday, April 26, 2010.5) Paper Court file of the Court: March 1, 2010 Application – face page, as copied on March 22, 2010.6) Paper Court file of the Court: March 12, 2010 letter by Counsel Bickell, as copied on March 22, 2010.Review of the records, listed above, raised the following concerns:1) Regarding online Docket entry noting a March 12, 2010 Denial of the Application by Justice Kennedy:a)
 Local Rules
of the Court
 , Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices
,
states:
4. A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon.
However, the face page of the Application, copied on March 22, 2010 failed to show any note of the March 12, 2010 denial on the Application.b)
 Local Rules
of the Court
 , Rule 1. Clerk 
,
states:
2. The Clerk maintains the Court’s records and will not permit any of them tobe removed from the Court building except as authorized by the Court. Anydocument filed with the Clerk and made a part of the Court’s records may notthereafter be withdrawn from the official Court files.
However, the March 12, 2010 Counsel Bickell letter was never stamped “FILED” by the Clerk.c)
 Local Rules
of the Court
 , Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices
, states: 
6. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedymeans, of the disposition made of an application.
However, the March 12, 2010 letter was neither by the Clerk nor by an authorized Deputy Clerk,but by Counsel. Moreover, the letter remained unsigned.d) Log of 2009 Term Orders failed to list the March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kenney.2) RegardingDocket entry noting a April 26, 2010 denial of the Application by the Court:a) Media reported that the Court in fact decided not to review the Application, rather than deny it.b) Order List for April 26, 2010 listed denial by the Court.Therefore, the records as a whole were deemed vague and ambiguous.On July 25, 2010 request was submitted to the Clerk of the Court William Suter by Human Rights Alert(NGO) - to certify the online docket, and provide copy of the docket in the Court’s own casemanagement system in the case.
 
Digitally signedby Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph
 
Zernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=USDate: 2010.07.2516:57:49 +03'00'
 
Docket
The automated docket system is the Court's case tracking system. It contains information about cases, both pending anddecided. The docket provided on this page contains information regarding the status of cases for both the current Term andthe prior Term. The Court's Term begins on the first Monday in October and ends on the preceding day the next year. TheOctober Term 2008 begins on October 6, 2008. Information on the docket is updated on the day after an entry is made onthe docket.Users can search for cases by using a Supreme Court docket number, a lower court docket number, or a case name. Theformat for Supreme Court docket numbers is "Term year-number" (e.g., 06-123; 07-12; 06-5001.). Word searches can alsobe accomplished.
Questions Presented
. Internet users can review the Questions Presented in granted and noted cases simply by clicking onthe hyperlink located within the Docket's case summary information for a particular case. For example, when a user accesses the docket information for case number 07-330, a hyperlink will appear just beneath the decision date within thecase summary information. Once the hyperlink is clicked, the user will be linked to a .pdf file setting forth the Question(s)Presented in the case.
Search for:
 
Search
 
Recent Filings in Original Nos. 1, 2 & 3Case Distribution ScheduleDelivery of Documents to the Clerk's Office
On-Line
MERITS BRIEFSSpecial Master Reports
7/25/2010 Untitled Document1/1
 
 
No. 09A827Title:Richard I. Fine, Applicantv.Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California, et al.Docketed:Lower Ct:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitCase Nos.:(09-56073)~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mar 1 2010Application (09A827) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.Mar 12 2010Application (09A827) denied by Justice Kennedy.Mar 30 2010Application (09A827) refiled and submitted to Justice Ginsburg.Apr 7 2010Application (09A827) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 23, 2010.Apr 7 2010Application (09A827) referred to the Court.Apr 26 2010Application (09A827) denied by the Court.~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Richard I. Fine1824367Men's Central Jail441 Bauchet StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012Party name: Richard I. Fine
Attorneys for Respondents:
Paul B. BeachLawrence Beach Allen & Choi PC(818)-545-1925100 West Broadway Suite 1200Glendale, CA 91210Party name: Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California, et al.
7/25/2010 Untitled Document1/1

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

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