Page 2/4 October 21, 2010
any papers pertaining to allegation of judicial corruption.
Furthermore, Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLEand Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS of the US District Court, Central District of California later issued apretense “Order” - prohibiting Plaintiff from access to the US Courts in the matter.
The records of the USDistrict Court, Central District of California, also documented alleged Judicial Misconduct and Fraud on theCourt – relative to the issuance and docketing of invalid pretense Court records by Magistrate CARLAWOEHRLE and Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS in collusion with unauthorized court personnel.
Conduct of the US District Court, Central District of California was therefore subject of a Petition, which wasduly filed in June 2008 at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit -
Zernik v USDC-CAC
(08-72714) –purportedly reviewed byCircuit Judges STEPHEN R REINHARDT, MARSHA S BERZON and MILAN DSMITH, JR. The Petition at theUS Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, sought to Compel Due Process Rights –issuing of valid summons and engaging in honest docketing at the US District Court, Central District of California. However, papers, which provided evidence of the denial of the right to file papers at the USDistrict Court, Central District of California, and alleged widespread corruption at the Los Angeles SuperiorCourt, were eliminated from the docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9
Circuit. Only unsigned orders wereissued by the Circuit Judges, which were served and noticed with no authentication/certification by the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9
Later, in April 2010, similar conduct was documented at the Supreme Court of the United States, undercaption of
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827). The Application, purportedly reviewed by the Conference of theSupreme Court, pertained to the imprisonment in solitary confinement of former US prosecutor Richard Fine,with no warrant and no entry of Judgment/Conviction or Sentencing, after he had exposed, publicized, andrebuked the taking of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”) by judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court,which required the enactment of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for such judges.Papers, which were duly filed as Motion to Intervene
at the Supreme Court of the United States under thecaption, referenced above, and which documented the parallels in alleged corruption of the Superior Court of California, of the California Judicial Council, of the US District Court, Central District of California, and of the US Court of Appeals, 9
Circuit, in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Richard Fine and the cases pertaining toDr Zernik, referenced above, were eliminated from the docket of the US Supreme Court by Court CounselDANNY BICKELL with no authority at all.
Furthermore, upon review of records of the file of theApplication at the Supreme Court of the United States, no record was found of any judicial review at all.
Regardless, false and deliberately misleading notices of purported denial of the Application by the Conferenceof the Supreme Court of the United States was issued by unauthorized personnel. Denial of the Applicationwas likewise falsely noted in the online dockets and journal of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the casealso demonstrated disregard of the Habeas Corpus right – the “the cornerstone of the US Constitution”according to the late US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr.The cases in all courts involved also documented the key role of online public access systems (e.g. PACER)and computerized case management systems (e.g. CM/ECF) in enabling such conduct, through exclusionfrom the online public access system of the clerks’ authentication/certification records, and denial of access tosuch records by the courts, combined with perverted notice and service practices. A reasonable person wouldconclude that today the clerks of all courts involved deemed themselves unaccountable for the validity andhonesty of any of the records in the respective online public access systems.In recent years Human Rights Alert repeatedly called upon the United States Congress to enact federal rules of online public access and case management systems, since both state and federal courts uniformly failed topublish such rules, in apparent violation of Due Process/Fair Hearings rights.
The cases at hand were part of evidence, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of theUnited Nations as part of the first ever, 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the UnitedStates.
Staff report of the HRC later noted “corruption of the courts and the legal profession” inCalifornia.