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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
09-05-01 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #15: May 1, 2009 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Answer on Petition

09-05-01 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #15: May 1, 2009 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Answer on Petition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:
v. May 1, 2009 - Response by the California Superior Court
Instead, the Superior Court, never named as a Respondent in the Petition, was eventually permitted to respond in lieu of the Sheriff.
Consequently, Attorney Kevin McCormick filed the May 1, 2009 Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt #15), on behalf of the Superior Court. [ ]
However, Attorney McCormick failed altogether to file the required Certificate of Parties with his certification as Attorney of Record for the Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe.
As it later turned out, Attorney McCormick was in fact engaged not by the Superior Court itself, but by the California Judicial Council, under a false and deliberately misleading caption. [ ]
Attorney McCormick appeared nevertheless in Fine v Sheriff on behalf of the Superior Court, with no authority at all, and filed a false declaration (Dkt #16) (while not a competent fact witness) and false records – to affect the continued imprisonment of Richard Fine. [ ]
The records produced by Attorney McCormick as the foundation for the imprisonment contradicted the records, which were published online by the Sheriff. The Sheriff himself never filed any declaration in the matter, to clarify which, if any, of the contradictory records was deemed by him valid. Neither did Judge Yaffe – the alternate Respondent. None of the records, which were produced by Attorney McCormick was authenticated or certified by the Clerk of the Superior Court of California. Additionally, the foundation record – the Register of Actions in (California civil docket) Marina v LA County was never produced. Appearance of Attorney McCormick in Fine v Sheriff at the US District Court should be deemed Fraud on the Court.
v. May 1, 2009 - Response by the California Superior Court
Instead, the Superior Court, never named as a Respondent in the Petition, was eventually permitted to respond in lieu of the Sheriff.
Consequently, Attorney Kevin McCormick filed the May 1, 2009 Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt #15), on behalf of the Superior Court. [ ]
However, Attorney McCormick failed altogether to file the required Certificate of Parties with his certification as Attorney of Record for the Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe.
As it later turned out, Attorney McCormick was in fact engaged not by the Superior Court itself, but by the California Judicial Council, under a false and deliberately misleading caption. [ ]
Attorney McCormick appeared nevertheless in Fine v Sheriff on behalf of the Superior Court, with no authority at all, and filed a false declaration (Dkt #16) (while not a competent fact witness) and false records – to affect the continued imprisonment of Richard Fine. [ ]
The records produced by Attorney McCormick as the foundation for the imprisonment contradicted the records, which were published online by the Sheriff. The Sheriff himself never filed any declaration in the matter, to clarify which, if any, of the contradictory records was deemed by him valid. Neither did Judge Yaffe – the alternate Respondent. None of the records, which were produced by Attorney McCormick was authenticated or certified by the Clerk of the Superior Court of California. Additionally, the foundation record – the Register of Actions in (California civil docket) Marina v LA County was never produced. Appearance of Attorney McCormick in Fine v Sheriff at the US District Court should be deemed Fraud on the Court.

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Nov 29, 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

08/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 15 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 16
 
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 15 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 2 of 16
 
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 15 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 3 of 16

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)//-->