P. 1
10-04-21 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) US Supreme Court - Chief Justice Roberts is asked to secure integrity of the docket in the case

10-04-21 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) US Supreme Court - Chief Justice Roberts is asked to secure integrity of the docket in the case

|Views: 38|Likes:
Chief Justice Roberts Asked to Secure Integrity of Supreme Court Docket in Case of Falsely Imprisoned 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
Chief Justice Roberts Asked to Secure Integrity of Supreme Court Docket in Case of Falsely Imprisoned 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

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on May 16, 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

05/30/2010

pdf

text

original

Human Rights Alert

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Chief Justice Roberts Asked to Secure Integrity of Supreme Court Docket in Case of Falsely Imprisoned 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 pursuant to 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 Ruth Ginsburg, and is scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010. The request came following failure of Dr Zernik’s filings in the case, received by the Court on April 20, [1] to appear on the docket. On April 21, 2010 Mr Danny Bickell, clerk’s office staff counsel consented that he held Dr Zernik’s filings in his hands, but refused to state whether the filing of the papers, or even their rejection would be listed on the docket. Mr Bickell stated that he was not Deputy Clerk by authority, nevertheless indicated that he would make the determinations in the matter. The delays by Mr Danny Bickell of notation in the docket of either the filing, or rejection of the filing of Dr Zernik’s papers received by the Supreme Court on April 20 were particularly alarming, since one of Dr Zernik’s filings was a Request for Correction of Supreme Court records, pertaining to Mr Bickell’s previous transactions in the case. The correction request pertained to the original submission of the Application by Richard Fine to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, which was noticed by Mr Danny Bickell to the parties as Denied by Justice Kennedy on March 12, 2010, and was also listed as “denied” in the Court’s docket, [2] albeit – an unverified court record. In contrast, the listing of orders and rulings of the US Supreme Court showed no such ruling or order on or about March 12, 2010. [3] Moreover, although the Rule 22(3) of the US Supreme Court explicitly state “A Justice denying an application will note the denial thereon,” a copy of the Application, obtained from the US Supreme Court file on March 22, 2010, failed to show any such note by Justice Kennedy on the Application. [4] In a phone call on April 21, 2010, Mr Danny Bickell refused to provide any explanation for such discrepancies in the US Supreme Court records, or the basis for his notice to parties 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 in other justice system agencies in the case of Richard Fine: [5] • The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department employed unverified and unvalidated online public access system (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 Municipal Court of San Pedro. The Los Angeles Superior Court, where Mr Fine was in fact arrested, likewise employed unverified and unvalidated OPAS and unvalidated CMS, to present the false pretense of a March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt against Richard Fine in Marina v LA County (BS109420). In fact, such March 4, 2009 Judgment was never adequately verified by a judge, was never authenticated, and was never entered by the 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 (2:09cv-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 specifically referenced in his filings with the US Supreme Court, [5] showed that the US District Court never authenticated such June 29, 2009 Judgment and never adequately noticed and served it on Richard Fine. The US Court of Appeals, 9th 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- 0956073) – 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 was never any valid record as foundation for the imprisonment of Richard Fine, and that Richard Fine was therefore entitled to his immediate release. In addition, Dr Zernik requested that the US Supreme Court issue a mandate to lower courts to establish their OPASs 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 had exposed and protested “not permitted” secret payments of about $45,000 per judge per year for over a decade to all Los Angeles Superior Court judges. [6] During the same period, as Mr Fine had shown, it had become practically 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 United States, Human Rights Alert and Dr Zernik highlighted the role of unverified and unvalidated OPASs and CMSs 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 California and US courts. [7] LINKS [1] April 20, 2010 Receipts for Dr Joseph Zernik’s filings in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) by US Supreme Court • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/10-04-20-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Face-pages-of-five-filings-byDr-Joseph-Zernik-with-stamps-showing-receipt-by-the-US-Supreme-Court-s [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 • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/10-04-20-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Face-pages-of-five-filings-byDr-Joseph-Zernik-with-stamps-showing-receipt-by-the-US-Supreme-Court-s [3] Listing of orders of US Supreme Court on or about March 12, 2010, failing to show denial of Fine’s Application Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306238/10-03-22-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-Copy-of-the-Application-from-USSupreme-Court-file-failing-to-show-note-of-its-March-12-2010-denial-by-Justice-Ken [4] March 22, 2010 copy of the Application Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), obtained from the US Supreme Court file 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-USSupreme-Court-file-failing-to-show-note-of-its-March-12-2010-denial-by-Justice-Ken

Page 3/3

April 21, 2010

[5] April 20, 2010 Joseph Zernik’s Motion to Intervene and related filings in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827): • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-1-Amended-Motion-toIntervene-s • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-2-Amended-Request-forLenience-by-Pro-Se-Filer-s • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-3-Amended-Request-forCorrections-in-US-Supreme-Court-Records-s • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-4-Amended-Request-forIncorporation-by-Reference-s • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-Appendices-s • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-Appendix-IX-bZernik-s-Declaration-in-re-April-16-2010-search-for-records-in-the-Courts-microfilm-judgm [6] Richard Fine – a Review • http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/09-12-17-Richard-Isaac-Fine-Review-e [7] Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR of the United States by the United Nations. • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Filed-UPR-Report-with-theUnited-Nations • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/10-04-18-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Submission-to-the-UnitedNations-for-the-2010-Universal-Periodic-Review-of-the-US-s • http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Appendix-for-Submission-tothe-United-Nations-for-the-2010-UPR-of-the-United-States-s

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)//-->