Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.08.27
20:40:47 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-08-27 RE: Richard Fine - request for restoration of access to justice, and for corrective
actions re: publicly and legally accountable validation of case management and
online public access systems of the courts, jails, and prisons
Executive Summary
Los Angles, August 27 – request was filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, for restoration of access to justice in
the case of the imprisoned, 70 year-old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine. The request was filed with Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior
Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative.
Richard Fine, had exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by California judges in Los Angeles County of "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 County, California.
Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, “Sentencing Proceeding” for contempt was conducted on Richard Fine at the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, which was never validly recorded by the Court. Instead, the Court
published false and deliberately misleading online records. The request claimed that the March 4, 2009 “Sentencing
Proceeding” was only a pretense, which was never deemed a valid court proceeding by the Court itself.
On March 4, 2010, Richard Fine was arrested in open court by the Warrant Detail of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
– albeit with no warrant at all. Richard Fine has been held ever since in solitary confinement – albeit no judgment/conviction, or
sentencing was ever entered in his case. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department insisted on holding him under false and
deliberately misleading online inmate registration records, stating that he was arrested and booked on location and by
authority of the non-existent “Municipal Court of San Pedro”.
The request detailed Richard Fine’s attempts to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US
th
District Court – Central District of California, through the US Court of Appeals – 9 Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United
States. In all United States courts involved, no valid judicial records were ever entered by the courts. Court minutes,
judgments, mandate, decisions were either not signed by the judges and/or not authenticated by the clerks of the respective
courts. Concomitantly, false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online by all courts involved, which would
lead a reasonable person to conclude that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid judicial review, and that his
petitions, appeal, and applications to the various US courts were duly denied. Therefore, the request claimed that Richard
Fine was denied access to justice, and was instead subjected only to pretense judicial review at the US courts – National
Tribunals for Protection of Rights.
The request further provided documentation and/or expert opinions regarding the inherent invalidity of case management and
online public access systems of all courts involved, as well as the Sheriff’s Department. Such systems enabled the holding of
prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of invalid court records,
as part of pretense of judicial review:
a) Online public dockets were implemented at the courts, where the authority of the clerk was never invoked, and where the
clerks were unaccountable for validity of the records;
b) Online prisoners’ registration systems were implemented in the jails, where authority of record supervisors was never
invoked, and where records supervisors were unaccountable for validity of the records;
c) In all agencies involved the matter published online false and misleading records, while public access to public records
was denied, and
d) All courts, which were inspected, failed to publish local rules, establishing procedures governing the implementation,
validation, and use of case management and online public access systems at the courts.
Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to accord due process in acceptance, review, and response on the request for
restoration of Richard Fine’s access to justice. With it, Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to initiate corrective actions
through comprehensive review and publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access
systems at the courts, jails, and prisons.
The request claimed that any action by Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe to affect the restoration of Richard Fine’s access to justice and
to establish by law the validation of case management and online public access systems of the courts, would affect substantial impact
on restoration of access to justice in the United States, the rule of law in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond, and the
safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice
system in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case
management and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the
United States.
z Page 2/13 August 27, 2010

Prof Laurence Tribe

Senior Counsel
US Department Of Justice
Access To Justice Initiative
By email

REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE

TO PROF LAURENCE TRIBE, SENIOR COUNSEL, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ACCESS TO

JUSTICE INITIATIVE:
Please accept instant request for restoration of access to justice in the case of the imprisoned, 70 year-old,
former US prosecutor Richard Fine, and for corrective actions pertaining to procedures for publicly and
legally accountable validation of case management and online public access systems of the courts, jails,
and prisons.
Any action by your office in this regard would affect substantial impact on restoration of access to justice in
the United States, the rule of law in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond, and the safeguard of Human
Rights in the digital era.
Although the request is not submitted as a formal complaint, due process is requested by the Office of
the Senior Counsel in acknowledgement, review, and response on the request.
1. Additional records, linked as integral part of instant request
Please also accept as integral part of instant request the following records, linked below:
a) April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene, and related papers, which were filed under the caption of Fine v
Baca (09A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States; the Appendix to the Motion to Intervene
included most documentary evidence pertaining to instant request pertaining to case management and
online public access system of the Superior Court of California - County of Los Angeles, US District
Court – Central District of California, and US Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit, and conduct of US
Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell in the case; i
b) Declarations of George McDermott and Joseph Zernik pertaining to records issued by the Supreme
Court of the United States under caption of Fine v Baca (09-A827); ii , iii , iv
c) Records of the Supreme Court of the United States in respective cases, which were downloaded from
online public access systems and analyzed by Requester Joseph Zernik; v , vi , vii
d) Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against US Supreme Court
Counsel Danny Bickell by Requester Joseph Zernik, and viii
e) Official reports, expert opinions, and media reports, listed and linked in 6), below.
2. Requesters
Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, resident of Los Angeles County, California
Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
Tel: 323-515-4583
Fax: (preferred) 323-488-9697
Email: (preferred) jz12345@earthlink.net
3. Requesters are not attorneys, neither are they represented by counsel in this matter
Therefore, special lenience is requested in review of the request. In most cases, no sections of the code were
referenced, either by name or by number. Where errors were made, in reference to sections of the code,
Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe is requested to disregard such references to the code, and instead - review the
facts alone, and apply the sections of the code as he deems fit.
z Page 3/13 August 27, 2010

4. General Chronology
Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by
California judges in Los Angeles County of "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 County, California.
On March 4, 2009, less than two weeks later, Richard Fine was subjected to Sentencing Hearing for
Contempt at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, which was never validly recorded
in the Superior Court’s records.
Consequently, on March 4, 2010, Richard Fine was arrested in open court at the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, at the City of Los Angeles, by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department Warrant Detail – albeit with no warrant at all.
Ever since Richard Fine has been held in solitary confinement – albeit, no judgment/conviction, or
sentencing was ever entered in his case. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department insisted on holding him under
false and deliberately misleading online inmate registration, which stated that Richard Fine was arrested
and booked on location and by authority of the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro.
On March 19/20, 2009, Richard Fine filed a Petition for a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus at the US
District Court, Central District of California. Records links to instant request document judicial review in the
case, where Judgment and Mandate records were issued and listed as filed in online dockets of the US District
Court, albeit - with invalid authentication and certification by the Clerk of the Court. Docket was published
online, which the Clerk of the Court has refused to this date to certify, and which created the pretense of valid
judicial review in the case.
On June 3, 2009, and July 1, 2009, Richard Fine filed Petition and an Appeal, respectively, at the US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit, originating from the habeas corpus at the US District Court. Records links to instant
request document judicial records, which were issued in the Petition and Appeal, and listed as filed in online
dockets, albeit - with no signatures by judges at all. Dockets were published online, which created the pretense
of valid judicial review in the case.
On March 1, 2010, and Mar 23, 2010, Richard Fine filed at the Supreme Court of the United States
Application for Stay of Execution (of continuous confinement), and Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,
respectively. Records links to instant request, originating from files of the Supreme Court, document the
issuance of invalid notices, which were either unsigned at all, or signed by unauthorized Court staff, and
purported denial of the Application and the Petition by the Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact, no record
was ever discovered in Court files of the Application and the Petition to provide the foundation for such
purported notices. Concomitantly, dockets, journals, and order lists were published online by the Supreme
Court, which created the pretense of valid judicial review of the Application and the Petition.
At first, a layperson may deem such circumstances as only a reflecting “sloppiness” in operations of the State
of California and United States courts. However, upon review of the evidence as a whole, a reasonable person
would surely conclude that such “sloppiness” was never inadvertent, but intentional, since it uniformly
affected pretense judicial review, denial of access to justice, and with it – denial of Liberty itself.
5. Detailed Chronology
a) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – Marina v LA County (BS109420)
On March 4, 2009, less than two weeks after the signing of the “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for Los
Angeles County judges, David Yaffe, Judge, Superior Court of California, purportedly conducted Sentencing
Hearing in ancillary proceedings for Contempt under caption of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners
Assn. vs County of L.A. (BS109420). In such proceeding Contempt was purportedly adjudged in refusal of
z Page 4/13 August 27, 2010

Richard Fine to accept the authority of Murray Gross, Commissioner, who conducted purported Debtor
Examination proceedings, albeit – with no Appointment Order and no authority at all.
At the end of the March 4, 2009 purported Sentencing Hearing David Yaffe pronounced in open court
Judgment and Order for Contempt and purportedly sentenced Richard Fine to “continuous
confinement”.
However, as detailed and documented in April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene, Judge David Yaffe entered
neither Judgment nor Sentencing in the case, as required by California law, to make them “valid and
effectual for any purpose”. Moreover, the records, which were later produced by the Superior Court of
California in the Habeas Corpus Petition at the US District Court as March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order
for Contempt were void on their face – bearing “FILED” stamp dated March 4, 2009, and a signature by
Judge David Yaffe dated March 24, 2009. Furthermore, March 4, 2009 Minutes were published online,
which lacked Certificate by Clerk, and failed to mention any entry of judgment or sentencing in the case.
Moreover, none of the other orders and writs issued by Judge David Yaffe before and after March 4,
2009, pertaining to the ancillary proceedings on Contempt was a valid court record either.
In parallel, the Court denies to this date access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) of the
case – the definitive record of the litigation, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights.
It is alleged that upon investigation and discovery of the Register of Actions, additional evidence would
be found of the pretense nature of the Debtor Examination, and ancillary proceedings for Contempt, as a
whole.
In short – there was and there is no valid judicial record of the March 4, 2009 Sentencing Hearing, and a
reasonable person, upon review of the records as a whole, including expert opinion regarding SUSTAIN
– the case management system of the Superior Court, would conclude that the March 4, 2009 proceeding
and March 4, 2009 judgment, were only pretense.
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles also failed to ever publish Local Rules of
Court establishing procedures of the Court pertaining to operation of SUSTAIN – its case management
system, and maintenance of Judgment Books and Entry of Judgment. Instead the Court continues for
decades to publish false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Court in the matter.
b) Sheriff’s Department of Los Angeles County – Inmate Richard Fine (#1824367)
On March 4, 2009, at 11:05 am, following verbal pronouncement by Judge David Yaffe, the Sheriff's
Warrant Detail arrested Richard Fine in open court, at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, in the City of Los Angeles, albeit - with no warrant at all. The Sheriff’s Department has held
Richard Fine in solitary confinement ever since, albeit - no valid and effectual order, judgment,
conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in the case.
As detailed and documented in the April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene, consequently, the Sheriff’s
Department published in its online Inmate Information Center false and deliberately misleading records,
stating that Richard Fine was arrested and booked on location and by authority of the non-existent
Municipal Court of San Pedro.
In parallel, the Sheriff denies to this date public access – to inspect and to copy - the arrest warrant and
Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine – public records by California law.
Instead, the Sheriff’s Department repeatedly produced invalid, void on their faces printouts from the
online Inmate Information Center.
It is alleged that upon investigation and discovery of the Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate
Richard Fine, additional evidence would be found of the pretense nature of the arrest and booking
records of Inmate Richard Fine.
z Page 5/13 August 27, 2010

c) US District Court, Central District of California – Fine v Baca (2:09-cv-01914)

On March 19/20, 2009 Richard Fine filed pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus – Richard Fine v
Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) – at the US District Court, Central District of California.
As detailed and documented in April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene, the Petition (Dkt #1) was allegedly
adulterated at the Office of the Clerk, Central District of California on March 24, 2009.
Consequently, US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and Judge John Warner conducted judicial review under
the same caption, where eventually, Carla Woehrle issued a June 12, 2009 “Report and
Recommendation” and John Warner issued a June 29, 2009 Judgment – denying the Petition.
As detailed and documented in April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene, inspection of records of the US
District Court revealed the June 29, 2009 Judgment, and the February 12, 2010 Mandate appearing in
the PACER docket of the case were never valid and effectual court records: They were listed as filed
with invalid NEFs – missing altogether the Document Stamp, which is deemed by the Court effective
authentication and certification of entry of court records.
The PACER docket in the case was largely constructed by Donna Thomas, who was not authorized as a
Deputy Clerk. Moreover, Terri Nafisi, Clerk of the Court refuses to this date to certify the docket as one
that was constructed in compliance with US law and pursuant to the authority of the Clerk.
In parallel, Terri Nafisi – Clerk, to this date denies access to the paper record, which is the Petition (Dkt
#1), and to NEFs of the Minutes, Orders, and Report and Recommendation in the case, in apparent
violation of First Amendment rights.
The PACER docket in the case, and records published online under it, would lead any reasonable lay
person, and even attorneys to conclude that true and valid minutes, orders, report and recommendation,
judgment and mandate were entered in the docket. In fact, upon review of the records as a whole, a
reasonable person would conclude that Richard Fine was denied access to justice in review of his
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus at the US District Court, and the PACER docket was and is a false
and deliberately misleading record.
The US District Court, Central District of California also failed to ever publish Local Rules of Court
establishing procedures of the Court pertaining to operation of PACER and CM/ECF.
d) US District Court, Central District of California– Fine v Baca (2:09-cv-01914)
Leroy Baca – Sheriff of Los Angeles County, was duly named as Respondent in the Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus at the US District Court. However, Sheriff Leroy Baca refused to responded on the Petition.
Instead, Carla Woehrle – US Magistrate, permitted David Yaffe – Judge, and the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to appear as Respondents in the case. Response by the two latter parties was
conducted through appearances of Kevin McCoy – Attorney.
However, as detailed and documented in April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene, Kevin McCormick was engaged
by the California Judicial Council for appearance on behalf of David Yaffe and the Superior Court of
California under false case caption and with no communications with his clients in the matter.
Kevin McCormick nevertheless falsely appeared on behalf of David Yaffe and the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles - with no authority at all. Kevin McCormick failed to file certificate of
Counsel of Record for his purported clients. Moreover, in such appearances Kevin McCormick filed false and
deliberately misleading records and a false Declaration – by counsel only, although he was not at all a
competent fact witness in the matter.
It is claimed that conduct of Kevin McCormick in his appearance on behalf of David Yaffe and the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at the US District Court
was false and deliberately misleading; it intended and indeed affected perversion of justice.
z Page 6/13 August 27, 2010

e) US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Fine v Sheriff (09-71692)

On June 3, 2009 Richard Fine filed a Petition with the US Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit under caption of
Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-71692).
On June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition was issued on behalf of Alex Kozinski - Chief Judge, Richard
Paez and Richard Tallman - Circuit Judges. However, the Order was never signed by any of the judges.
Moreover, it was served with no Clerk’s Authentication - NDA (Notice of Docket Activity) - at all.
Therefore, the June 30, 2009 must be deemed void, not voidable.
In parallel, a PACER docket was published online for the Petition, which would lead most reasonable persons
to conclude that the petition was subjected to valid judicial review.
In fact, Richard Fine was denied access to justice in review of his Petition, and the PACER docket in the case
should be deemed false and deliberately misleading.
The US Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit also failed to ever publish Local Rules of Court establishing
procedures of the Court pertaining to operation of PACER and CM/ECF.
e) US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit– Fine v Sheriff (09-56073)
On July 1, 2009 Richard Fine filed Notice of Appeal at the US Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit under
caption of Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-56073).
As detailed and documented in April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene a number of Circuit Judges of the US
Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit issued Orders, Minutes, and Mandate in the Appeal: Mary M Schroeder,
Andrew Kleinfeld, A Wallace Tashima, N.R. Smith - Circuit Judge, Stephen Reinhardt, Stephen S Trott
- Circuit Judge, and Kim M Wardlaw.
However, none of the Orders, or the Mandate in the Appeal was ever signed by a judge. Moreover, the
Clerk’s Authentication - NDA (Notice of Docket Activity) – for the Mandate would be deemed invalid
on its face.
In parallel, a PACER docket was published online for the Appeal, which would lead most reasonable persons
to conclude that the Appeal was subjected to valid judicial review. In fact, Richard Fine was denied access to
justice in review of his Appeal, and the PACER docket in the case should be deemed false and deliberately
misleading.
f) Supreme Court of the United States – Fine v Baca (09-A827)
On March 1, 2010, Richard Fine filed an Application for Stay of Execution (of continuous confinement)
with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Supreme Court of the United States, under caption of Richard
I Fine v Leroy Baca (09-A827).
Following its purported denial by Justice Kennedy on March 12, 2010, Richard Fine re-filed the
Application on March 30, 2010, with Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who in turn distributed it to the
Supreme Court Conference.
On April 20, 2010 Joseph Zernik filed Motion to Intervene under the same caption.
On April 26, 2010 Conference of the Court purportedly denied the Application.
However, as detailed in the April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene, and in additional records, listed in 1)
above, while such denials were listed in online records of the Court, no valid records establishing
judicial review of the Petition were ever found in the Court file of the Petition:
i. Online Docket
z Page 7/13 August 27, 2010

The online docket of the Application noted March 12, 2010 denial of the Application by Associate Justice
Kennedy, and April 26, 2010 denial of the Application by Conference of the Court. However, the docket
failed to note the April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene, filed with the Court.
ii. Online Journal:
The Court’s online Journal noted April 26, 2010 denial of the Application by Conference of the Court.
iii. Online Order Lists:
The online master list of 2009 Term Court Orders, listed no Order List at all for March 12, 2010.
The online April 26, 2010 Order List noted the denial of the Application by Conference of the Court.
iv. Court File:
March 12, 2010 notice of denial by Associate Justice Kennedy of the Application was discovered upon
inspection of the Court file of the Application, as detailed in April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene. ix However,
the notice was issued by Court Counsel Danny Bickell. The notice was void on its face – it issued with no
authority - by Court Counsel instead of a Deputy Clerk. Moreover, the Notice was false and deliberately
misleading – no foundation was found for the notice in any valid judicial record in the Supreme Court
file to document the purported denial of the Application by Associate Justice Kennedy.
On April 20, 2010, Joseph Zernik filed Motion to Intervene and related papers under the same caption,
where the conduct of the Superior Court of California, the Sheriff’s Department, the US District Court,
and the US Court of Appeals, outlined above, were detailed and fully documented. Additionally, the
April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene and related papers provided documentation of the false March 12,
2010 notice of denial of the Application by Associate Justice Patrick Kennedy, as issued by Danny
Bickell.
Although the papers were received by the Office of the Clerk of the Court, consequently, Court Counsel
Danny Bickell held the Motion to Intervene and related papers, with no authority at all, and prevented
their entry in the case file and the case docket of the Application.
Upon inspection of the Court file of the Application, an April 26, 2010 notice, stating that the
Application “is denied” by Conference of the Court was discovered. However, the April 26, 2010 notice
was unsigned, and it was issued by an unnamed “Deputy Clerk”. x Such notice could not possibly be
deemed a valid court record, in and of itself. Moreover, there was no valid judicial record on file to
document denial of the Application by the Conference of Court.
On April 29, 2010 Court Counsel Danny Bickel issued a letter, addressed to Joseph Zernik, stating that
the Motion to Intervene and related papers were “returned”. Such letter was issued with no authority at
all. xi Moreover, no record of the filing and “return” of the records was ever discovered in the Court file
of the case.
The records published online by the Court would lead most reasonable persons to conclude that the
Application (09-A827) was accorded valid judicial review, first by Associate Justice Kennedy, and then
by Conference of the Supreme Court of the United States. In fact, there is no valid judicial record at all
in the Court file of the Application to document that Richard Fine was accorded access to justice in
review of his Application by either.
h) Supreme Court of the United States – Fine v Baca (09-1250)
On Mar 23, 2010 Richard Fine filed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari under caption of Richard I Fine v
Leroy Baca (09-1250).
i. Online Docket:
z Page 8/13 August 27, 2010

The online docket indicated that the Petition was distributed for the May 20, 2010 Conference.
Consequently, the Petition was noted in the docket as denied on May 24, 2010. On Jun 11, 2010, the
docket noted that a Petition for Rehearing was filed, which was denied on July 26, 2010.
ii. Online Journal:
The Journal of the US Supreme Court, likewise, noted denial of the Petition on May 24, 2010 and denial
of Rehearing on July 26, 2010.
iii. Online Order Lists:
The online Order Lists for May 24, 2010 (p 4) and July 26, 2010 (p 1), likewise, noted denials of the
Petition.
iv. Court file:
The only record found upon inspection of the Court file of Richard I Fine v Leroy Baca (09-1250),
pertaining to judicial review of the Petition, or Rehearing, was an unsigned letter by an unnamed Deputy
Clerk, dated July 26, 2010, stating that the Petition was denied.
The records published online by the Court would lead most reasonable persons to conclude that the
Petition (09-1250) was twice accorded valid judicial review - first by the May 24, 2010 Conference, and
again by the July 26, 2010 Conference. In fact, no valid record was found in the Court file of the
Petition to document that Richard Fine was ever accorded access to justice in review of his Petition by
either.
i) Supreme Court of the United States – validity, or lack thereof of Court records, and conduct of
Court Counsel and Clerk of the Court
In both Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Fine v Baca (09-1250), the online records – dockets, journals, and
orders lists of the highest court of the land were found invalid and lacking foundation in Court file
records. At first, such records may appear as only reflecting “sloppiness”. However, upon review of the
records as a whole, a reasonable person would recognize the pattern, similar to that found in all other
courts in the case: Invalid online records consistently recorded purported judicial review and due denial
of Richard Fine’s Application and Petition. In contrast, inspection of the Court files in both Fine v Baca
(09-A827) and Fine v Baca (09-1250) failed to reveal any valid record documenting that the Supreme
Court of the United States ever accorded Richard Fine access to justice.
Furthermore, it is assumed that the Supreme Court of the United States, like all other agencies named
above, operates a separate, internal case management system. Access to the electronic records in the
case management system of the Court was requested, pursuant to First Amendment rights and Supreme
Court decision in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). No access was gained so far to such
records. However, it is claimed that upon discovery of such records, additional evidence would be
found of the denial of access to justice in re: Richard Fine.
Additionally, certification by the Clerk of the Court was requested of the online docket of the
Application and the Petition. No response was received so far.
It is further claimed that upon investigation and discovery it would be found that conduct of Court
Counsel Danny Bickell in this case, and the publication of false and deliberately misleading online
dockets, journals, and orders lists, could never have taken place absent complicity by Clerk of the US
Supreme Court William Suter.
z Page 9/13 August 27, 2010

6. Official reports, expert opinions, and media reports pertaining to instant complaint
a) In 2006, the official LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel opined “innocent people remain in prison”,
and recommended that the Los Angeles Superior Court “must be investigated relative to the integrity
of the system”. xii
b) In a 2008 Expert opinion regarding conduct of the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles in an unrelated case was issued by Fraud Expert James Wedick, an FBI veteran, who had
been decorated by US Congress, by FBI Director, and by US Attorney General for his
accomplishments in law enforcement. Mr Wedick also opined “investigation should be immediately
instituted”. [Italics in the original –jz] xiii
c) Already in 2001, PBS Frontline series LAPD Blues reported large-scale false imprisonments by the
Los Angeles Superior Court, which was estimated at 8,000 – 16,000 persons. xiv By and large such
persons remained imprisoned, even after the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) was
concluded.
d) In a 2001 expert scholarly paper, Prof David Burcham, Dean of Loyola Law School, LA, and Prof
Kathryn Fisk opined "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did
not commit." xv
e) In a 2001 expert scholarly paper, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School opined regarding
conduct of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles "This is conduct associated with
the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent
people are convicted." xvi
f) In 2009, qualified expert opinion regarding fraud in Sustain – the case management system of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was issued by Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew
University, Jerusalem, who noted “credible evidence” of fraud in the system, and who recommended
that such system be reviewed by US based experts. xvii
g) In a 2010 scholarly paper, authored by Requester Dr Joseph Zernik, and peer-reviewed for publication
and presentation by SONET2010 – an international scholarly computer science conference, fraud was
opined in design and operation of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Inmate Information
Center.xviii
h) In a 2010 scholarly paper, authored by Requester Dr Joseph Zernik, and peer-reviewed for publication
and presentation by SONET2010 – an international scholarly computer science conference, fraud was
opined in design and operation of PACER & CM/ECF. xix
7. Additional evidence and records are provided in paper and electronic records of all agencies
involved.
Additional evidence pertaining to instant request, is held in the paper and electronic files of all justice
system agencies named in instant request. As detailed above, all without exception denied access to
public records in this matter.
8. “Chain Reaction” effect in pretense conduct of the courts
Once David Yaffe – Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, initiated a pretense
ancillary proceeding to affect the imprisonment of Richard Fine, all other justice system agencies followed
suit:
a) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County – created false online records, listing the imprisonment as
authorized by the non-existent “Municipal Court of San Pedro”;
b) The US District Court – Central District of California – published a false and deliberately online
PACER docket, where pretense judicial review of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was
represented, but which the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify as a docket constructed pursuant to the
law of the US and by authority of the Clerk;
z Page 10/13 August 27, 2010

c) The California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George -
engaged counsel under false caption for false appearances at the District Court, to file false records
and false declaration;
d) The US Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit - published a false online PACER docket, where pretense
judicial review of the Petition and Appeal was represented, and
e) The Supreme Court of the United States - published a false online dockets, journals, orders lists,
where pretense judicial review of the Application and Petition was represented.
Therefore, instant request documents an alarming “Chain Reaction” effect.
Conduct of the state courts in the United States was rebuked in the July 26, 2010, speech of Senior Counsel
Laurence Tribe before the Annual Conference of Chief Justices. However, instant request shows that such
conduct by the State of California court was fully patronized by the US Courts – National Tribunals for
Protection of Rights.
Moreover, the case of Richard Fine is not unique at all. Other cases, of similar nature, were documented.
9. US government is failing to perform its duties and obligations
Conditions now prevailing in Los Angeles County, California, and in the United States courts, which are
documented in instant requests, are alleged as serious violations of duties and obligations of the United States
pursuant to ratified international law – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
10. Conditions of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, drawing both national and
international awareness.
As part of the first ever review by the United Nations (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, report was
filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Dr Joseph Zernik, xx alleging widespread corruption of the justice
system in Los Angeles County, California. The report further documented the refusal of senior officers of the
US government to abide by its duties and responsibilities pursuant to ratified international law – in failure to
accord equal protection to the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County.
As part of the UPR process, US, UK, Germany, and France based blogs were created,xxi where over 17,000
readers from some 85 nations were recorded so far.
A Scribd site was created for Human Rights Alert in January 2010, which has recorded over 110,000 reads,
with over 500 reads a day in recent months.xxii
Additional news sites, where Dr Zernik and Human Rights Alert routinely issue press releases, attracted tens
of thousands of additional readers. xxiii
Furthermore, an online archive was established, xxiv documenting the alleged abuses of rights. The archive,
not a user’s friendly site by any stretch of imagination, has attracted thousands of visits per month from
nations worldwide, totaling of close to 100,000 visits in 2010 alone. xxv
Online petitions were more recently launched, calling upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to
engage in honest and effectual review of the US justice system, as part of the first ever, November 2010,
Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States. xxvi
11. Remedies are requested by Prof Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel, Access to Justice Initiative.
US Attorney, Central District of California, is herein requested to initiate corrective actions:
a) Restoration of access to justice and equal protection of Richard Fine;
b) Equal protection of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all 10 millions who reside in Los
Angeles County, California, under US and ratified international law, by ending the conduct of
pretence litigations at the Los Angeles Superior Court and the US District Court, Central District of
California, and by compelling the Courts to comply with US and ratified international law;
c) Enforcement of First Amendment rights and the US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978) in Los Angeles County, California, by compelling the Los Angeles
Superior Court to permit public access – to inspect and to copy court records - including, but not
z Page 11/13 August 27, 2010

limited to the Register of Actions, Audit Data in the Registers, and paper court files, and by
compelling the US District Court, Central District of California, to permit public access to court
records that are the NEFs of all cases of the court, and paper court records, filed by pro se litigants;
d) Enforcement of Fair Hearings and Due Process rights in Los Angeles County, California, by
compelling the Los Angeles Superior Court to publish honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of
Court, including, but not limited to rules pertaining to operation of the Court’s case management
system – SUSATIN, maintenance of Judgments Books, and Entry of Judgments, as required by
California Civil Code;
e) Enforcement of Fair Hearings and Due Process rights at the United States district courts and courts of
appeals, by compelling the courts to publish Local Rules of Court pertaining to operation of PACER
and CM/ECF, alternatively – recommend to US Congress initiation of legislation in the matter.
f) Initiate US investigation of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, as previously
recommended by the official report of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006). xxvii
12. Conclusion
Request is filed for restoration of access to the courts re: Richard Fine:
e) Former US prosecutor Richard Fine has been held since March 4, 2009, under solitary confinement,
with no valid and effectual court record to provide the foundation for his imprisonment, which
resulted from the conduct of pretense proceedings at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, accompanied by the publication of false and deliberately misleading online records, and
was followed by his imprisonment by the Sheriff of Los Angeles County under false and deliberately
misleading inmate registration records;
f) Richard Fine attempted to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US
District Court, through the US Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States;
however, in all United States courts involved, Richard Fine was denied access to justice, and was
subjected only to pretense judicial review; concomitantly, false and deliberately misleading dockets
were published online, affecting pretense that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid and
effectual judicial review and was duly denied;
g) Serious deficiencies were found in validity of case management and online public access systems
implemented in recent decades in all agencies involved in the case:
i. Online dockets were implemented at the courts, where the authority of the clerk was never
invoked, and where the clerks were unaccountable for validity of the records; such systems
enabled denial of access to justice and affected pretense of valid judicial review;
ii. Online prisoners’ registration systems were implemented in the jails, where authority of
record supervisor was never invoked, and where the records supervisors were unaccountable
for validity of the records; such systems enabled denial of liberty and imprisonments under
pretense of lawfulness;
iii. In all agencies, involved in this matter, the publication of false and deliberately misleading
online dockets/prisoners’ registration was accompanied by denial of access to public records
and/or First Amendment rights to access judicial records – to inspect and to copy, and
iv. All agencies involved failed to establish published procedures pertaining to the validation
and use of case management systems and online public access systems.
Respectfully,
August 27, 2010
Joseph Zernik, PhD

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
z Page 12/13 August 27, 2010

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
CC:
1) Prof David Burcham – former Dean, Loyola Law School
<david.burcham@lmu.edu>
2) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky – Dean, Irvine Law School
<EChemerinsky@law.uci.edu>
3) Attorney Connie Rice – Los Angeles Advancement Project
<dmcmorris@advanceproj.org>
4) UPR Office of the United Nations
<UPRsubmissions@ohchr.org>
5) UPR Office of the US State Department:
<upr_info@state.gov>
6) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein – Senator from California
7) US Senate and House of Representatives – Judiciary Committees

LINKS
i
April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene in Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States and related papers:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/H
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/H
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/H
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/H
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/H
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/H
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/H
ii
August 10. 2010 RE: Fine v Baca (09-A1250) at the Supreme Court of the United States - Declaration of George McDermott in re:
April 26, 2010 unsigned letter by unnamed Deputy Clerk, noticing denial of the application, as discovered in Court file.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36471702/
iii
July 28, 2010 Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States - Declaration of George McDermott Re: Unsigned
Letter dated April 26, 2010, by Supreme unnamed Deputy Clerk re: Denial of the Application
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/
iv
August 10. 2010 RE: Fine v Baca (09-A1250) at the Supreme Court of the United States - Declaration of George McDermott in re:
April 26, 2010 unsigned letter by unnamed Deputy Clerk, noticing denial of the application, as discovered in Court file.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36466636/
v
August 13, 2010 Fine v Baca (09-1250) at the Supreme Court of the United States, online Order Lists pertaining to denial of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36483347/
vi
August 13, 2010 RE: Fine v Baca (09-1250) Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the Supreme Court of the United States : Online docket
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36481927/
vii
August 13, 2010 RE: Fine v Baca (09-A927), Fine v Baca (09-1250), and Fine v Baca (10-A24) at the Supreme Court of the United States - October 2009 Term Journal - validity,
or lack thereof
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36476926/
viii
July 1, 2010 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Washington DC, against SCOTUS Court Counsel Danny Bickell:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/H
ix
Complaint against Danny Bickell, Counsel of the Supreme Court of the United States
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/H
10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights s
x
July 27, 2010 Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States: Online docket, and declaration of George
McDermott in re: Search for records in the Court’s file of the case.
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/
xi
August 26, 2010 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re: : Richard I Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09 A827)
Letter dated April 29, 2010, by Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell and other records received by mail with it from his office
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/36466636/H
z Page 13/13 August 27, 2010

xii
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
xiii
Opinion of Fraud Expert James Wedick on fraud by Attorney David Pasternak on behalf of the Los Angeles Superior Court
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24991238/H
xiv
PBS Frontline – LAPD Blues – False Imprisonments:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24901612/
xv
Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
xvi
Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/
xvii
Qualified opinion of Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, regarding Sustain – case management system of
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30454036/
xviii
Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners Registration Systems – pending publication, SONET2010
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-1-prisons-pending-publication-s.pdfH
xix
Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts – pending publication, SONET2010
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdfH
xx
April 2010 Human Rights Alert (NGO) report to the UN for the 2010 UPR:
1) Press Release:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/H
2) Submission:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/H
3) Appendix:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
xxi
Blog associated with Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Hhttp://human rights alert.blogspot.com/H
Hhttp://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/H
Hhttp://menchenrechte los angeles.blogspot.com/
xxii
Scribd site of Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
xxiii
News sites where Human Rights Alert posts routine releases:
Hhttp://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345H
Hhttp://www.examiner.com/x 38742 LA Business Headlines Examiner
Hhttp://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
xxiv
Online archive documenting corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond:
Hhttp://inproperinla.com/
xxv
Intense interest by the Russian Republic in corruption of US courts and banking regulation:
Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33910548/
xxvi
Petitions calling upon the United Nations to engage in effective review of the US justice system:
Hhttp://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/calling upon the un human rights council to issue an honest and effectual 2010 report on the us/
Hhttp://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/ushumanrights/
xxvii
Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) – see above.