This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
By Joseph Zernik, PhD email@example.com Human Rights Alert (NGO) http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert Revised April 23, 2011
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine
Abstract Former US prosecutor Richard I. Fine exposed and rebuked the taking by Los Angeles judges of “not permitted” payments, which were labeled by media “bribes”. Consequently, the State Bar of California disbarred Fine in 2007. From March 4, 2009 to September 17, 2010, he was jailed in solitary "coercive confinement" in the Los Angeles Men’s Central Jail, albeit with neither warrant nor valid and effectual conviction nor sentencing records. His efforts to gain his own release through habeas corpus petitions to the US District Court, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and the US Supreme Court were repeatedly denied. However, all judicial reviews in the US courts were characterized by the falsification of court records. The case reflects widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, the largest county court in the United States, and cover-up of the same by the US courts. Report regarding corruption of the Superior Court, including, but not limited to, the imprisonment of Richard Fine, was incorporated by reference into the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) Staff Report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, with a note regarding “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California”. Coverage of the case was mostly left to off mainstream media. Large corporate media outlets reports were incomplete and at times partial. One of the central recommendations of the 2010 UPR report on the United States pertained to restoration of the right for habeas corpus, with reference to detentions in Guantanamo Bay. As documented in the case of Richard Fine, the right of habeas corpus was effectively denied also on a US citizen, former US prosecutor, in the territorial United States, through effective denial of access to honest courts. Perhaps the most important insight gained from the case of Richard Fine pertains to the key role of false and deliberately misleading computerized records in the courts and prisons in the United States in the abuse of Human Rights. Due to the unusual set of characters, the number of court cases filed by Richard Fine, and the meticulous documentation, the case as a whole provides unparalleled study of the justice system, st Human Rights, and civil society conditions in the United States at the beginning of the 21 century.
1. Childhood, education, practice of law 2. Disbarment 3. Exposition of unconstitutional payments to California Superior Court judges 4. March 4, 2009 arrest and jailing 5. Failed petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an emergency petition 6. Arbitrary release 7. Public responses and media coverage 8. The Los Angeles Superior Court 9. Computerized records in the courts and prisons 10. References
1. Childhood, education, practice of law
Fine was born and raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to a middle-class family. He earned his baccalaureate degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, his law degree from the University of Chicago, and a doctorate from the London School of Economics. Fine served at the U.S. Department of Justice (1968-72) in the Anti Trust Division. Later he served the City of Los Angeles (1973-74) in anti-trust capacities.[ i ] In private practice, Fine was successful as an anti-trust attorney in pursuing taxpayers' cases against the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. [ ii ] His resume shows his efforts have returned approximately $1 Billion US Dollars to California taxpayers. [ iii ]
Fine's disbarment in October 2007 was the outcome of administrative procedure of the State Bar of California, where he was charged with "moral turpitude" for filing complaints against California judges who had received illegal supplemental payments from Los Angeles County while ruling favorably in cases in which Los Angeles County was a party. [ iv ] Effectively, he was punished for representing his clients in court. Fine alleged violations of his First Amendment rights in response. [ v ] Fine's petitions for review his disbarment to the California Supreme Court, and later the US Supreme Court were denied, allowing the disbarment to stand. Fine was listed as being "involuntarily inactive" beginning 10/17/2007 and as of 3/13/2009 disbarred. [ vi ]
3. Exposition of unconstitutional payments to California Superior Court judges
Richard Fine was the first to expose that unconstitutional payments were being made to Los Angeles County judges. In August 2001, Fine's opening brief in the appeal of Silva v Garcetti, revealed that payments of over $46,000 per judge, per year were being made by Los Angeles County to all (~430) 2/9
Los Angeles County judges (and ~140 Commissioners). [ vii ] The payments, now some $57,000 per judge per year, have been made since the late 1980s, costing taxpayers over $300 million over a decade, and figuring prominently in County's "budget crisis". [ viii ] Fine also revealed that it had become practically impossible to win a case against the County at the Superior Court during the same period. [ ix ] Litigation, which originated from taxpayer objections to such payments, and where plaintiff Harold Sturgeon was represented by Judicial Watch, Sturgeon v County of Los Angeles (BC351286) resulted in a October 2008 decision by the California Court of Appeal, 4th District (San Diego) that the payments were constitutionally "not permitted", as judges were to be paid only by their employers, the State of California. [ x ] To counter potential civil and criminal liabilities to the California judges, and the County supervisors who approved the payments, a bill was passed and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 20, 2009, providing “retroactive immunity” to all involved. [ xi ] It should be noted that the California Constitution prohibits retroactive laws. Effectively, the “retroactive immunity” amounted pardons to all involved.
4. March 4, 2009 arrest and jailing
Two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, Richard Fine was arrested by the Warrant Detail of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, at the end of a dramatic proceeding, represented as "Sentencing" - in the presence of media - by Judge David Yaffe. Richard Fine was attempting to disqualify Judge Yaffe. The basis for affidavits of disqualification for a cause was Judge David Yaffe's accepting of such payments from a party to the litigation then at bar – Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles (BS109420). [ xii ]
The entire proceeding later failed to appear in the publicly available litigation chronology, published online by the court. Likewise, the court record that was the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt, including what was represented as sentencing, which was widely reported by media, was later discovered to be invalid on its face. [ xiii ]. The record was also lacking authentication. [ xiv ] Throughout the habeas corpus petitions of Richard Fine, and to this date, the Los Angeles Superior Court denies access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket – the official record of the litigation) in the case of Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles. Therefore, there is no way to tell whether the March 4, 2009 proceeding was at all listed as a court proceeding by the court itself. The March 4, 2009 Minutes (protocol), remained unsigned, and never mentioned any sentencing hearing at all. Richard Fine was later held in the Men's Central Jail facility in Los Angeles - part of the Twin Towers Jail complex, under unusual, possibly unprecedented conditions. [ xv ] He was held under continuous solitary confinement, in a hospital room in the jail, albeit - no disease or disability were ever claimed by jail authorities.
5. Failed petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an emergency petition to the US courts
Richard Fine was held all along with no warrant at all. [ xvi ] The information provided by the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County in this matter on its Inmate Information Center was false and 3/9
misleading. [ xvii ] The arrest and booking were listed as if they had taken place on location and by authority of the Municipal Court of San Pedro. However, no municipal courts had existed in Los Angeles for almost a decade at that time. In the first few months of his jailing, Fine was denied access to pen and paper, and such conditions undermined his ability to file habeas corpus and related petitions. Jail authorities also explicitly attempted in the initial period to deprive him of the right to represent himself, and to coerce him to accept representation by counsel, which Fine declined. On June 7, 2009, the Los Angeles Times published report (considered unfavorable) by female Journalist Victoria Kim, who purportedly managed to enter the Men's Jail, interview Fine, and emerge out of the jail unnoticed, at a time that the Sheriff's Department and the court banned interviews with Fine. [ xviii ] Fine's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Fine v Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles (2:09-cv-01914) [ xix ] was dictated by phone to a friend, and was filed on behalf of Richard Fine at the US Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), but without his hand signature, and without review by him of the filed document. Key documents were later claimed missing from the docket. [ xx ] The case was unusual in that the Sheriff, named as respondent, refused to respond. Eventually, response was filed by the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe. However, such response was filed by attorney Kevin McCormick, who failed to file the required certifications indicating that he was indeed engaged as a Counsel of Record in the case by his clients, and therefore authorized to file and appear in the case on their behalf. In Attorney McCormick's response there was no evidence that he had ever communicated with his clients. The records which he filed, were all derived from the Sheriff's Department, not from the Court, including a copy of the invalid March 4, 2009 Judgement and Order for Contempt, with no authentication. [ xxi ] Attorney McCormick's filings also included a short declaration by counsel - not a competent fact witness in this case - not by Judge David Yaffe or any officer of the Los Angeles Superior courts. A scheme, involving representation by counsel - albeit not Counsel of Record - with "not communications with client" clause - had been previously discovered and rebuked in an unrelated case in Texas, in March 2008, and a 72-page Memorandum Opinion provided the details of such schemes. [ xxii ] The June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendations issued by Magistrate Carla Woehrle concluded by recommending denial with prejudice. [ xxiii ] The 25 page review, carefully referenced, was distinguished as habeas corpus review by the fact that it failed to ever explicitly state the caption of the Los Angeles Superior Court case that was under review, or ever mention the word "warrant". [ xxiv ] A June 29, 2009 Judgment issued by Judge John Walter, who presided in the case after a number of recusals, accepted the recommendation.[ xxv ] However, both of these court papers, like all papers issued by the U.S. District Court in this case lacked authentication, required to make court papers valid and effectual, and were therefore invalid court records. [ xxvi ] Likewise, a petition filed on Fine's behalf at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit - Fine v Sheriff (09-71692), was denied, but the June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition, bearing the names of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Richard Tallman was unsigned, unentered, and lacked authentication as well. [ xxvii ]
Eventually, Fine filed petitions and applications to the US Supreme Court. However, the pattern of pretense review and invalid court records and procedures persisted even in the highest court of the land. A Motion to Intervene was filed in the US Supreme Court, including detailed review of the false records of the jail and the lower courts. [ xxviii ] However, the papers were never reviewed by the US Supreme Court. Instead, they were “returned” by mail, in apparent violation of both US and international law, with no review at all. [ xxix ] Moreover, while the online dockets of the US Supreme Court indicated that the cases of Richard Fine were reviewed and denied, attempts to access the records of the US Supreme Court, to inspect and to copy the records, found no valid judicial records to support the notations in the online dockets. [ xxx ]
6. Arbitrary release
On September 17, 2010, Richard Fine was released by the Sheriff. Again, the release took place with no valid order ever entered by the Los Angeles Superior Court. Instead, September 17, 2010 Minutes were issued under caption of Marina v LA County (BS109420), where issuance of an order was described, but no evidence of a signed order was ever found. The Minutes also failed to spell out that an order was ever signed by Judge Yaffe to affect the release of Richard Fine on that date, either. [ xxxi ] The September 17, 2010 Minutes opening sentence states: For reasons known only to himself, Fine is attempting to obtain his release… Further, the September 17, 2010 Minutes justify the abrupt release as follows: It is becoming increasingly clear that Fine’s conduct is irrational… His conduct is bizarre, and that fact alone must be considered by this court… The September 17, 2010 Minutes also failed to appear among the list of court records in the case, which were published online by the Court. Likewise, the Case Summary failed to state that any Order was signed by Judge Yaffe on September 17, 2010, or entered by the Court on that date. Of note, a day earlier, Judge David Yaffe posted minutes, which denied Richard Fine’s request for release. What caused the change of mind overnight and the abrupt release of Fine on Sepetember 17, 2010, remained unknown. Combined, the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Richard Fine present an example of arbitrary and capricious deprivation of liberty through collusion of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. The California Code of Regulations, Title 15: Crime Prevention and Corrections, §3273. Acceptance and Surrender of Custody, states: Wardens and superintendents must not accept or surrender custody of any prisoner under any circumstances, except by valid court order or other due process of law.
7. Public responses and media coverage
Most of the reporting on the Richard Fine case was through off mainstream media outlets and the internet. [ xxxii ] When the case reached mainstream media outlets, it was often reported in an incomplete and partial manner. [ xxxiii ] Any mention of the case was persistently deleted from the English Wikipedia. [ xxxiv ] Fine's jailing was perceived by many as false imprisonment, and became the center point for demands for reform of the judiciary. Small rallies took place outside the Men's Central Jail, and fundraisers were organized to help sponsor his legal expenses.[ xxxv ] Embattled Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Alex Kozinski never commented on the unsigned order issued in his name in this case, which appeared inconsistent with his usual liberal, civil rights-sensitive, judicially-incisive reputation. [ xxxvi ]
8. The Los Angeles Superior Court
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, is the largest county court in the United States, serving over 10 million people. Government, expert, and media reported widespread corruption of the Court for almost two decades. [ xxxvii ] The fundamental judicial wrongdoing at the Los Angeles Superior Court, as alleged by those who consider the case of Richard Fine False Imprisonment, should be viewed in perspective of the widespread False Imprisonment instances of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) affected by the same court. Such false imprisonments had been documented already a decade ago, as part of the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000), and were estimated by PBS Frontline at many thousands. [ xxxviii ] However, the latest official Rampart scandal report by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel, titled Rampart Reconsidered (2006), documented the Superior Court judges as key parties in the ongoing refusal to free the Rampart-FIPs over the past decade. The report recommended "external investigation" of the Los Angeles justice system, which was never instituted. It also singled out the Los Angeles Superior Court as requiring review. [ xxxix ] Such external investigation has never been instituted to this date. Based on report of conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Human Rights Council 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) Staff Report referred to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California”. [ xl ]
One of the central recommendations of the 2010 UPR report on the United States pertained to restoration of the right for habeas corpus, with reference to detentions in Guantanamo Bay. [xli ] As documented in the case of Richard Fine, the right of habeas corpus was effectively denied also on a US citizen, former US prosecutor, in the territorial United States.
9. Computerized records in the courts and prisons
United Nation reports promote the computerization of the courts as a measure that can enhance transparency and integrity of the court. [ xlii ] However, the case of Richard Fine documented the opposite effect. In all cases, the courts, and also the Sheriff’s Department, engaged in the same conduct 6/9
– publication of false and deliberately misleading records online, while denying access to true and valid record – in violation of both US and international law. [ xliii ] The agencies involved the case falsification of records in this case included: 1. The Los Angeles Superior Court; 2. The Sheriff’s Department; 3. The US District Court, Central District of California; 4. The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and 5. The US Supreme Court. The case of Richard Fine prompted more extensive review of the records of the prisons and courts, and the practice was found to be widespread. [ xliv ] The rules pertaining to the maintenance of honest records in the English speaking courts evolved over centuries, and were the core of due process. The case of Richard Fine documented in great detail that the transition from paper to electronic records, which was conducted with insufficient public and legal oversight, has undermined the integrity of the justice system in the United States. Similar risks are posed to the justice systems of other nations. The case of Richard Fine resembles in some of its aspects a contemporary Michael Kohlhaas. In fact, some legal scholars believe that the United States has entered a new Robber Baron Era. [ xlv ]
Richard Fine’s biography Hhttp://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine
09-06-07 Fighting Against Alleged Judicial Bias, Jailed For Contempt – Fox News Hhttp://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-judicialbias0607,0,206146.story iii Richard Fine’s biography Hhttp://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine iv 07-10-30 Richard I. Fine Asks State Bar Court to Reinstate Right to Practice – Metropolitan News Enterprise Hhttp://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/fine10307.htm v 08-06-25 Attorney Accuses State Bar of Violating First Amendment – Metropolitan News Enterprise Hhttp://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/fine062508.htm vi 08-08-29 Attorneys under Scrutiny: Richard Fine – Metropolitan News Enterprise Hhttp://www.metnews.com/endmoaugust08.htmlH 09-02-12 California Supreme Court Orders Disbarment of Attorney Richard I. Fine – Metropolitan News Enterprise Hhttp://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/fine021209.htmH The State Bar of California Hhttp://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_home.jspH vii Richard Fine’s biography Hhttp://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/bio-of-richard-i-fine viii 2009 video interview with Richard Fine – Face Up to Fred Hhttp://faceuptofred.com/season_2009/vol2n4.htmlH 09-11-14 The Fight Against Illegal Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption – Full Disclosure Network Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/11/fight-against-illegal-judicial-benefits.html ix 2009 video interview with Richard Fine – Face Up to Fred Hhttp://faceuptofred.com/season_2009/vol2n4.html x 11-01-03 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Sturgeon v LA County (D056266) in the California Court of Appeals, 4th District - Opined as Elaborate Fraud on the California Courts – Human Rights Alert Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46230797/H xi 09-02-14 SBX 2-11 - California Senate Hhttp://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx2_11_bill_20090214_amended_sen_v98.htmlH SBX2 11 (Steinberg): Judges: employment benefits – Around the Capitol Hhttp://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/SBX2_11/H 09-12-12 Irate Citizens Hijack Legislative Hearing, Cite Corruption & Courts As Problem – Full Disclosure Network Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/labels/SBX2%2011.htmlH 09-08-19 Mardi Explains SBX 2-11 – Face Up to Fred Hhttp://faceuptofred.com/wordpress/?p=104 xii The case of Marina Del Rey Home Owners' Association v County of Los Angeles pertained to injunction requested by the Home Owners’ Association against permission granted by the County of Los Angeles for development in the Los Angeles marina area by large private construction companies with connections to the Los Angeles County Supervisors.
In several copies, separately stamped by the clerk and separately endorsed by Judge David Yaffe, the record was stamped as "FILED" at the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 4, 2009, but endorsed by Judge Yaffe as if on March 24, 2009. For copies of the records, see the filing in the US Supreme Court, [xx], below. xiv 10-03-09 Marina v LA County (BS109420) - False Hospitalization of Attorney Richard Fine Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28102563/H xv 09-07-06 Jail Cell 9-1-1 Call Raises More Alarm – Full Disclosure Network Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/71.phpH 09-03-18 911 Call From Attorney In Jail – Full Disclosure Network Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/68.phpH xvi Free Fine – The Petition Site Hhttp://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fineH xvii False and deliberately misleading records provided by Sheriff Lee Baca in letter to Los Angeles County Supervisor, Michael Antonovich, in response to request for access to the California public records that were the non-existing warrant and booking records of Richard Fine. For over a year, Sheriff Lee Baca insists on providing false records - claiming that Richard Fine was arrested on location and by authority of the "San Pedro Municipal Court". No such court had existed for almost a decade: Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/H xviii 09-06-07 Lawyer takes a stand from his cell – Los Angeles Times Hhttp://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/local/me-contempt7H 09-11-30 LA Times Female Reporter Sneaks Into L.A.Men's Jail: Judge Banned Interview... – Full Disclosure Network Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/09/latimes-female-reporter-sneaks-into.html xix Docket-USDC-Habeas-July-16-2009Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/17421132/ xx 09-11-25 Missing Documents & Federal Court Rules: The Richard I Fine Case – Full Disclosure Network Hhttp://www.fulldisclosure.net/news/2009/09/video-missing-documents-federal-court.html xxi Detailed review of various false records pertaining to the arrest and purported review of the habeas corpus petitions of Richard Fine was included in the Motion to Intervene, filed with the US Supreme Court: a) April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court i) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court s Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/H ii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1 Amended Motion to Intervene s Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/ iii) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/H iv) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/H v) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/H vi) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 5 Amended Appendices Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34050423/H b) 10-04-20 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) - Face pages of five filings by Dr Joseph Zernik with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/H xxii 08-03-07 Judge Bohm and the Culture of Incompetence – Calculated Risk Hhttp://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/03/judge-bohm-and-culture-of-incompetence.html 08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248: Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's litigation practices, Countrywide's false outside counsel scheme - appearances by counsel who are not Counsel of Record, with "no communications with clients" clause: Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/H xxiii 09-06-12 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #26 - Report and Recommendation by US Magistrate Carla Woehrle Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/43992187/H xxiv In Fay v Noia 372 U.S. 391 (1963), the late Justice William Brennan, writing for he majority stated: "The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release" Hhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/372/391/case.htmlH xxv 09-06-29 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #31: June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John Walter Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44302663/H xxvi Authentication of Court Orders and Judgments as stipulated pursuant to Article IV §1 of the United StatesConstitution, and U.S. Act of May 26, 1790, U.S. Act of March 27, 1804, and implementation at the U.S. Courts of the dual docketing Case Management Systems PACER & CM/ECF, see Notice of Electronic Filing – Electric Law Library Hhttp://www.lectlaw.com/def/a223.htmH For further review of the issue of authentication, of lack thereof, in records of the US District Court, Central District of California, and US th Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit, see: 11-02-09 Press Release: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Insists on Conducting a Pretense Appeal from a Pretense Judgment of the US District Court Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/49070315/H 11-04-14 PRESS RELEASE: Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has been asked to review the evidence of large-scale computer fraud in the US courts Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/52993968/H xxvii th Kozinski, Alex – US Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit Hhttp://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/xtemplate_bio_record.asp?a=12&z=1H
Paez, Richard A. – US Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit Hhttp://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/xtemplate_bio_record.asp?a=15&z=1H th Tallman, Richard C. – US Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit Hhttp://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/xtemplate_bio_record.asp?a=22&z=1H 09-06-30 Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, alleged Fraud in unsigned unauthenticated order (Dkt #4) issued in the names of Circuit Judges Kozinski, Paez, and Tallman denying the Emergency Petition of Richard Fine Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27626788/H xxviii Motion to Intervene in the US Supreme Court, see [xx], above. xxix 10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/ xxx 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47539382/H xxxi 10-09-20 Marina v LA County (BS109420) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Ongoing Fraud by Judge Yaffe Alleged - in Failing to Issue and Enter an Order for the September 17, 2010 Release of Richard Fine – Human Rights Alert Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/37800280/H xxxii Free Fine – The Petition Site Hhttp://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine xxxiii 10-05-25 Richard Fine - CNN Blog - Correction of Error in CNN Reporting – Human Rights Alert Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/31908699/H 10-05-25 US Supreme Court Won't Hear Jailed LA Lawyer's Contempt of Court Case – Los Angeles Times Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/32226597/H 10-03-10 70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case – American Bar Association Journal Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28221190/H xxxiv Regarding editing of the English version of Wikipedia, see: 07-08-14 See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, The CIA, A Campaign – Wired Magazine Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47616724/H 11-03-07 Judicial Corruption and Human Rights Violations in the US? Not on Wikipedia – Human Rights Alert Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/50219758/H 09-06-07 Fighting Against Alleged Judicial Bias, Jailed For Contempt – Fox News Hhttp://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-judicialbias0607,0,206146.story xxxvi 06-07 Searching for Alex Kozinski – Reason.com Hhttp://reason.com/archives/2006/07/01/searching-for-alex-kozinski xxxvii 11-01-07 Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California: Widespread Public Corruption and Refusal of US Department of Justice to Take Action – Human Rights Alert Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46460640/H xxxviii 08-07 Outcome of the Rampart Scandal Investigations – Public Broadcast Service Hhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/later/outcome.html xxxix 06-07-15 Rampart Reconsidered, The Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report – Los Angeles Police Department Hhttp://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/rampart_reconsidered_executive_summary.pdfH Hhttp://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Full%20Report.pdfH Hhttp://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Appendices%20Final.pdfH xl 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report, with reference to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession". Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/H xli 10-11-11 UN calling upon the US to ratify and comply with Human Rights treaties and conventions, abolish the death penalty, guarantee habeas corpus rights, criminalize torture, close Guantanamo Bay... – Human Rights Alert Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/42218232/H 10-11-10 Outcome Document of the 2010 UPR of the United States: Wg.6 9 l.9 USA - United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights Working Group Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/42157366/H xlii 00-04-00 Report of the First Vienna Convention - Strengthening Judicial Integrity, CICP-6, United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2000) (See p5-6) Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/50364404/H 01-03-01 Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption CICP-10, United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2001) (see p5-6) Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/48103697/H xliii 10-03-15 Richard Fine: Victim of Alleged Fraud by Four Justice System Agencies in Concert Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28433783/H See also [xxviii,xxix], above. xliv Zernik, J: Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010) Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38328591/H Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010) Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/H xlv 0-01-21 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) at the Supreme Court of the United States - opinion of Prof Chemerinsky and Wikipedia overview Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/41364083/H
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.