This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
net, c=US Location: La Verne, California Date: 2009.10.13 11:11:36 -07'00'
Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhD PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: email@example.com
09-10-12 An appeal to Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca – to use his due authority and properly address the legal, civil and human rights of an American, inmate Richard Fine (1824367), and with it - mark a new beginning for the Los Angeles
County justice system…
Sheriff Lee Baca 4700 Ramona Blvd Monterey Park, CA 91754-2169 Tel: (323) 526-5000 Fax: (323) 267-6600
Timely response requested by Monday, October 19, 2009
Dear Sheriff Baca: My name is JOSEPH ZERNIK, and I am of the people of the United States, and of the people of Los Angeles County, California. I am not a lawyer, not even by a long shot. Therefore, please accept this letter as the writing of layperson, applying only commonsense... I recently took the time to review the proceedings and the records related to the ongoing jailing of RICHARD FINE, (CJ inmate #1824367). Here, I am appealing to you as a resident of Los Angeles County, with inherent interest in integrity of the justice system, and also as one who
Executive Summary: This appeal is filed with the Los Angeles County Sheriff – LEE BACA, – to use his due authority and properly address the legal, civil and human rights of an American, inmate RICHARD FINE (1824367). Reconstructed Chronology: Prior to the March 4, 2009 proceeding a request was forwarded to the Sheriff Department to have the Warrant Detail present in the proceeding, with the understanding that the proceeding would end with the sentencing and jailing of Atty Fine for contempt. Indeed, Judge DAVID YAFFE pronounced such sentence in open court, as evidenced in court reporter’s transcript – the first record of the proceeding. Through such oral directives, Judge Yaffe mislead the Sheriff’s Warrant Detail to arrest Atty Fine at 11:05 am. However, Judge Yaffe then left them with no record as an adequate legal foundation for such action. Instead, Judge Yaffe proceeded to create a second, contradictory record in court file – which did not reflect any sentencing or jailing at all. In fact – the March 4, 2009 proceeding was entirely eliminated from the record! The consequent Sheriff’s Warrant Detail record of booking in San Pedro at 12:32 pm was likely insufficient, and is the main subject of this appeal. By 4:31 pm, papers were received by the Sheriff’s Department through an anonymous fax transmission from “Judicial Services”. Such papers reflected yet a third, again misleading record for the litigation, including invalid records: The March 4, 2009 Remand Order and the March 4, 2009 Judgment for contempt. On such background it was understandable why Sheriff Baca refused to respond to Atty Richard Fine’s habeas corpus petition. The LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe eventually responded, through papers filed on May 1, 2009 by Atty KEVIN MCCORMICK. Such Response failed to include a declaration under penalty of perjury by Judge Yaffe – the competent fact witness, it also failed to produce the quintessential litigation records – the Register of Actions (docket), and any evidence of entry of judgment. It relied upon records from the Sheriff Department and the Court Reporter’s transcript – records which absent, at variance, and/or contradictory of the records in court file. Key records were filed as evidence with no authentication. Finally, there is no reason to believe that Judge Yaffe ever saw such pleading before or after it was filed on his behalf in court. It is inconceivable for the court to engage in such litigation practices to affect false imprisonment of an individual. Request was therefore filed directly with Judge Yaffe, to confirm that such records were filed with his knowledge and on his behalf. However, it remained unanswered. Pleading: We pray Sheriff Lee Baca review the arrest, booking, and permanent housing assignment records, and if any is found inadvertently insufficient - take corrective actions and immediately release Atty Fine. With it, the Sheriff may mark a new beginning for the Los Angeles County justice system, with dignity of the legal, civil, and human rights of all.
This appeal can also be viewed at http://inproperinla.com/09-10-13-appeal-to-sheriff-lee-baca-s.pdf or at blog <http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/>, with easy links to reference records. This appeal, like previous letters in the matter, was widely distributed to law school faculty, U.S. Congress, and international Human Rights organizations.
October 13, 2009
believes that he has evidence of inadvertent false jailing at the Sheriff’s CJ facility. I appeal to you because I believe that you have the duty and the authority to review the procedures executed in arrest, booking, and jailing of Richard Fine, and also the authority to take appropriate action as you may deem fit, following such review. Beyond that, I appeal to you because I read your online statement and your biography, and I believe that you have a clear vision of your position within the government system of Los Angeles County, and what you stand for as a man. You advocated that vision in your welcome message on the Sheriff’s web page:1
By example, I teach my people to create ideas, celebrate diverse people, and establish religious harmony throughout the County. Our specific action-oriented achievements include but are not limited to the following: • Our first order of business was to develop core values that prescriptively require all of us to address properly the legal, civil and human rights of all Americans. Our Core Values: As a leader in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, I commit myself to honorably perform my duties with respect for the dignity of all people, integrity to do right and fight wrongs, wisdom to apply common sense and fairness in all I do…
Finally, I appeal to you because you may be able to implement a solution for an intractable situation, which I believe is a disgrace for our courts and our government.
My Colors - Los Angeles
1. Personal review Question2 The question that I tried to answer for myself, in looking at the records could be stated in layperson’s language as follows: Did staff of the Sheriff Department have, at the time of the arrest, the booking, and the permanent housing assignment, the basic papers, which would demonstrate that in holding RICHARD FINE (CJ Inmate #1824367) and in depriving him of liberty, the Department conformed with the fundamentals of the law? If not – RICHARD FINE was entitled to his immediate release!
2. Available Records The records that were available to me were such that were found online among records of the LA superior court3 and the U.S. District Court LA4 in the respective proceedings, and I provided links at the endnotes of this appeal to all such records. In addition, a key records which were not used in any proceeding were RICHARD FINE’s Inmate information provided online by the Sheriff’s department, which was a critical resource.5 It was also compared and contrasted with the comparable record of another inmate, also an attorney, of similar age, arrested last week. 6 I also relied on various other online materials provided by your department in attempt to quickly understand the general workings of such complex operation, which I had no familiarity with. The materials provided online left me with the impression of a progressive Sheriff’s department, which cares for the health, safety and welfare of those under its custody, and also is concerned with integrity of its operations,
October 13, 2009
compliance with the law, and respect for Human Rights, as a key participant in the LA County justice system.7 Of particular significance were news reports, which served in an attempt to comprehend what in fact took place in the courtroom – in view of conflicting and contradictory records produced by the court itself. In particular – I benefited from the reporting of STEVEN ELLIS, Metropolitan News,8 and LESLIE DUTTON – Full Disclosure Network.9
3. Absent the Register of Actions (Docket) not even the most brilliant jurist could answer that question… In trying to answer the question outline above for myself, I faced a fundamental problem that could not be resolved: I early on realized that the Register of Actions was missing from the litigation records, which were filed by the parties. However, the office of the Clerk of LA Superior Court, Mr JOHN A CLARKE, refused to allow me access to inspect and to copy the Register of Actions (equivalent of Docket in the U.S. Courts) of the case10. Frankly, I did not know that there was any possible way that the most brilliant jurist could ever answer the question regarding compliance with the law absent the Register of Actions. In fact, the Register of Actions was even more restrictive than the typical docket. In such record, each judicial action had to be recorded, with its respective adjudication, in a manner that such record alone could substitute for the whole court file. The Register of Actions was the only way to know precisely which papers were, and which were not filed and entered, as effectual court papers in this case. Similarly, the Register of Actions was the only way to determine which rulings, orders, and judgments were in fact rendered by Judge Yaffe. The reliance on transcript instead, was seen as an inexplicable roundabout way to address the issue, and an invalid one, while the court held the true record of the litigation. Court rulings, orders, and judgments were all based on writings, for generations… not on oral transmission… There are numerous examples where judges act differently in writing their actions, than in pronouncing them orally in court. And in a court system, like the LA Superior Court, where the Registers of Actions were kept secret from the public and litigants, the differences were astonishing… 11 But beyond it all, there was the simple question: Why would an honest court ever defy the law and hide its Registers of Actions from the public, moreover - from parties in litigation? I don’t believe that anybody could provide an answer to this question, not Judge DAVID YAFFE, not Clerk JOHN A CLARKE, not Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE, not U.S. Judge JOHN WALTER, not U.S. Circuit Justices RICHARD PAEZ and RICHARD TALLMAN, and not even Chief Justice ALEX 12 KOZINSKI. Who all appeared to have given a nod of approval for such practice. I have no doubt, that upon review by a Human Rights Court, based on ratified International Law, such practice would be ruled as a severe abuse of Human Rights of the 10 million people who reside in Los Angeles County. Yet – the U.S. Courts – guardians of Civil Rights, allowed it to become a well established practice – for a quarter century!
October 13, 2009
4. Regardless of such limitation, attempt was made to establish a chronology. I was therefore left with (a) litigation records that were filed by the parties,13 (b) with the reporter’s transcript, 14 (c) with the list of records that are represented as “Available Images” – presumably reflecting the papers that the court considered the valid court papers in this case.15 (d) I also had to try to use the online “Case Summary” – published by the LA Superior Court, 16 albeit, with a Declaimer – that it should not be relied upon – and justly so. 17 (e) I also relied on evidence from news reports regarding what took place in the courtroom.
5. Chronology according to the online “Case History” – published by the Court – with a disclaimer – that it should not be relied upon. Given that the LA Superior Court has denied public access to the Registers of Actions for the past quarter-century (both civil and criminal), it was inevitable that the public relied on the Case Summaries, regardless of the Disclaimer. There simply was no other comparable resource for following the litigation, regardless of the obvious deficiencies in the online records. The chronology of the litigation at the LA Superior Court, in Judge DAVID YAFFE’s court, which resulted in the current indefinite jailing of Att RICHARD FINE, appeared as follows: a) March 4th , 2009 Proceeding - The March 4, 2009 proceeding, which was witnessed by media, and where Att RICHARD FINE was arrested, simply did not exist. It was not registered at all! b) March 4th Judgment and Order of Contempt in re: Richard I Fine 18- Among the listing of paper filed in the online “Case Summary”, there was a line item - that on March 4, 2009 a Judgment and Order for contempt was filed by the Clerk. However, that was insufficient to make a judgment valid and effectual: (i) The judgment had to be served and noticed in order to be entered and become effectual. There was no notation to that effect in the online Case Summary in re: the March 4, 2009 Judgment, (ii) Moreover, typically, in the register of actions, there would be a unique line item an Order for Entry of Judgment. There was none of that in the online Case Summary. (iii) Furthermore, in the Register of Actions each line item would be associated with a clerk’s user login and password, as well as login time and date. Therefore – in fact – digital signatures. In contrast – the “Case Summary” does not even record the initials of the clerks who entered the data, and therefore, the writing would be inherently invalid. (iv) Finally, according to California law, and also according to the local Rules of Court of LA County, 19 the judgment had to be signed by the judge in two copies, one should have been entered in the court file, according to procedures for entry of papers, and the other had to be entered in the Book of Judgment, and special laws governed the entry and notice of entry of judgment. The California law was and is explicit – that if the judgment was not entered as required, it was not effectual for any purpose at all!
The Hollywood Sign
October 13, 2009
Here –again I faced an intractable problem. The office of the Clerk of the Court, JOHN A I requested numerous time to inspect the Book of Judgments, and I was repeatedly told that there was no such thing in Los Angeles County for the past 25 years! However, the Local Rules of Court stated the opposite. In any event – there was no way that I could figure out what the true and correct procedure would be today, in LA County, for the entry of judgment, if there were no Book of Judgments. 20
I believe that such conditions, in themselves were so vague and ambiguous, that even if all other defects were cured, and even if we were permitted to sneak a peak at the Register of Actions, and found that the Judgment was registered with an Order of Entry of Judgment, not even the most brilliant jurist could figure out for a given Judgment record, whether it was entered as an effectual Judgment or not, in the absence of Book of Judgments, and when California law and the Local Rules of Court prescribe an entry in the Book of Judgments as prerequisite for entering a judgment and making it an effectual judgment.
The questions that immediately come to mind are obvious: Why would an honest court defy the law on such a central issue as making its judgments vague and ambiguous?
Why would an honest court operate for a quarter-century without updating its Rules of Court on a central issue such as entry of judgment? The answer is rather clear – the evidence indicated that judges of the LA Superior Court engaged in real estate fraud, founded on the ambiguity in entry of judgments. 21 Moreover, such fraud as in the referenced opinion letter was committed by an attorney who purportedly as a “Receiver”, under direct supervision of Judge David Yaffe – who is in charge of Receivers and Writs. In that respect one should also note that a recent news report tied the former Presiding Judge of the neighboring San Bernardino County, member of the California Judicial Council, to numerous cases of real estate fraud in the court.22 One should note, that Marina v LA County, the case underlying the arrest of Atty Fine, was a real estate litigation as well. One must also fault the U.S. Court for allowing such conditions to prevail in Los Angeles County, relative to the concealed Register of Actions and the hidden or non existent Book of Judgments. Such conditions opened a huge opening for dishonest manipulations – as in the case at hand. Moreover, on both the question of the missing Register of Actions, and the question of the missing record of entry of Judgment in a Book of Judgment - I shall provide first hand, personal knowledge testimony: Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE’s conduct - in not noticing those two humongous defects, and others - was no oversight! Again – there was and there is no doubt that upon review by Human Rights Court, pursuant to ratified International Law, such practices as related to entry of judgment at the Los Angeles Superior Court- would be found as severe abuse of Human Rights of the 10 millions who reside in the County. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was generated largely through efforts of then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. – Leonor Roosevelt, about half or more, of the first dozen Human Rights are directly tied to the establishment and safeguard of honest tribunals by the government of the country. 23 c) March 4, 2009 Remand Order 24 – There is no mention of it at all in the online “Case Summary”, it simply did not exist according to the Case Summary. Moreover, it also failed to
October 13, 2009
appear among the records that have “Available Images”, therefore- it presumably did not exist in the court file either. d) March 4, 2009 Minute Order 25– although it was not included in litigation records by any of the parties, one could find online among the “available images”, a March 4, 2009 Minute Order. Existence of such minute order could be claimed to contradict the Case History where no proceeding was listed for March 4, 2009. However, the March 4, 2009 minute order makes the history if anything more murky: (i) The March 4, 2009 Minute Order was not served or noticed, or at least – there is no record of that as is required by law, and therefore it was not a valid court record. Albeit it did appear among the “Available Images”. But then again – it was known to be the practice at the LA Superior Court – the court automatically “waived” the right for service and notice. And just as was the case with the hidden Registers of Actions and the nonexisting Book of Judgments, such custom opened the way for extreme alleged corruption of the court – from missing minute orders of “off the record” proceedings, to fictitious minute orders of proceedings that never took place in reality, and finally – the common practice of secretly “disposing” of minute orders that reflected pronouncements from the bench, and which appeared in paper court file as valid minute orders.26, 27 (ii) Any reasonable person who never read the press reports of the proceeding of March 4, 2009, upon reading the March 4, 2009 Minute Order, would be convinced that Judge DAVID YAFFE never issued a final sentencing on that day! The minute order discusses the sentencing in some detail, but its language at the bottom line implied that no sentencing was issued.
In sum: If one based his knowledge of the case on the online “Case History” and “Available Record Images” alone, there would be no way to conclude that attorney RICHARD FINE was ever jailed, or for that matter – that Judge DAVID YAFFE ever issued a final sentence, let alone entered a judgment, in the Bench Trial of the Contempt.
Accounting for the records
a) Register of Actions – key record for establishing the validity of the case as a whole, was not available. b) Book of Judgments – was not available – does not exists. c) March 4th , 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt in re: Richard I Fine: I believe that any reasonable person would conclude that this record was invalid on its face: i. On its front page it was stamped “FILED” with the date stamp of March 4, 2009. However, on it last page, it was hand signed by Judge David Yaffe, with the date hand inscribed as “March 24, 2009”. One may engage in various speculations as to what was the state of this record when it was faxed over to the Sheriff’s office, and when exactly that notation of March 24, 2009 was inscribed. But there was no way that any of the speculative scenarios would provide an option that would allow to deem this record valid and honest, effectual court record of a judgment.
October 13, 2009
Again – the question may arise: How could such a glaring defect escape the Triers of Facts in this case. ii. Furthermore, the Judgment record came with no authentication – there was no proof of service and notice of entry by the clerk, it was simply missing. Attorney Richard Fine communicated to me that on March 4, 2009, he had in court in his possession only the unsigned Proposed Judgment, but not the final signed judgment. There was no evidence from any other source that even suggested that the judgment was ever served, noticed, and entered. d) March 4th, 2009 Remand Order- The Remand Order appeared as the incorrect instrument in this case, and it also appeared incorrectly completed as for its details – but such issue was way above my understanding, and I would leave it for the Sheriff Department to answer these questions. However, even for a layperson, the Remand Order appeared defective on other counts: (i) There was no mention of it in the Case History, (ii) There was no image of it among the “Available Images”, indicating that it was not found in court file either, and (iii) It was never served on Att Richard Fine either.
7. According to news reports, the court reporter’s transcript, Inmate Information, and
“fill in” of the missing details, the following script was generated. The March 4, 2009 hearing probably started around 9:00 am. A large group of sheriff deputies were present in the courtroom throughout (about 10 according to news report), which were described in the booking record as the “LASD-WARRANT DETAIL”.
Fill-in needed: i. Who gave the Sheriff the advance notice that an arrest was anticipated? ii. The name of the unit implied that a warrant had to be somewhere, somehow part of the process. What were the standard procedures in such circumstances relative to service of judgment and warrant? iii. Were the standard procedures of the Sheriff Department indeed followed?
a) During the proceedings Judge David Yaffe engaged in reviewing the specifics of the judgment, and in conclusion, the transcript cites him as verbally sentencing Att Richard Fine to jail for contempt, until such time when Att Fine would notify the court that he was ready to accept the authority of Commissioner Murray Gross. News report were consistent with the Transcript on this issue. The refusal to accept the authority of Commissioner Murray Gross was the essence of the conviction of contempt. Judge David Yaffe eliminated any other charge that could possibly be the foundation for the prolonged jailing. However, as noted before, sentencing and judgment by oral transmission were never part of either California or the U.S. law… Judgments must be based in writings, conforming with the fundamentals of the law. b) Immediately after that, Judge Yaffe left the courtroom, and the Warrant Detail arrested Att Richard Fine at 11:05 am, He was transferred out of court and to Sheriff facilities.
iv. What was missing in the sequence described above was any process related to service or exchange of papers, e.g. – the judgment, after the corrections, should have been signed by the judge, and served on all parties, if it were to be executed instantly. v. Similarly – some paper of the nature of a warrant should have been issued and served, to authorize the warrant detail to execute the arrest. None of that was reported.
October 13, 2009
c) Richard Fine was taken first to a Reception Facility of the Sheriff’s Department. According to the booking record – Richard Fine was booked at 12:23pm, at the San Pedro Court,
Municipal Division 86. Fill-in needed: vi. Was this standard procedure? vii. Wasn’t it an unnecessary detour? Judge David Yaffe’s Courtroom was at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse,
YAFFE, DAVID Judge Stanley Mosk Courthouse 86
viii. The MCJ (Men’s Central Jail) was less than 1 mile away, and the San Pedro Sheriff Station was 24 miles away. ix. Was the San Pedro Station at all equipped for inmate intake? The Twin Towers Jail included the large professional facility of IRC (Inmate Reception Center), headed by Captain Gerald K. Cooper. It was listed as holding a staff of 800, some 450 of them deemed professional staff, capable of administering various screening procedures that were conducted as a routine for all newly arriving inmates, including medical and mental screening. One must commend the Sheriff’s department for the emphasis in budget and personnel given to the Imamate Reception Center. It surely reflects an enlightened approach to correction facility management. The Custody and Correctional Facilities of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department as listed online, included: 1. IRC (Inmate Reception Center) at TTCJ, 2. Men's Central Jail, 3. Twin Towers, 4. Century Regional Detention Facility, 5. Mira Loma Detention Center, 6. Pitchess Detention Center (The Ranch): a. East Facility , b. North Facility, 7. North County Correctional Facility. San Pedro Sheriff Station was not listed as one of the Custody and Correctional Facilities. The San Pedro facility appeared to be a small or more appropriately described as minute station serving the miniscule courthouse it was housed in. The Courthouse itself was listed by the LA Superior Court as “San Pedro Annex”, and it was listed as holding the following judges and departments: 1. PAUL, ROY Judge San Pedro Courthouse Annex 88C x. Did Inmate Richard Fine ever benefit from a reception screening as was accorded to other incoming inmates? xi. Why wasn’t he booked at the IRC of MCJ itself? xii. Did Municipal Division 86 exist at all at San Pedro? Or was it a reference to David Yaffe’s Courtroom, Department 86, albeit – not in San Pedro? xiii. Was Richard Fine indeed detoured to San Pedro on March 4, 2009?
e) The reception procedure must involve a officer of the Sheriff Department of sufficient rank to be authorized by Sheriff Lee Baca to make a determination regarding the validity of the legal foundation of the arrest and jailing, as well as other professional determinations.
Fill-in needed: xiv. Who was the Sheriff Deputy who signed off on Att Richard Fine’s booking at 12:23 pm in San Pedro? xv. Did the procedure include any verification of valid papers as foundation for the arrest and jailing? xvi. Were there any papers in the Sheriff’s Warrant Detail’s possession at that time that could possibly constitute the foundation for the arrest and the jailing? xvii. Absent such papers, what would be the Sheriff Department’s procedure to follow under such circumstances? xviii. Were such set standard procedures indeed followed? xix. If not, why?
f) At 4:31 pm, on March 4, 2009, papers that were later filed in court by Att McCormick, as the foundation for Att Richard Fine’s jailing, were received by fax transmission, The sender was identified in the fax header imprint as line number (213) 626 795# (the last digit was illegible). identified as Judicial services. By reverse lookup of the related numbers and google mapping, it was likely to have originated at the Mosk courthouse.
October 13, 2009
ID: 31 CONTINENT: North America COUNTRY: US STATE: CA LOCATION: Los Angeles (downtown) LATITUDE: 34.05 LONGITUDE: -118.23 ELEVATION_:269 Fill-in needed: xx. Was it standard procedure to send and receive anonymous fax transmissions regarding critical legal matters? xxi. Was the authentication record for this transmission on a separate record? This fax transmission included critical legal documents, but it appeared as a 15 page fax transmission with no cover page, and no indication who it was sent by and who was the receiver. Needless to say, one must wonder about compliance with the evidence code by Att KEVIN MCCORMICK who filed such records as critical evidence, with anonymous authentication, and also Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE, who seemed to not notice so many of the inherent defects in Att MCCORMICK’s filing. xxii. Who was the sender? By what authority was such record issued? By what authority was it faxed? xxiii. Who was the receiver? xxiv. Where was Richard Fine physically at that time? xxv. What was his intake status prior to receipt of the fax? xxvi. What was his intake status following receipt of the fax? xxvii. Who signed on the intake relative to these papers? xxviii. Was that person authorized? xxix. What was the determination of such Sheriff Deputy relative to validity of such records as the foundation for the jailing? g)
On or about March 4, 2009, at an unknown time, Richard Fine was transported from San Pedro (if he indeed was detoured to that station first), to the Twin Tower Jail.
Fill-in needed: xxx. Wouldn’t such transfer require a real Remand Order or some other record? xxxi. Who signed it off? At what time and place? xxxii. Was it done in compliance with Sheriff’s procedures? h)
Facade - Twin Tower Jail
On or about March 4, 2009, at an unknown time, Richard Fine arrived at Twin Towers, and eventually was housed in the medical facility, according to news reports, in what may be called solitary confinement. Moreover, according to reports, he never even left his cell for a walk in the open yard for several months at a time. In the initial period he was denied access to pen and paper. He was also denied the right to visit the legal library. His housing was rather isolated, to the degree that it allowed an LA Times female journalist to sneak in, interview him at a time that such interview were prohibited, and sneak out, without any authorization by the Sheriff’s Department. Housed in such manner, Richard Fine did not participate in prisoner counts during his confinement at the Twin Tower Jail. All other inmates were counted three times a day, in a formal procedure, and the count had to be reconciled and cleared, before the inmates were dismissed from attention at the count routine.
Fill in Needed: xxxiii. Did Richard Fine ever conclude a Reception procedure at Twin Towers? xxxiv. If so, who signed it off? Was that person authorized? Was the person compliant with sheriff’s procedures? xxxv. Does Richard Fine’s name appear today in the Index of All Inmates of Twin Towers?
October 13, 2009
xxxvi. It appeared logical that the reconciliation would be against an Index of All Inmates, which would be
constructed by adding on to the Index the records of inmates, who completed the reception procedure and were signed in by authorized sheriff’s deputy, on the one hand, and by eliminating the Index records of inmates, who were remanded to court, to other facilities, or released.
xxxvii. Was Richard Fine ever enumerated in the months since March 4, 2009 in any count of inmates?
xxxviii. Would it be correct to describe him as an “off the record”, “off the count” inmate?
Cells at Twin Tower Jail
On or about March 19, 2009, at 13:06 RICHARD FINE was Assigned Permanent Housing. He was permanently house at CJ – the same facility he was already in, and not at the TTCF (Twin Tower Central Facility). Address: 441 BAUCHET STREET City: LOS ANGELES. At the time of permanent housing assignment, a Sheriff Deputy had to review the records again, and again - professional determinations had to be made, which were essential in any effort to address properly the legal, civil and human rights of RICHARD FINE, or any other inmate for that purpose, American or just plain human.
Fill in Needed: xxxix. Who was the Sheriff Deputy who signed off on the Permanent Housing assignment? xl.Was that person authorized? Was the person following sheriff’s procedures? xli. What was the basis for the unusual housing assignment for Richard Fine?
8. Conclusion Based on the review above, as well as review of the docket 28 of the litigation of the habeas corpus petition of Atty RICHARD FINE it was concluded that there was no evidence that Judge DAVID YAFFE ever saw the filing entered on his behalf by Atty KEVIN MCCORMICK, either before or after its filing. In fact, it appeared only logical and consistent with all the other records, that engagement was framed in a manner that Atty McCormick was precluded from any communications with Judge DAVID YAFFE. Even in an adversarial system it is deemed inconceivable for the court to engage in such litigation practices in order to affect the false imprisonment of a person. Therefore, a notice was sent to Judge DAVID YAFFE 29 requesting that he confirm that such papers as were filed by Att McCormick were indeed filed on his behalf. No answer was received so far. 9. Appeal: a) Appeal that the Sheriff review the validity of the records that are the foundation for the holding of RICHARD FINE, to verify that they conform with the fundamentals of the law. Based on the review above, of litigation chronology, appeal is filed with to Los Angeles Sheriff to review the circumstances and the records pertaining to the arrest, booking and reception and permanent housing of Inmate RICHARD FINE (CJ inmate #1824367). It appears likely that some or most of the records may not be valid and effectual records. Specifically – it appears that at the time of the arrest, at 11:05 am on March 4, 2009, there was no valid warrant to form the foundation for such action. Similarly, it is greatly doubted, and there is no evidence that any record existed by 12:32 pm, at the time reported for the booking. Even at the time of Permanent Housing Assignment, it is alleged that there were no valid records to substantiate the holding of RICHARD FINE, since both the March 4, 2009 Judgment, and the March 4, 2009 Remand Order, are invalid records.
October 13, 2009
Furthermore, it is argued that even if such records were valid, the fact that the court created double or triple records that were diametrically opposite, renders all such records invalid on their face. b) In case the records do not conform with the law – appeal for the immediate release of RICHARD FINE This appeal is filed with the Los Angeles Sheriff under the belief that it is both his duty and his authority to engage in such review, and to release RICHARD FINE if he concludes that there is no records conforming with the law to substantiate the ongoing holding. c) It is hoped that such action would mark the beginning a new effort to reform the Los Angeles County justice system, and free the Rampart-FIPs It is hoped that the Sheriff would establish an anchor of integrity in the justice system of Los Angeles County, and that the U.S. government will follow through and compel the LA Superior Court to comply with the law relative to public access to court records such as the Registers of Actions and the Book of Judgments or equivalent, and minute orders. Request to that effect was filed over a year ago with the U.S. Department of Justice, specifically – asking for the appointment of a Special Counsel pursuant to 28 CFR §600 with the specific short term mandate to investigate and prosecute the denial of public access to public records in Los Angeles County, California. It was recommended at the time, that in parallel, there would be a need to establish “Truth and Reconciliation Committees”, since it is alleged, that the nature of the records that would be found, would amount to catalogues of criminality of the judiciary, based on records that have been so far reviewed. Responses provided at that time by KENNETH MELSON-Director, U.S. Department of Justice, and KENNETH KAISER – Assistant Director, FBI, to inquiries on my behalf by Senator DIANNE FEINSTEIN and Congresswoman DIANE WATSON, were deemed false and deliberately misleading. Events of the year that passed, and not the least the jailing of Att RICHARD FINE, demonstrated that the claims I made then were true and accurate. In fact, the claims of widespread corruption of the judiciary in Los Angeles County was confirmed by no other than the California Judicial Council and the California Governor. In February 2009, the California Senate passed a bill providing pardon for all Los Angeles County judges for alleged past criminality, at the urging of the California Judicial Council…30 It is therefore hoped that the new Attorney General – ERIC HOLDER, would indeed appoint such Special Counsel to ensure public access to public court records, which is an essential common law and Human Right It is also believed that allowing such access would lead to speedy release of the Rampart –FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons). 31 They are almost exclusively black and Hispanic, and their number is unknown, but was estimated at more than 10,000. Their ongoing imprisonment, a decade after they were shown to have been falsely convicted and falsely sentenced is a human rights disgrace of historic proportions! 10. Copies of this appeal is widely distributed, as were previous communications on the matter.
The Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
October 13, 2009
This message is copied to most of the Stanford law school faculty, as well as the Harvard Law school faculty- hoping that somebody who is knowledgeable about the law would speak up, particularly regarding the denial of a public access to court records. It is also copied to the staff of the Judiciary Committees of House and Senate, who have been asked for over a year to run a hearing on the alleged widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California. This letter is copied to various OIGs and other offices of the DOJ and various law enforcement agencies. In addition, this message is copied to the Basel Committee on International banking accords – since there is no chance of improvement in the U.S. banking regulatory system, as long as the justice system that it is part of, gains some level of integrity. Furthermore, it was alleged that the corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County is directly connected to alleged racketeering by Countrywide Legal Department - now part of the Bank of America General Counsel office. This letter is copied to the Chinese embassy, Washington DC – with over $2 trillion reserves in dollar denominations, they are major stakeholders in our banking system as well. The issue of integrity of the U.S. banking and regulatory system was reported as central in the May 2009 visit by Treasury Secretary Geithner, which was described as “difficult”… We are left to hope that the Chinese Government would make not only the integrity of the Banking system, but improvement of the of Human Rights record of the U.S. government –key conditions for any accommodations on currency exchange rates.32 This letter is also copied to the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights.
KENNETH MELSON Director US Dept of Justice
Respectfully submitted, Dated: October 13, 2009 Los Angeles County, California ________/s/ Joseph H Zernik______ JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca welcome message: http://inproperinla.com/09-10-12-sheriff-department-of-los-angeles-county-sheriff-lee-baca-s-message-s.pdf Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
KENNETH KAISER Assistant Director, FBI Criminal Investigations
3 Marina v LA County (BS109420) at the Los Angeles Superior Court, the jailing of Att Richard Fine purportedly was the outcome of ancillary proceeding on contempt under this caption. 4
Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
Inmate Information for Richard fine http://inproperinla.com/09-04-21-richard-fine-inmate-information-center-%20booking-details.pdf
Inmate Information for Ronald Gottschalk http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-banl-persons-goa_09-10-08-booking-record-gottschalck-ronald.pdf
Description of the facility, resources, budgets, staff and procedures at the Inmate Reception Center (IRC) at Twin Towers facility.
October 13, 2009
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-usdisuea_lasda_lasd_Los%20Angeles%20County%20Sheriff's%20Department%20%20Correctional%20Services%20Division%20-%20Inmate%20Reception%20Center.pdf Steven Ellis, Metropolitan News, March 5, 2009 – report of arrest of Richard Fine: Mr Steven Ellis informed me that he himself was not present in the proceedings, but that he interviewed sources, who were present at the proceedings, and was confident that his report could be relied upon http://inproperinla.com/09-03-05-met-news-court-sentences-disbarred-attorney-fine-to-jail-for-contempt.pdf Leslie Dutton, Full Disclosure Network, March 4, 2009 – report of arrest of Richard Fine. http://inproperinla.com/09-03-04-full-disclosure-network-att-richard-fine-jailed-in-attempt-to-disqualify-la-judge.pdf Marina v LA County (BS109420) at the Los Angeles Superior Court, the jailing of Att Richard Fine purportedly was the outcome of ancillary proceeding on contempt under this caption.
11 10 9 8
Page 1 of Register of Actions from Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) with false notation: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Real Parties in Interest… http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-register-of-actions-page-1-sustain-s.pdf
The names of Justices Kozinski, Tallman, and Paez, were listed on a June 30, 2009 unsigned order issued by th the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf
Papers filed May 1, 2009 by Att Kevin McCormick, as part of the Response to the Atty Richard Fine’s Habeas Corpus Petition: Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-cv-01914) a) Response/Answer to the habeas corpus petition - on behalf of Judge David Yaffe - by Atty Kevin McCormick, failing to include a declaration by Judge Yaffe. (Dkt #15) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-15_reponse-by-judge-yaffe-&-la-sup-ctf&e-may-1-2009.pdf b) Declaration of Att McCormick in support of the Answer (Dkt #16-1) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-1_declaration-by-counselfor-la-supct-in-support-of-response-f&e-may-1-2009.pdf c) Exhibit A to the Declaration – (a) March 4, 2009 Remand Order, and (b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt (Dkt #16-2): http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-ofcontempt-inmarina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf d) Exhibit B to the Declaration - March 27, 2008 Order Striking Notice of Disqualification (Dkt #16-3) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-3_exh-b-yaffe-strikingfine-statementof-disqualification.pdf e) Exhibit D to the Declaration - March 4, 2009 Transcript (Dkt #16-5): http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-5_transcript-of-march-4-2009.pdf
Transcript of Proceedings of March 4, 2009 that led to the arrest and jailing of Atty Richard Fine. http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-5_transcript-of-march-4-2009.pdf
List of “Available Record Images” from LA Superior Court Marina v LA County (BS109420) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-a-09-07-17-available-online-records-s.pdf
“Case Summary” – published by the court online, with a disclaimer that it should not be relied upon. http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-a-09-06-24-case-summary-s.pdf
Disclaimer by the LA Superior Court in re: Online Case Summary. Published by the court. http://inproperinla.com/09-10-12-los-angeles-superior-court-disclaimer-s.pdf
18 March 4, 2009 Remand Order, and (b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt (Dkt #16-2): http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-ofcontempt-inmarina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
October 13, 2009
Local Rules of Court of LA County in re: Entry of Judgment: Rules pertaining to Judgment – Chapter 3, Rules pertaining to the duty of the Clerk of Court to maintain public Book of Judgment and public Registers of Actions: http://inproperinla.com/09-10-12-los-angeles-superior-court-rules-of-court-s.pdf
Attempt to review conditions today in LA County relative to entry of judgment: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-conclusions-us-constitution-non-compliance.pdf
21 Opinion letter by highly decorated veteran FBI agent and fraud expert James Wedick: http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opinion-s.pdf 22
Report from San Bernardino County, California – tying the former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court to real estate fraud cases: http://inproperinla.com/09-09-11-former-san-bernardino-county-superior-court-presiding-judge-sustpect-of-realestate-frauds-san-bernardino-county-sentinel.pdf . Universal Declaration of Human Rights- ratified International Law http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-international-ratified-48-12-10-the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights.pdf March 4, 2009 Remand Order, and (b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt (Dkt #16-2): http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-ofcontempt-inmarina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf March 4, 2009 – Minute Order of proceedings in Marina v LA County (BS109420) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-minute-order.pdf Evidence for corrupt court records based, among other matters on manipulation of hidden minute orders: Evidence for alleged fraud in the LA County case management system SUSTAIN http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-abstract-&-figures.pdf
27 Of note, all three factors listed relative to lack of integrity in operation of the LA Superior Court – namely – hidden Registers of Actions, hidden Book of Judgment, and “waiver” of service and notice of Minute Orders, are directly tied to the operation of SUSTAIN – the court’s case management system. Opinion letter relative to operation of Sustain: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-opinion-letter-09-04-20-eli-shamir-opinion-letter-s.pdf 28 26 25 24 23
Docket of the petition under Fine v Sheriff Dept of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) : http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-09-06-08-docket.pdf
Letter addressed to Judge David Yaffe http://inproperinla.com/09-10-11-letter-judge-yaffe-confirm-papers-filed-under-his-name.pdf
Sbx 2-11 a bill offering the LA Superior Court judges pardon for past criminalities, and offering them indemnity for future criminalities, signed into law on February 20, 2009. http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-02-20-sbx-2-11-budge-bill.pdf
Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the RampartFIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from Guild Practitioner http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
b) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf b) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15,000 by criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001, updated 2005) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
Report of secretary of the Treasury Geithner May 2009 visit to Beijing. http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-china-09-05-30-geithner-trip_npr.pdf
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 reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.