You are on page 1of 5

Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD


PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2010

10-03-11 Richard Fine: Complaint filed with H Marshall Jarrett,


Director, US Attorneys Office

H Marshall Jarrett
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:58:43 -0800
To: "Attention: H. Marshall Jarrett,Director" <202.616.2278@metrofax.com>,
From: joseph zernik
Subject: False imprisonment of Attorney Richard Fine: Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick
and Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas; Request for equal protection under the law for Richard Fine.

Executive Office for United States Attorneys


H. Marshall Jarrett,Director
PH 202.514.2121 Fax 202.616.2278 Email:

RE: False imprisonment of Attorney Richard Fine: Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and
Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas; Request for equal protection under the law for Richard Fine.

Dear Special Agent Steven Goldman:

Please accept the writing below as a complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and against Courtroom Assistant
Donna Thomas, of the US District Court, Los Angeles, for perversion of justice in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Attorney
Richard Fine - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). Together, the two were instrumental in affecting his ongoing false
imprisonment.

The Local Los Angeles FBI, California Attorney General, and Los Angeles District Attorney Office continue to refuse to
 Page 2/5 March 11, 2010

take any action in matters pertaining to corruption of the justice system.

Respectfully,
Dated: March 11, 2010
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California Joseph H Zernik, PhD

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

Los Angeles, March 11 - in response to an article in the ABA Journal, titled: 70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-
Year Mark in Jail in Contempt Case, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, posted the correction, copied
and linked, below. [1]

Dr Zernik concluded: The case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in
providing a catalog of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.

JUDICIARY
 Page 3/5 March 11, 2010

70-Year-Old Lawyer Hits One-Year Mark in Jail in


Contempt Case
Posted Mar 10, 2010 1:03 PM CST
By Sarah Randag

A year ago, a Los Angeles County superior court judge sentenced lawyer Richard Fine to jail indefinitely
after he refused to provide personal financial information in an attorney fee dispute.
Now? He is still in jail, Dan Walters writes in a column for the Sacramento Bee, if not still a lawyer:
TheState Bar of California indicates that he has been disbarred.
Fine has been a longtime critic of Los Angeles County's practice of giving its judges nearly $50,000 in extra
pay over their state salaries, and that it creates a conflict of interest for judges hearing cases involving the
county, Walters writes. And, on top of that, Fine says that because of the extent of his criticism, it's a conflict
for any judge to hear a case involving him.
A state appellate court agreed with Fine in 2008, saying the payments violated California's constitution. But
the legislature passed a retroactive authorization of the payments last year, Walters writes.
Fine has petitioned for his release, but the California Supreme Court refuses to interfere, and the San
Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied his petition, Walters writes.
"Fine holds the key to his jail cell," Kevin McCormick, an attorney for the Los Angeles court, said in an
appellate brief. "By simply agreeing to answer the questions and produce documents concerning his assets,
that he has a legal obligation to provide, his coercive confinement will end."

COMMENTS

1. B. McLeod
Mar 10, 2010 4:37 PM CST
Its probably just that he enjoys the food there.

2. Peter C. Lomtevas
Mar 11, 2010 6:12 AM CST
The issue here is not Fines holding the key to his confinement.
He dared to expose a potential fraud upon the public that has to do with judicial impartiality and in
California, one dare not question the integrity of the judiciary. The animosity between bar and bench is
legendary and this has bred some California superlawyers who dedicated their practice before one or two
judges and always win no matter the odds. Justice depends upon retaining one of these.
California is said to be the land of fruits, nuts and flakes. No one ever stepped into a California courtroom
without that thought popping into his mind.

3. Joseph Zernik
Mar 11, 2010 12:19 PM CST
Please stand corrected, being the ABA Journal, regarding the facts in the Richard Fine Case:
1) Richard Fine was never sentenced for Contempt, there is no valid court record such as judgment or
 Page 4/5 March 11, 2010

sentencing in the case - Marina v LA County (BS109420). Neither is there any Assignment Order for the
Judge in the case, or Appointment Order for the purported Debtor Examiner, Murray Gross, whose
authority Mr Fine therefore justly disputed.
2) Neither was the March 4, 2009 proceeding that was described by media as the Sentencing Hearing, ever
included in the informal, online, litigation chronology (which comes with a disclaimer).
3) However, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles continues to deny access to the Register
of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS10940) the case, in ancillary proceedings of
which Mr Fine was purportedly arrested, in disregard of First Amendment rights.
4) Neither was there ever a valid warrant for the arrest of Mr Fine.
5) Accordingly, the Sheriffs Department denied for months access to the Arrest and Booking records, in
disregard of California Public Records Act.
6) Even after numerous complaints, the Sheriffs Department insisted on keeping falsely publishing online
that Richard Fine was arrested at and by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro, when media
reported that the arrest took place on March 4, 2009, in downtown Central District of the Superior Court
Courthouse, in the city of Los Angeles.
7) In response to inquiry by Supervisor Antonovich, the Sheriffs Bureau finally responded that California
Public Records Act did not require it to produced records which did not exist.
8) In her scholarly June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the
habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine - US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, never mentioned the word Warrant
in a case highlighted by warrantless arrest, neither did it mention the caption of the case of the Superior
Court , which purportedly was under reviewed. Moreover, the habeas corpus petition was concluded without
the Register of Actions of Marina v LA County ever being produced, therefore, with no foundation at all for
any other record in the case.
9) Respondent Sheriff refused to respond on the habeas corpus petition.
10) The Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe joined the case as Intervenors, through false representation
by Attorney Kevin McCormick, was failed to file certification of Counsel of Record, failed to ever provide any
declaration by his clients, or ever file any record provided by his clients. In short, he was likely employed as
false counsel, with no communications with client clause.
11) Accordingly - none of the Minutes, Orders, Judgment in Fine v Sheriff, was ever entered as valid court
records - all were served on Richard Fine with no valid NEFs (Notice of Electronic Filing) at all. Neither
would Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court allow access to inspect and to copy the NEFs in Fine v Sheriff, in
disregard of First Amendment rights.
12) The Clerk of the US District Court, Los Angeles, Terry Nafisi, has continuously refused to answer on the
question whether the online PACER docket in Fine v Sheriff was an honest, valid, and effectual record of the
US District Court. Such docket would not be certified either.
13) Clerk Nafisi would not answer on whether Donna Thomas, who was listed as conducting transactions on
the docket of Fine v Sheriff, was at all authorized as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
14) Likewise, in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) Mr Fines petitions at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, - June
30, 2009 Order denying the petition, issued in the names of Kozinski, Paez and Tallman, was an unsigned
order, which was served with no NEF at all.
In Short, the case of Attorney Richard Fine is a historic landmark and a textbook case in providing a catalog
of the ingenious methods employed by the corrupt justice system to pervert justice.

4. B. McLeod
 Page 5/5 March 11, 2010

Mar 11, 2010 3:16 PM CST


Another Fine mess hes gotten himself into!

5. Joseph Zernik

Mar 11, 2010 3:50 PM CST


Mr B McLeod is surely a legal scholar, to blame Attorney Richard Fine for being a victim of widespread
corruption of the justice system
We, the 10 million who live in Los Angeles County are deprived of the right for honest Habeas Corpus
petitions, and with it - the right to access court records, to inspect and to copy. Both are rights of medieval
origins in the English-speaking legal system.
In short - we are subjected to corrupt justice system of medieval nature. No doubt - Attorney Richard Fine is
to blame for it all

LINKED:
[1] ABA Journal article and comments:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-
year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#67761