Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@
earthlink.net,
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.05.16
18:29:03 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-05-16 RE: Fine v State Bar II (2:10-cv-00045) Requests for: a) Assurances of no perversion in
the case, and b) Disclosure of the unpublished Local Rules of Court.

The Honorable Audrey Collins, Chief Judge

US District Court, Central District of California
C/O Angela Bridges
By email Angela_Bridges@cacd.uscourts.gov

The favor of a response within 10 days id requested

RE: Fine v State Bar II (2:10-cv-00045) Requests for: a) Assurances of no perversion in the case, and b)
Disclosure of the unpublished Local Rules of Court.

Notices were previously filed with your good offices to reliably inform you of alleged perversion of justice in
captions of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor at al (2:09-cv-01550), both pertaining to
alleged deprivation of rights, at the court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle. Accordingly, requests were made
pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges that you initiate corrective actions. No response by you, or
authorized by you, was received to this date. In the meanwhile, yet another case of this nature – Fine v State
Bar II (2:10-cv-00048) was referred to Magistrate Woehrle.

The two captions listed above shared their origin – in alleged widespread corruption of the judges of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and both actions were filed as attempts to protect
individuals against alleged deprivation of rights by such State judges in National Tribunal for Protection of
Rights.

The two captions listed above, and several others, originating from similar circumstances, were all referred to
Magistrate Carla Woehrle, and conduct of her court was the subject of my previous notices to you, effectively
alleging obstruction and perversion of justice at the court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle:

1) In both cases referenced above, clerk of the court Terry Nafisi refused to respond on the question:

• Were the dockets in such cases constructed pursuant to the authority of the Clerk of the Court?
• Were the dockets in such cases honest, valid, and effectual dockets of the US court, pursuant to US law?

2) In both cases entries were made in the PACER dockets by individuals, who were employed by the
court, but who were not authorized as Deputy Clerks.
3) In both cases adulteration of commencing records was alleged by staff of the Clerk of the Court, and
later – access was denied to the same commencing records – to inspect and to copy.
4) In both cases the Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle engaged in the notice and service of minutes,
orders, judgments and mandates with false and deliberately misleading authentication records – NEFs
(Notices of Electronic Filings), which were missing the digital Court Stamps. Pursuant to the US
District Court General Order 08-02 such records could not possibly be deemed as records that

Page 2/3 May 16, 2010

required “full faith and credit” – however, they were falsely and misleadingly represented as such in
the online public access system PACER, from which all NEF were omitted.
5) In both cases, Magistrate Carla Woehrle issued in such records, served with invalid authentication,
minutes, orders, and reports and recommendations, which a reasonable person would deem contrary
to the law.
a. In the habeas corpus of Richard Fine – who is held for over a year with no warrant and no
judgment entered for his confinement by the Los Angeles Superior Court, Magistrate Woehrle
issued a Report and Recommendation, which failed to ever state the caption of the case from
which the arrest and holding purportedly originated.
b. In the same case, Magistrate Woehrle failed to ever mention the word “warrant”, in a case
where one of the hallmarks was warrantless arrest.
c. In the same case, where the other hallmark was a March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of
Contempt, which is false on its face (stamped FILED on March 4, 2009, albeit verified by
Judge David Yaffe as of March 24, 2009), and with no authentication at all, Magistrate
Woehrle chose language that was invalid in and of itself [underline added –jz] to describe such
judgment:

“…judgment and order of contempt and a remand order… both

issued on March 4, 2009, by Hon. David P. Yaffe…”

Magistrate Woehrle never stated that such judgment was entered – as required by
California Code to make a judgment “effectual for any purpose” – since such false and
deliberately misleading judgment was never entered by Judge David Yaffe at all.
6) In both captions listed above, Magistrate Woehrle permitted the appearances of counsel who were not
counsel of record, and where the evidence suggested that they appeared with “no communications
with clients”- part of a routine of alleged perversion, best documented in the March 4, 2009
Memorandum Opinion of the Hon Jeff Bohm, in an unrelated case.
7) In both cases the Clerk of the Court later denied access to court records which would have provided
direct evidence of the alleged wrongdoing by the Court.
8) In both cases, case number were assigned, which linked such civil actions to unrelated actions of
criminal nature. The same was already established also in the case at hand – Fine v State Bar II (2:10-
cv-00045).

2:10-cr-00048-CAS USA v. Chokchoyma et al

2:10-cr-00048-CAS-1 Samart Chokchoyma
2:10-cr-00048-CAS-2 Moun Chau
2:10-cv-00048-JFW-CW Richard I. Fine v. State Bar of California et al
2:10-mc-00048-ABC Rodriguez (closed 03/17/2010)

Therefore, please accept this notice as a repeat request to initiate corrective actions relative to the two
captions, list above: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550).

Therefore, please also accept this notice as a request that you secure the current caption of Fine v State Bar II
(2:10-cv-00045) from similar alleged perversion at the Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle.

Therefore, please accept this notice as a request that you disclose the Local Rules of Court, pertaining to the
following issues:
1) The practices and procedures of the Court pertaining to authentication of Court records in NEFs.

Page 3/3 May 16, 2010

2) The practices and procedure of the Court pertaining to certification of filing of records by parties
authorized in CM/ECF (emailing of NEFs to such parties), and the reason the Clerk of the Court
routinely fails to forward such critical records to parties who are not authorized in CM/ECF.
3) Omission of all authentication records – the NEFs - from the online public access system – PACER.
4) Denial of public access to such authentication records – the NEFs, even when explicitly requested -
the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings).
5) The practice of issuance of invalid authentication records, as seen in the Court of Magistrate Woehrle
– failing to include the digital Court Stamp.
6) The practice of service of minutes, orders, and judgments with such false and deliberately misleading
authentication records.
7) The practice of permitting appearances by Counsel who are not Counsel of Record.
8) The routine referral of cases originating from alleged widespread corruption of the judges of Los
Angeles Superior Court to Magistrate Carla Woehrle, in what appears as far from “random” referral
pattern.
9) Case numbers designation in CM/ECF, which appears to link entirely unrelated cases, and which
appears to be taken by the Court as permitting the handling of such cases in manners that are not
permitted otherwise.

Surely, you realize that your expedient response on these matters would further justice in the case at hand -
Fine v State Bar II (2:10-cv-00045), moreover – it would help restore confidence in the US District Court,
Central District of California, as a National Tribunal for Protection of Rights, pursuant to ratified International
Law.

Respectfully,

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

CC:
1) Clerk of the Court Terry Nafisi
2) Court Counsel Attorney Lydia Yurtchuk
3) The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Senator - Chair, US Senate Judiciary Committee
4) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Senator from California, Member of the Judiciary Committee
5) The Honorable John Conyers Jr, Congressman Chair, US House Judiciary Committee
6) The Honorable Christopher Dodd, Senator - Chair, Senate Banking Committee
7) The Honorable Barney Frank, Congressman - Chair, House Financial Institutions Committee
8) The Honorable Carl Levin, Senator - Chair, Senate Committee on Investigations
9) UN High Commissioner on Human Rights
10) US Marshal Service
12) FBI
13) US Secret Service
14) US State Department – UPR Office
15) UN High Commissioner of Human Rights – UPR Office.