This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: email@example.com Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@ earthlink.net, c=US Date: 2010.07.01 13:21:42 +03'00'
10-07-01 Complaint against Danny Bickell – US Supreme Court Counsel - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law
Ronald C. Machen Jr. US Attorney, DC United States Attorney's Office 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 By certified mail By email: firstname.lastname@example.org TO US ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s Complaint by Dr Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) against Mr Danny Bickell, US Supreme Court Counsel, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law, pertaining to his conduct in caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) in March-April 2010. Please also accept instant Citizen’s Complaint as a request for equal protection of Mr Richard Fine, the 70 year old, former US prosecutor, pursuant to the US Constitution and pursuant to ratified international law – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The complaint alleges that Mr Bickell denied Mr Fine Fair Hearing and Due Process of the Law at the US Supreme Court, and is likely to have affected ongoing false imprisonment of Mr Fine. 1. Complainants Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) Dr Joseph Zernik and Human Rights Alert (NGO) Address: 1853 Foothill Blvd, La Verne, California, 91750 Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750 Tel: 323-515-4583 Fax: (preferred) 323-488-9697 email@example.com Email: (preferred) 2. Attorney Representation Dr Zernik is not an attorney, neither is he or Human Rights Alert (NGO) represented by counsel in the matters that are subject of instant complaint. Dr Zernik is unqualified to expound on legal theories. Therefore, no section of the code was cited. The US Attorney is requested to review the facts in the matter and apply the appropriate sections of the code. In cases where legal claims were made in error, the US Attorney is requested to ignore such claims and review to the facts alone. 3. Complaint against Mr Danny Bickell Mr Danny Bickell Address: US Supreme Court, 1 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20543 Tel: 202-479-3011 4. General Allegations Conduct of Mr Danny Bickell under caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court in MarchApril 2010 is alleged as violations of the law including, but not limited to: a) Public Corruption, b) Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law,
July 1, 2010
c) d) e) f) g) h)
Honest Services Fraud, Obstruction of Justice Extortion, Fraud, Mail Fraud, Conspiracy,
5. General Description of the Facts a) Relative to purported March 12, 2010 denial of Mr Fine’s application by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy It is alleged that there was and there is no valid record of a March 12, 2010 denial of the application of Mr Fine by Associate Justice Kennedy. Regardless, on March 12, 2010, Mr Bickell issued a false and deliberately misleading notice, unsigned, and with no authority at all, stating that the application was denied. b) Relative to the April 23, 2010 Supreme Court conference re: Application of Mr Fine It is alleged that Mr Bickell eliminated from the US Supreme Court docket, with no authority at all, Dr Zernik’s Motion to Intervene and related papers, filed on April 20, 2010, including, but not limited to Request for Correction of Errors in the Supreme Court Records, where Mr Bickell’s conduct, relative to the March 12, 2010 purported denial by Associate Justice Kennedy, was described. c) Relative to records and online dockets of the US Supreme Court It is alleged that insecure docketing systems at the US Supreme Court, lacking in integrity, permitted an unauthorized person, such as Mr Bickell to obstruct justice and likely also to deprive Mr Fine of liberty. 6. Court Opinions and Judgments: No opinion or ruling of the US Supreme Court was therefore issued in the application of Mr Fine in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827). Mr Fine remains imprisoned to this date and was denied through the conduct of Mr Bickell fair hearing and due process of law. 7. Remedies Requested: Request is herein filed by Dr Zernik with Office of the US Attorney, District of Columbia, for the following remedies: a) Equal protection for Richard Fine under US law and under ratified international law. b) Investigation of the facts alleged in the complaint, and prosecution of Mr Bickell, if necessary, to the full extent of the law. c) Public scrutiny of security and integrity of the US Supreme Court computers (case management system) to prevent conduct such as described in the complaint, where unauthorized persons affected construction of a invalid, false and deliberately misleading online dockets. 8. Public Policy Significance: The case is of highest public policy significance, since it amounts to alleged public corruption and deprivation of rights by a person, who is routinely involved in operations of the highest court of the land. Moreover, as detailed in the complaint, conduct of Mr Bickell was part of a chain of events at the lower courts, all of the same nature and the same effect. Each, in and of itself, could simply appear as a technical errors. Combined, such chain of events cannot be reasonably be deemed as inadvertent. All of these technical errors, without exception, had the same effect – ensuring that the alleged false imprisonment of Mr Fine continue to this date. Mr Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by Los Angeles judges of “not permitted” payments, termed by media “bribes”. The facts, which Mr Fine exposed, led the Governor of California to sign on February 20, 2009 “retroactive immunities” (pardons) for all judges involved. Less than two weeks later, on
July 1, 2010
March 4, 2009, Mr Fine was arrested, with no warrant, in open court by the Los Angeles Sheriff. Mr Fine is held ever since by the Sheriff with no judgment, conviction, or sentencing ever entered in his case. All Mr Fine’s consequent efforts to restore his liberty were undermined through conduct at the various courts, of the kind that is the subject of instant complaint against Mr Bickell. As a result, Mr Fine remains in solitary confinement to this date. 9. Brief Chronology: a) Relative to purported March 12, 2010 Denial of Mr Fine’s Application by Justice Anthony Kennedy i. ii. In March 1, 2009 – according to the US Supreme Court docket, i Mr Fine’s application (09-A827) was submitted to Associate Justice Kennedy. On March 12, 2010 – the docket, referenced above, states:
Application (09A827) denied by Justice Kennedy.
It is alleged that conduct of Mr Bickell affected the insertion of such false and deliberately misleading statement in the US Supreme Court docket. Review of the US Supreme Court records ii in the caption of Fine v Sheriff (09A827) revealed no written order by Justice Kennedy denying Mr Fine’s Application. Neither was denial by Justice Kennedy inscribed on the face of the application, as permitted by the Local Rules of the US Supreme Court. Review of the US Supreme Court records in the caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) iii revealed a March 12, 2010 letter issued by Mr Bickell, falsely noticing denial of the application by Justice Kennedy. However, Mr Bickell’s notice was unsigned. Furthermore, Mr Bickell was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk; therefore, the letter was issued with no authority at all.
b) Relative to the April 23, 2010 Supreme Court conference re: Application of Mr Fine i. On March 30, 2010, following the purported denial by Justice Kennedy, Mr Fine refiled the application with Associate Justice Ginsburg, according the US Supreme Court docket. iv ii. On April 12, 2010 Dr Zernik called the US Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk to notify his intent to file Motion to Intervene in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827). Dr Zernik was referred to Mr Bickell. Mr Bickell informed Dr Zernik that such filing would be timely as long as the application was pending before the court. However, Mr Bickell informed Dr Zernik that unless there was a “compelling justification”, the Motion to Intervene, it would most likely be denied by the Court. iii. On April 20, 2010 Dr Zernik filed at the US Supreme Court Motion to Intervene and related papers: - 1 Amended Motion to Intervene v
- 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer vii - 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records viii - 4-Amended-Request-for-Incorporation-by-Reference-s ix - 5 Amended Appendices
On April 20, 2010 Dr Zernik received from the US Supreme Court staff receipts confirming the filing of the papers listed above. x On April 21, 2010 Dr Zernik called the Office of the Clerk, US Supreme Court, and spoke with a staff member at the Office of the Clerk. The staff member informed Dr
July 1, 2010
Zernik that the papers were indeed received by the Office of the Clerk, but were held by Mr Bickell. xi On April 21, 2010 Dr Zernik further spoke by phone with Mr Bickell. Mr Bickell initially denied that he was holding Dr Zernik’s papers. However, after Dr Zernik informed him that a staff member had already told him that the papers were in Mr Bickell’s hands, Mr Bickell admitted that fact. Mr Bickell then stated that he had not made up his mind yet, what to do with the papers. Dr Zernik asked Mr Bickell if Mr Bickell was authorized as Deputy Clerk. Mr Bickell stated that he was not. Regardless, Mr Bickell stated that he would be the one to decide, whether the papers would or would not be entered in the docket of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827). The April 23, 2010 docket of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) showed that Dr Zernik’s papers were never entered in the docket. Neither was any discrepancy or any other notation entered to explain the disposition of the papers. Denial by Mr Bickell of the right to file papers at the US Supreme Court is alleged as obstruction of justice. It should be noted that one of the papers - the Request to Correct US Supreme Court Records – explicitly described the conduct of Mr Bickell relative to the March 12, 2010 purported denial of Fine’s application by Associate Justice Kennedy. It is therefore alleged that through eliminating the Dr Zernik’s papers from the docket, Mr Bickell effectively covered up his own wrongful conduct in March 2010. It should be further noted that other papers included with Dr Zernik’s Motion to Intervene documented a series of events pertaining to Mr Fine, where three (4) lower courts engaged in conduct that was similar or identical to that of Mr Bickell:
- Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - US District Court, Central District of California - US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
In all these courts clerks, or staff which was not authorized at all, participated in the issuance of false and deliberately misleading records – all aimed to enforce alleged false imprisonment of Mr Fine. In all these courts false and deliberately misleading manipulation of online public access systems and/or public dockets was involved. Each of the cases alone could have possibly been seen as an inadvertent error. However, a reasonable person, upon review of the facts and the records that were included in Dr Zernik’s Motion to Intervene, would almost certainly conclude that wrongdoing was involved. Moreover, each and every one of these courts was approached by Dr Zernik with a request to initiate corrective actions relative to such conduct. All without exception failed to do so. Therefore, it is alleged that through eliminating the Dr Zernik’s papers from the docket, Mr Bickell effectively covered up wrongful conduct by staff of the lower courts in the case of Mr Fine. Summary of the allegations: Mr Fine filed an Application for Stay of Execution of his ongoing solitary confinement, initiated in March 2009. Mr Fine was denied fair hearing and due process of law at the US Supreme Court through conduct of Mr Bickell in March-April 2010. A reasonable person, upon review of the facts in the matter, would conclude that conduct of Mr Bickell was not the outcome of inadvertent errors, but a deliberate effort to deprive Mr Fine of his constitutional, civil, and human rights – of liberty itself. 10. Additional Evidence and Records For the sake of brevity, only a small part of the evidence was described above and linked below. Please do not hesitate to contact Dr Zernik for additional information and evidence in this matter.
July 1, 2010
11. Instant Complaint is Concomitantly Filed with Other Agencies of Interest Copies are filed with: a) US Congress Judiciary Committees – with a request to subject all case management systems of the US courts to public scrutiny. Conditions documented in the Motion to Intervene and related papers amount to alleged widespread deprivation of rights. b) United Nations, UPR Office – as part of the first ever review (UPR) of human rights in the United States, scheduled for November 2010. The April 2010 Human Rights Alert’s report, filed with the United Nations, alleged that unvalidated and insecure case management systems in the US courts were employed for the widespread deprivation of human rights by the US courts themselves. c) US State Department, UPR Office – as part of the UPR process, the US State Department is scheduled to submit a response to the United Nations in August 2010. Respectfully, Dated: July 1, 2010 Joseph Zernik, PhD
By: ______________ JOSEPH H ZERNIK PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Phone: 323.515.4583 Fax: 323.488.9697 Email <firstname.lastname@example.org>
US Supreme Court Docket in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), as downloaded on April 23, 2010. http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-a-supreme-ct-fine-v-sheriff-09-a827_10-04-23-10-00-pm-online-docket.pdf ii US Supreme Court records in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) – see Zernik’s Amended Request for Correction of US Supreme Court Records: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/ iii See ii, above. iv See i, above. v 1-Dr Zernik’s Amended Motion to Intervene http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/ vi 2-Dr Zernik’s Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/ vii 3-Dr Zernik’s Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/ viii 4-Dr Zernik’s Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/ ix 5-Dr Zernik’s Amended-Appendices http://www.scribd.com/doc/33771759/ x Face pages obtained by Dr Zernik on April 20, 2010 confirming receipt of his papers filed that date: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772062/ xi April 21, 2010 – Declaration of Dr Zernik regarding filing Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09A827). http://www.scribd.com/doc/31430464/