09-10-13 richard fine - petition filed with sheriff lee baca of los angeles county - to free richard...

8/14/2019 09-10-13 Richard Fine - Petition filed with Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County - to free Richard Fine

1/14

Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhDPO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: [email protected]

09-10-12 An appeal to Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca to use his due authorityand 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 AngelesCounty justice system

Sheriff Lee Baca4700 Ramona BlvdMonterey Park, CA 91754-2169Tel: (323) 526-5000Fax: (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 ofLos 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 recentlytook the time to review the proceedings and the records related to the ongoing jailing ofRICHARD FINE, (CJ inmate #1824367). Here, I am appealing to you as a resident of LosAngeles County, with inherent interest in integrity of the justice system, and also as one who

owntownsk line

Executive Summary:This appeal is filed with the Los Angeles County Sheriff LEE BACA, to use his due authority and properly address thelegal, 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 thesentencing and jailing of Atty Fine for contempt. Indeed, Judge DAVID YAFFE pronounced such sentence in open court, asevidenced in court reporters transcript the first record of the proceeding. Through such oral directives, Judge Yaffemislead the Sheriffs Warrant Detail to arrest Atty Fine at 11:05 am. However, Judge Yaffe then left them with norecord as an adequate legal foundation for such action. Instead, Judge Yaffe proceeded to create a second, contradictoryrecord in court file which did not reflect any sentencing or jailing at all. In fact the March 4, 2009 proceeding wasentirely eliminated from the record! The consequent Sheriffs Warrant Detail record of booking in San Pedro at 12:32pm was likely insufficient, and is the main subject of this appeal. By 4:31 pm, papers were received by the SheriffsDepartment through an anonymous fax transmission from Judicial Services. Such papers reflected yet a third, againmisleading record for the litigation, including invalid records: The March 4, 2009 Remand Order and the March 4, 2009Judgment for contempt. On such background it was understandable why Sheriff Baca refused to respond to AttyRichard Fines habeas corpus petition. The LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe eventually responded, through papersfiled 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 ofActions (docket), and any evidence of entry of judgment. It relied upon records from the Sheriff Department and the CourtReporters transcript records which absent, at variance, and/or contradictory of the records in court file. Key recordswere filed as evidence with no authentication. Finally, there is no reason to believe that Judge Yaffe ever saw suchpleading before or after it was filed on his behalf in court. It is inconceivable for the court to engage in such litigationpractices to affect false imprisonment of an individual. Request was therefore filed directly with Judge Yaffe, to confirmthat 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 isfound inadvertently insufficient - take corrective actions and immediately release Atty Fine. With it, the Sheriff may marka 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 , witheasy 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.

Digitally signed by

Joseph H Zernik

DN: cn=Joseph H

Zernik, o, ou,

email=jz12345@e

arthlink.net, c=US

Location: La

Verne, California

Date: 2009.10.13

11:11:36 -07'00'


2/14

Page 2/14 October 13, 2009

believes that he has evidence of inadvertent false jailing at the Sheriffs CJ facility.

I appeal to you because I believe that you have the duty and the authority to review theprocedures executed in arrest, booking, and jailing of Richard Fine, and also the authority totake 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 aclear vision of your position within the government system of Los Angeles County, and whatyou stand for as a man. You advocated that vision in your welcome message on the Sheriffsweb page:1

By example, I teach my people to create ideas, celebrate diverse people, andestablish religious harmony throughout the County. Our specific action-orientedachievements include but are not limited to the following:

Our first order of business was to develop core values thatprescriptively 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 Sheriffs Department, I commit myselfto honorably perform my duties with respect for the dignity of all people,

integrity to do right and fight wrongs, wisdom to apply common sense andfairness in all I do

Finally, I appeal to you because you may be able to implement a solution for an intractablesituation, which I believe is a disgrace for our courts and our government.

1. Personal review Question2

The question that I tried to answer for myself, in looking at the records could be stated inlaypersons language as follows:

Did staff of the Sheriff Department have, at the time of the arrest, the booking, and thepermanent housing assignment, the basic papers, which would demonstrate that in holdingRICHARD FINE (CJ Inmate #1824367) and in depriving him of liberty, the Departmentconformed 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 Iprovided 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 FINEs Inmateinformation provided online by the Sheriffs department, which was a critical resource.5 It wasalso compared and contrasted with the comparable record of another inmate, also anattorney, of similar age, arrested last week. 6 I also relied on various other online materialsprovided by your department in attempt to quickly understand the general workings of suchcomplex operation, which I had no familiarity with. The materials provided online left me withthe impression of a progressive Sheriffs department, which cares for the health, safety andwelfare of those under its custody, and also is concerned with integrity of its operations,

My Colors - Los Angeles


3/14


compliance with the law, and respect for Human Rights, as a key participant in the LA Countyjustice system.7

Of particular significance were news reports, which served in an attempt to comprehend whatin 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, MetropolitanNews,8 and LESLIE DUTTON Full Disclosure Network.9

3. Absent the Register of Actions (Docket) not even the most brilliant jurist couldanswer that question

In trying to answer the question outline above for myself, I faced a fundamental problem thatcould not be resolved: I early on realized that the Register of Actions was missing from thelitigation records, which were filed by the parties. However, the office of the Clerk of LASuperior 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 case

10

.

Frankly, I did not know that there was any possible way that the most brilliant jurist could everanswer the question regarding compliance with the law absent the Register of Actions. Infact, the Register of Actions was even more restrictive than the typical docket. In suchrecord, each judicial action had to be recorded, with its respective adjudication, in a mannerthat such record alone could substitute for the whole court file. The Register of Actions wasthe only way to know precisely which papers were, and which were not filed and entered, aseffectual court papers in this case. Similarly, the Register of Actions was the only way todetermine which rulings, orders, and judgments were in fact rendered by Judge Yaffe. Thereliance on transcript instead, was seen as an inexplicable roundabout way to address theissue, 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 oraltransmission

There are numerous examples where judges act differently in writing their actions, than inpronouncing them orally in court. And in a court system, like the LA Superior Court, wherethe Registers of Actions were kept secret from the public and litigants, the differences wereastonishing 11

But beyond it all, there was the simple question:

Why would an honest court ever defy the law and hide its Registers ofActions from the public, moreover - from parties in litigation?

I dont 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, notU.S. Circuit Justices RICHARD PAEZ and RICHARD TALLMAN, and not even Chief Justice ALEXKOZINSKI.12 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 InternationalLaw, such practice would be ruled as a severe abuse of Human Rights of the 10 millionpeople 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!


4/14


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

reporters 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 thiscase.15 (d) I also had to try to use the online Case Summary published by the LA SuperiorCourt, 16 albeit, with a Declaimer that it should not be relied upon and justly so. 17 (e) Ialso 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 witha disclaimer that it should not be relied upon.

Given that the LA Superior Court has denied public access to the Registers of Actions for thepast quarter-century (both civil and criminal), it was inevitable that the public relied on theCase Summaries, regardless of the Disclaimer. There simply was no other comparableresource for following the litigation, regardless of the obvious deficiencies in the onlinerecords.

The chronology of the litigation at the LA Superior Court, in Judge DAVID YAFFEs court, whichresulted 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 bymedia, and where Att RICHARD FINE was arrested, simply did not exist. It was not registered atall!

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 aJudgment and Order for contempt was filed by the Clerk. However, that was insufficient tomake a judgment valid and effectual:

(i) The judgment had to be served and noticed in order to be entered and becomeeffectual. There was no notation to that effect in the online Case Summary in re: theMarch 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 aclerks 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 ofthe 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 Courtof LA County, 19 the judgment had to be signed by the judge in two copies, one shouldhave been entered in the court file, according to procedures for entry of papers, and theother had to be entered in the Book of Judgment, and special laws governed the entryand 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


5/14


Here again I faced an intractable problem. The office of the Clerk of the Court, JOHN ACLARKE - I requested numerous time to inspect the Book of Judgments, and I wasrepeatedly 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 thatI 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 allother defects were cured, and even if we were permitted to sneak a peak at the Register ofActions, and found that the Judgment was registered with an Order of Entry of Judgment, noteven the most brilliant jurist could figure out for a given Judgment record, whether it wasentered as an effectual Judgment or not, in the absence of Book of Judgments, and whenCalifornia law and the Local Rules of Court prescribe an entry in the Book of Judgments asprerequisite 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 asmaking its judgments vague and ambiguous?

Why would an honest court operate for a quarter-century withoutupdating its Rules of Court on a central issue such as entry ofjudgment?

The answer is rather clear the evidence indicated that judges of the LA Superior Courtengaged 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 purportedlyas 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 theformer Presiding Judge of the neighboring San Bernardino County, member of the CaliforniaJudicial Council, to numerous cases of real estate fraud in the court.22 One should note, thatMarina v LA County, the case underlying the arrest of Atty Fine, was a real estate litigation aswell.

One must also fault the U.S. Court for allowing such conditions to prevail in Los AngelesCounty, relative to the concealed Register of Actions and the hidden or non existent Book ofJudgments. Such conditions opened a huge opening for dishonest manipulations as in thecase at hand. Moreover, on both the question of the missing Register of Actions, and thequestion of the missing record of entry of Judgment in a Book of Judgment - I shall providefirst hand, personal knowledge testimony: Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLEs 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, pursuantto ratified International Law, such practices as related to entry of judgment at the Los AngelesSuperior Court- would be found as severe abuse of Human Rights of the 10 millions whoreside in the County. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was generatedlargely through efforts of then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Leonor Roosevelt, about half ormore, of the first dozen Human Rights are directly tied to the establishment and safeguard ofhonest 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 CaseSummary, it simply did not exist according to the Case Summary. Moreover, it also failed to

reeway Downtown


6/14


appear among the records that have Available Images, therefore- it presumably did notexist in the court file either.

d) March 4, 2009 Minute Order 25 although it was not included in litigation records by anyof 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 whereno proceeding was listed for March 4, 2009. However, the March 4, 2009 minute ordermakes the history if anything more murky:

(i) The March 4, 2009 Minute Order was not served or noticed, or at least there is norecord 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 thepractice at the LA Superior Court the court automatically waived the right for serviceand notice. And just as was the case with the hidden Registers of Actions and the non-existing Book of Judgments, such custom opened the way for extreme alleged corruptionof the court from missing minute orders of off the record proceedings, to fictitiousminute orders of proceedings that never took place in reality, and finally the common

practice of secretly disposing of minute orders that reflected pronouncements from thebench, 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 JudgeDAVID YAFFE never issued a final sentencing on that day! The minute order discussesthe sentencing in some detail, but its language at the bottom line implied that nosentencing was issued.

In sum: If one based his knowledge of the case on the online Case History and AvailableRecord Images alone, there would be no way to conclude that attorney RICHARD FINE wasever jailed, or for that matter that Judge DAVID YAFFE ever issued a final sentence, letalone entered a judgment, in the Bench Trial of the Contempt.

6. Accounting for the records

a) Register of Actions key record for establishing the validity of the case as a whole, wasnot 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 thatany 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 datehand inscribed as March 24, 2009. One may engage in various speculations asto what was the state of this record when it was faxed over to the Sheriffs office,and when exactly that notation of March 24, 2009 was inscribed. But there was noway that any of the speculative scenarios would provide an option that would allowto deem this record valid and honest, effectual court record of a judgment.


7/14


Again the question may arise: How could such a glaring defect escape the Triersof Facts in this case.

ii. Furthermore, the Judgment record came with no authentication there was noproof 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 courtin his possession only the unsigned Proposed Judgment, but not the final signed

judgment. There was no evidence from any other source that even suggested thatthe judgment was ever served, noticed, and entered.

d) March 4th, 2009 Remand Order- The Remand Order appeared as the incorrectinstrument in this case, and it also appeared incorrectly completed as for its details butsuch issue was way above my understanding, and I would leave it for the SheriffDepartment 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 notfound in court file either, and(iii) It was never served on Att Richard Fine either.

7. According to news reports, the court reporters transcript, Inmate Information, andfill 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 sheriffdeputies 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 thejudgment, and in conclusion, the transcript cites him as verbally sentencing Att RichardFine to jail for contempt, until such time when Att Fine would notify the court that he wasready to accept the authority of Commissioner Murray Gross. News report wereconsistent with the Transcript on this issue. The refusal to accept the authority ofCommissioner Murray Gross was the essence of the conviction of contempt. JudgeDavid Yaffe eliminated any other charge that could possibly be the foundation for theprolonged jailing. However, as noted before, sentencing and judgment by oral

transmission were never part of either California or the U.S. law Judgments must bebased in writings, conforming with the fundamentals of the law.

b) Immediately after that, Judge Yaffe left the courtroom, and theWarrant Detail arrested AttRichard Fine at 11:05 am, He was transferred out of court and to Sheriff facilities.

Fill-in needed:

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 itwere to be executed instantly.

v. Similarly some paper of the nature of a warrant should have been issued and served, to authorize the warrantdetail to execute the arrest. None of that was reported.


8/14


c) Richard Fine was taken first to a Reception Facility of the Sheriffs Department. Accordingto 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. Wasnt it an unnecessary detour? Judge David Yaffes Courtroom was at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse,

YAFFE, DAVID Judge Stanley Mosk Courthouse 86

viii. The MCJ (Mens Central Jail) was less than 1 mile away, and the San Pedro Sheriff Station was 24miles 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 byCaptain Gerald K. Cooper. It was listed as holding a staff of 800, some 450 of them deemed professionalstaff, capable of administering various screening procedures that were conducted as a routine for all newlyarriving inmates, including medical and mental screening. One must commend the Sheriffs department for theemphasis 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 Sheriffs Department as listed online, included: 1.IRC (Inmate Reception Center) at TTCJ, 2. Men's Central Jail, 3. Twin Towers, 4. Century Regional DetentionFacility, 5. Mira Loma Detention Center, 6. Pitchess Detention Center (The Ranch): a. East Facility , b. NorthFacility, 7. North County Correctional Facility.

San Pedro Sheriff Station was not listed as one of the Custody and Correctional Facilities. The San Pedrofacility appeared to be a small or more appropriately described as minute station serving the minisculecourthouse it was housed in. The Courthouse itself was listed by the LA Superior Court as San PedroAnnex, and it was listed as holding the following judges and departments:

1.

x. Did Inmate Richard Fine ever benefit from a reception screening as was accorded to other incoming inmates?

xi. Why wasnt 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 Yaffes 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 rankto be authorized by Sheriff Lee Baca to make a determination regarding the validity of thelegal 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 Fines 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 Sheriffs Warrant Details possession at that time that could possibly constitutethe foundation for the arrest and the jailing?

xvii. Absent such papers, what would be the Sheriff Departments procedure to follow under suchcircumstances?

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, asthe foundation for Att Richard Fines jailing, were received by fax transmission, Thesender was identified in the fax header imprint as line number (213) 626 795# (the lastdigit was illegible). identified as Judicial services. By reverse lookup of the relatednumbers and google mapping, it was likely to have originated at the Mosk courthouse.

PAUL, ROY Judge San Pedro Courthouse Annex 88C


9/14


Facade - Twin Tower Jail

ID: 31CONTINENT: North AmericaCOUNTRY: USSTATE: CALOCATION: Los Angeles (downtown)LATITUDE: 34.05

LONGITUDE: -118.23ELEVATION_: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 nocover page, and no indication who it was sent by and who was the receiver. Needless to say, one mustwonder about compliance with the evidence code by Att KEVIN MCCORMICK who filed such records ascritical evidence, with anonymous authentication, and also Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE, who seemed to notnotice so many of the inherent defects in Att MCCORMICKs 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 thejailing?

g) On or about March 4, 2009, at an unknown time, Richard Fine was transported fromSan Pedro (if he indeed was detoured to that station first), to the Twin Tower Jail.

Fill-in needed:

xxx. Wouldnt 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 Sheriffs procedures?

h) On or about March 4, 2009, at an unknown time, Richard Fine arrived at TwinTowers, and eventually was housed in the medical facility, according to newsreports, 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. Inthe initial period he was denied access to pen and paper. He was also denied theright to visit the legal library. His housing was rather isolated, to the degree that itallowed an LA Times female journalist to sneak in, interview him at a time that suchinterview were prohibited, and sneak out, without any authorization by the Sheriffs

Department.

Housed in such manner, Richard Fine did not participate in prisoner counts duringhis confinement at the Twin Tower Jail. All other inmates were counted three times aday, in a formal procedure, and the count had to be reconciled and cleared, beforethe 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 sheriffsprocedures?

xxxv. Does Richard Fines name appear today in the Index of All Inmates of Twin Towers?


10/14


Cells at Twin TowerJail

xxxvi. It appeared logical that the reconciliation would be against an Index of All Inmates, which would beconstructed by adding on to the Index the records of inmates, who completed the reception procedure andwere signed in by authorized sheriffs deputy, on the one hand, and by eliminating the Index records ofinmates, 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?

i) On or about March 19, 2009, at13:06 RICHARD FINE was Assigned Permanent Housing. He waspermanently house atCJthe same facility he was already in, and not at the TTCF (TwinTower Central Facility).Address: 441 BAUCHET STREET City: LOS ANGELES. At the time ofpermanent housing assignment, a Sheriff Deputy had to review the records again, andagain - professional determinations had to be made, which were essential in any effort toaddress properly the legal, civil and human rights of RICHARD FINE, or any otherinmate 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 sheriffs 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 habeascorpus petition of Atty RICHARD FINE it was concluded that there was no evidence that JudgeDAVID YAFFE ever saw the filing entered on his behalf by Atty KEVIN MCCORMICK, eitherbefore 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 fromany communications with Judge DAVID YAFFE. Even in an adversarial system it is deemedinconceivable for the court to engage in such litigation practices in order to affect the falseimprisonment of a person. Therefore, a notice was sent to Judge DAVID YAFFE29 requestingthat he confirm that such papers as were filed by Att McCormick were indeed filed on hisbehalf. No answer was received so far.

9. Appeal:

a) Appeal that the Sheriff review the validity of the records that are the foundationfor the holding of RICHARD FINE, to verify that they conform with thefundamentals of the law.

Based on the review above, of litigation chronology, appeal is filed with to Los Angeles Sheriffto review the circumstances and the records pertaining to the arrest, booking and receptionand permanent housing of Inmate RICHARD FINE (CJ inmate #1824367). It appears likelythat some or most of the records may not be valid and effectual records. Specifically itappears that at the time of the arrest, at 11:05 am on March 4, 2009, there was no validwarrant to form the foundation for such action. Similarly, it is greatly doubted, and thereis 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 validrecords to substantiate the holding of RICHARD FINE, since both the March 4, 2009Judgment, and the March 4, 2009 Remand Order, are invalid records.


11/14


Furthermore, it is argued that even if such records were valid, the fact that the courtcreated double or triple records that were diametrically opposite, renders all suchrecords invalid on their face.

b) In case the records do not conform with the law appeal for the immediaterelease of RICHARD FINE

This appeal is filed with the Los Angeles Sheriff under the belief that it is both his duty and hisauthority to engage in such review, and to release RICHARD FINE if he concludes that there isno 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 theLos 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 LosAngeles 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 theRegisters 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 withthe specific short term mandate to investigate and prosecute the denial of public access topublic records in Los Angeles County, California. It was recommended at the time, that inparallel, there would be a need to establish Truth and Reconciliation Committees, since it isalleged, that the nature of the records that would be found, would amount to catalogues ofcriminality 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 DIANNEFEINSTEIN and Congresswoman DIANE WATSON, were deemed false and deliberatelymisleading.

Events of the year that passed, and not the least the jailing of Att RICHARD FINE, demonstratedthat the claims I made then were true and accurate. In fact, the claims of widespreadcorruption of the judiciary in Los Angeles County was confirmed by no other than theCalifornia Judicial Council and the California Governor. In February 2009, the CaliforniaSenate passed a bill providing pardon for all Los Angeles County judges for alleged pastcriminality, at the urging of the California Judicial Council30

It is therefore hoped that the new Attorney General ERIC HOLDER, would indeed appointsuch 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 tospeedy release of the Rampart FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons). 31 They are almostexclusively black and Hispanic, and their number is unknown, but was estimated at morethan 10,000. Their ongoing imprisonment, a decade after they were shown to have beenfalsely convicted and falsely sentenced is a human rights disgrace of historic proportions!

10. Copies of this appeal is widely distributed, as were previous communications onthe matter.

The Blue RibbonReview Panel Report(2006)


12/14


This message is copied to most of the Stanford law school faculty, as well as the HarvardLaw school faculty- hoping that somebody who is knowledgeable about the law would speakup, 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 thecourts in Los Angeles County, California.

This letter is copied to various OIGs and other offices of the DOJ and various lawenforcement 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 asthe justice system that it is part of, gains some level of integrity. Furthermore, it was allegedthat the corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County is directly connected to allegedracketeering by Countrywide Legal Department - now part of the Bank of America GeneralCounsel office.

This letter is copied to the Chinese embassy, Washington DC with over $2 trillion reservesin dollar denominations, they are major stakeholders in our banking system as well. Theissue of integrity of the U.S. banking and regulatory system was reported as central in theMay 2009 visit by Treasury Secretary Geithner, which was described as difficult We areleft to hope that the Chinese Government would make not only the integrity of the Bankingsystem, but improvement of the of Human Rights record of the U.S. government keyconditions for any accommodations on currency exchange rates.32

This letter is also copied to the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 13, 2009

Los Angeles County, California ________/s/ Joseph H Zernik______

JOSEPH H ZERNIK

1Los 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

2Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.

3Marina 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.

4Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.

5Inmate Information for Richard fine

http://inproperinla.com/09-04-21-richard-fine-inmate-information-center-%20booking-details.pdf

6Inmate Information for Ronald Gottschalk

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-banl-persons-goa_09-10-08-booking-record-gottschalck-ronald.pdf

7Description of the facility, resources, budgets, staff and procedures at the Inmate Reception Center (IRC) at Twin

Towers facility.

KENNETH MELSONDirectorUS Dept of Justice

KENNETH KAISERAssistant Director, FBICriminal Investigations


13/14


http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-disuea_lasda_lasd_Los%20Angeles%20County%20Sheriff's%20Department%20-%20Correctional%20Services%20Division%20-%20Inmate%20Reception%20Center.pdf

8Steven 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 uponhttp://inproperinla.com/09-03-05-met-news-court-sentences-disbarred-attorney-fine-to-jail-for-contempt.pdf

9Leslie 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

10Marina 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.

11Page 1 of Register of Actions from Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) with false notation: Countrywide Home Loans,

Inc, Real Parties in Interesthttp://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-register-of-actions-page-1-sustain-s.pdf

12The names of Justices Kozinski, Tallman, and Paez, were listed on a June 30, 2009 unsigned order issued by

the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th 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

13Papers filed May 1, 2009 by Att Kevin McCormick, as part of the Response to the Atty Richard Fines 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-ct-f&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-sup-ct-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 ofContempt (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-in-marina-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-statement-of-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

14Transcript 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

15List 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

16Case 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

17Disclaimer 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

18March 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-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf


14/14


19Local 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 Bookof Judgment and public Registers of Actions:http://inproperinla.com/09-10-12-los-angeles-superior-court-rules-of-court-s.pdf

20 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

21Opinion 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

22Report 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-real-estate-frauds-san-bernardino-county-sentinel.pdf

23. 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

24March 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-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf

25March 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

26Evidence 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 SUSTAINhttp://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-abstract-&-figures.pdf

27Of 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 directlytied to the operation of SUSTAIN the courts case management system. Opinion letter relative to operation ofSustain:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-opinion-letter-09-04-20-eli-shamir-opinion-letter-s.pdf28

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

29Letter addressed to Judge David Yaffe

http://inproperinla.com/09-10-11-letter-judge-yaffe-confirm-papers-filed-under-his-name.pdf

30Sbx 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

31

a) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FIPs 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 Practitionerhttp://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, commissionedby 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 LADistrict 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

32Report 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

09-10-13 richard fine - petition filed with sheriff lee baca of los angeles county - to free richard...

Documents