Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:02:47 -0700
To: "Sheriff Lee Baca"<firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: joseph zernik
RICHARD FINE was arrested by____, on the date of ____ at the time of ____ in location _____, and was booked by____, on the date of ____ at the time of ____ in location _____, and his confinement by the sheriff is founded on ______.
Subject: Request for a note formally stating your position regarding arrest and booking of Richard Fine.
Octoebr 29, 2009
Dear Sheriff Baca:
I am grateful for your office staff help. Commander Liang told me today by phone, that your office is practicing a policy of transparency.
I therefore requested a clear statement as to:
1) Which agency arrested Richard Fine, where, and when?
2) Which agency booked Richard Fine, where and when?
3) What is the legal basis for his confinement by the Sheriff?
The information provided online as Inmate Information, is false and misleading. Today, Commander Liang claimed that the Sheriff holds and confines RICHARD FINE by REMAND, but he could not explain where, when, by whom he was arrested, and where, when, and by whom he was booked.
I request a clear written statement on the three questions above, which can be one sentence such as:
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Requesting comments on DRAFT request for appointment of a Special Counsel for the LA Justice System, which we allege is under the grip of a racket.
The LA Justice System now appears to be facing a crisis again, embodied in the false jailing of Atty Richard Fine - since March 4, 2009, in solitary confinement. Direct communications with the office of the LA County Sheriff failed to gain agreement of the office to allow what is guarateed by law - access to the Arrest and Booking records of Atty Richard Fine, to inspect and to copy. The Office of the Sheriff now refuses to answer the questions: Who arrested Richard Fine, when and where, and Who booked Richard Fine, when and where.
It is not by chance that such access is denied, since there are no papers at all to support that arrest and booking, and the data that was listed in the Sheriff's information system online was obviously false. It listed the Arrest and Booking in San Pedro. The Arrest took place in the Court of Judge Yaffe, in downtown LA, There were media present, since it was anticipated, and it was widely reported. The Booking in San Pedro never made sense, and the Sheriff Station there, denied that it ever happened. Furthermore, it was listed in Municipal Department 86 in San Pedro, where no such department existed, The non-existent location and booking agency fit well with the papers - since the standard procedures of the Sheriff was that Booking paper were stored with the booking agency.
The Sheriff was not alone though in denying access to records.. In LA County, for the past 25 years, both civil and criminal litigations were conducted with no access to the dockets (Registers of actions) and often also with no access to the minute orders... Flying blind...
As one well known office in LA explained - Representation by Counsel was an art, not a science, and therefore, all these papers did not make any difference... It all depended on the rapport of the Counsel with the court.
There was no doubt that such was and is indeed the case in LA County.
It was not only the Registers of Actions and the Minute Orders... In the past few weeks, the Presiding Judge of the Court was requested to finally disclose what the Local Rules of Court were in re: Entry of Judgment. So far the Presiding Judge has refused to provide the answer. The published Rules of Court were clearly false for the past 25 years - since the published Local Rules of Court stated that it required entry in the Book of Judgment - just as the California code required. However, the LA County had no Book of Judgments for the past 25 years. It also had no Rules of Court for Entry of Judgment for the past 25 years...
So, how do you determine the date of Entry of Judgment?
The clerks in the County Archive - Hall of Records - Judgments Room - indeed admitted that it was a tricky business, and you never knew for sure. Also - entered judgments were supposed to be backed up in microfilm... But if you judged by the microfilm backups, then hardly any judgments were ever entered in Los Angeles County California. Except for the family courts, which appeared to faithfully and orderly enter their judgments with notice of entry of judgments, etc.
However, appeals must be noticed within 60 days from Date of Entry of Judgment by California Law .... Well - the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District did not even have a field in its online Dockets for storing such data.
So how did the Court of Appeal, 2nd District determine such date?
It appeared that the court was flexible on this question... After all the same Court of Appeals also allowed, at least in one case, a Notice of Appeal from nothing - no order or judgment were listed as originating such Notice of Appeal, but it passed through review of the pre-docket clerk of that court. and was listed in the docket... In another case, 2 judgments were listed in the same case, and three appeals, although both of the first appeals were denied, the third was dropped by the appellant.
In Los Angeles County, California, we are also flexible on the question who is the judge in a case.... Judges preside with no assignment order in good number of cases. In a landmark case - Sturgeon v LA County - which hold the future prospect of any honest court services in LA for years to come, JUSTICE JAMES A RICHMAN, from the California Court of Appeals, First District, San Francisco presumably runs the show... but what is he? He routinely signed as "Sitting as Judge by Assignment".... The court routinely recorded him as "Not by assignment - by reference", and Plaintiff, represented by Judicial Watch, recently in a notice of appeal defined him as presiding "by Designation.".. No order supporting the authority of the Honorable Richman could be found on file... Go Figure,,, Fly Blind...
One must recall that in Los Angeles, California, we are also flexible on what is a court case, in the first place...
The Court has been denying public access to its Index of All Cases for the past 25 years. Instead it posted online some query engine, posted with a Disclaimer - that it should not be relied upon. Indeed a few months ago, when journalists searched for the case of movie star Sharon Stone, it turned out that it never appeared there at all. Moreover, we have a good number of cases, that appear there, but the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify as cases of the court....
A phone call request for observers by Attorneys without Borders, based in Connecticut, was denied. They said they operated only outside the U.S. I'd say for legal purposes, we were outside the U.S. We would like to be in again...
With all that in mind, and with attorney Richard Fine in solitary confinement for over half a year, off the inmate count, off the record, please review the request below. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Final notice: The writer is not an attorney, not even by a long shot, but the fact that no attorney in LA would dare say a word on the subjects listed above is alarming as well.
You broke it - please fix it - Request for appointment of a Special Counsel for the LA County Justice System...
Your note on CIA and drug money was of interest to us, who live in LA under the plight of the LA-JR (alleged LA-Judiciary Racket) of the LA Superior Court.
In tracing the history of corruption of the justice system in LA county, one must note that for over a decade, starting in the early 1980's, CIA was involved in the trafficking of drugs to LA County, for sale, as part of the "Iran Contra scandal". Special Report of the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General was published on the matter in 1997.
The report focused on claims that the CIA caused the Crack Cocaine epidemic of those year. However, the report entirely ignored to explore what experts on criminal justice profess to be the worst damage of a failed drug policy -- corruption of the justice system.
One cannot ignore the fact that the Federal Government therefore had a major role in creating what one organization tracing performance of the justice systems in various parts of the country called a "hellhole" for justice. It established a connection between federal agencies, local agencies and the courts, which had drug profiteering as its cornerstone.
A decade later, during the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) - it was still the same story - local law enforcement and federal agencies, connected with the courts in cover up of the worse corruption scandal in the history of the U.S. - and based on drug profiteering.
In the aftermath - the First Rampart Trial (2000) was derailed, and with a Federal failure to enforce the law - thousands of victims - the Rampart FIPs - who were documented in the investigation - which was the largest in the history of the U.S (200 investigator for two years) - were allowed to remain falsely imprisoned to this date. in what is a Human Rights Disgrace of historic proportions.
Regarding the Justice System of LA County, the following was written in 2000 by local legal scholars:
judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit. How could so many participants in the criminal justice system have failed either to recognize or to instigate any meaningful scrutiny of such appalling and repeated perversions of justice?
we felt a particular obligation to ensure that no aspect of the Los Angeles criminal justice system, including the lawyers and judges, escaped scrutiny.
Any analysis of the Rampart scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states.
and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.
These words were written before the victims were allowed to remain falsely imprisoned for another decade..
In 2001 - a Federal Overseer was appointed for LA - we were in the same league with 1) Guantanamo Bay, and 2) the Prison system of california, all three of us had Overseers for Civil Rights, and in all cases, I believe it would be fair to say - ti was meant only as a fig leaf - nothing more.
By 2006 - the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report described corruption of the justice system in LA as worse than it was during the 1920's Water Wars, reflected in movie Chinatown. The report concluded that the decision in 1998 to allow LA county to investigate itself was ludicrous, and it recommended an "External Investigation". That never happened.
In 2009 - a few weeks ago, the Overseer terminated its office. To the best that I could ascertain, not a single one of the Rampart-FIP's was released through the work of that office, but it was not part of its charge either. However, a key provision in the Consent Decree that was the foundation for the office of the Overseer - periodic financial disclosure by narcotic officers - was never implemented either.
Therefore, one may assume, that the connection of federal agencies, local agencies, drug money, and the courts, continues to this very date.
Another key provision - involved access to computerized databases - I doubt that it was implemented either. In any event =- the denial of public access to public records, false jailing, and corruption of the justice system, with Federal approval - are still the core problems described below... now focused in the false jailing of Atty Richard Fine.
With that in mind, I am seeking comments on the draft below.
– Joseph Zernik
09-10-29 NEW & IMPROVED DRAFT
TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
We respectfully request that Attorney General Eric Holder, on behalf of the Government of this Country, perform its duties pursuant to ratified International Law, and also pursuant to international accords, to which this Country and its Government claim to be parties in good faith.
Our Rights are deprived:
1) We allege deprivation of our Human Rights –
For Liberty (Article #3), Security of Person (Article #3), Equal Protection under the Law (Article #7), Effective National Tribunals for Effective Remedy of Acts Violating Human Rights & Rights Granted by the Constitution of this Country and its Amendments (Article #8), Not Be Subjected to Arbitrary Arrest (Article #9), Fair and Public Hearing by an Independent and Impartial Tribunal, in the Determination of our Rights and Obligations and of any Criminal Charge against us (Article #10).
2) We allege deprivation of our Common Law Rights –
To Access Court Records to Inspect and to Copy.
Such deprivation of Rights is affected by those who were charged with the protection of our Rights:
1) We allege racketeering by Judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles -
Which the Government of the State of California is not ready, willing, or able to address.
2) We allege that ample, credible evidence of the conduct of such Judges as an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, was documented, back at least to the Rampart Scandal (1998-2000) and its aftermath -
(a) The Rampart Scandal investigation (1998-2000), which ended with no report, (b) the First Rampart Trial (2000), which was derailed, (c) The ongoing false imprisonment of the many thousands, almost exclusively Black and Latinos, who were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - through framing of false evidence, through torture to extract of false confessions, and through routine false testimonies by police. (d) Official reports - the latest - Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) - called for an “External Investigation”, which was never instituted.
3) We allege that credible evidence of the conduct of such Judges was found more recently in secret payments to all Judges by the County, for over a decade, which were ruled “not permitted”, and labeled “Bribes” (1990s – present) - and in their conduct after the matter was exposed -
Derailing of the litigation in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which stemmed from this matter, and hiring of a lobbyist to pass a law, intended to circumvent the ruling of the California Court of Appeals, and passed in violation of the rules of debate of the California Legislature, nevertheless – a law that demonstrated that the Judges and the Judicial Counsel of California were of the opinion that the Judges were all liable for violations of the law.
4) We allege that credible evidence of the of conduct of such Judges was found more recently in a collection of individual cases –
Most of which were real estate-related, and in which corruption and/or criminal conduct is alleged of the legal profession, financial institutions, and law-enforcement, including, but not limited to banking regulators.
5) We allege that credible evidence of the conduct of such Judges was found in the most notorious of these individual cases – the false jailing of Attorney Richard Fine –
With only false and misleading records to form its legal foundation, but no valid, effectual records at all, where the Sheriff refused to allow access to the Arrest and Booking records, which originated from a derailed litigation in Marina v LA County (BS109420), and where corruption and/or criminal conduct of the legal profession and law enforcement is alleged.
We are readily familiar with the causes of such conditions in Los Angeles County, California:
1) We allege that conduct of such Judges was enabled by the Court’s computerized case management systems -
Which the Court falsely established as “Privileged”, through unpublished Rules, and to records of which, the Court falsely denied public access for a quarter-century.
2) We allege that conduct of such Judges was facilitated by elimination of the public records of the Court –
Which were the Book of Judgments, Index of All Cases, Calendar of the Courts, and Registers of Actions (Dockets).
3) We allege that conduct of such Judges was facilitated by inadequate and/or false and/or missing Local Rules of Court –
Including, but not limited to: (a) Unpublished Rules, which established the courts computer records as “Privileged”, (b) The Unpublished Rules pertaining to Entry of Judgment – which the Court refuses to disclose, and (c) The false Rules regarding Referrals, intended to circumvent the Law, which requires Appointment Orders, which led to the false jailing of Attorney Fine, and which led to derailing of Sturgeon v LA County as well.
4) We allege that conduct of such Judges was enabled by the Sheriff Department’s computerized case management system -
Which allowed to arrest, book, and keep people jailed with no legal foundation, while generating the false representation of compliance with the law.
5) We allege that conduct of such Judges was enabled by the Sheriff Department’s denial of access to records that are public records by Law -
Such as the Arrest and Booking records of Inmates held by the Sheriff Department.
Our requests for help, previous to your term in office, were frustrated:
We allege that responses on this matter, provided in August-September 2008 by senior U.S. Department of Justice Officers to U.S. Congress – the Honorable Diane Watson and the Honorable Dianne Feinstein - were false and deliberately misleading.
Therefore, we respectfully request the help of your good offices:
By immediately appointing a Special Counsel pursuant to 28 CFR §600 for a limited time, limited mandate, to guarantee, through investigation, and prosecution - if needed:
1) Public access to public records to inspect and to copy;
2) Integrity in operations of the offices of the Clerk of the Court and the Presiding Judge of the Court, with honest, published Local Rules of Court, and
3) Integrity of the case management systems of the Court and the Sheriff Department.
Conditions in Los Angeles County, California are extreme, but we hear the plight of the People all over these United States. We pray that repair of the Justice System in Los Angeles County, California, will set the course for Justice all over the States.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
It is provided also in support of pending request for the Appointment of a Special Counsel to guarantee the access to court records in Los Angeles County, to inspect and to copy, through investigation and prosecution- if needed, of those who may be in violation of the law.
We hold that the denial of access to public records is a critical element of the alleged corruption in LA County, and that if such access was guaranteed, such alleged corruption would be largely eliminated.
This message is also distributed to many in the legal community in Los Angeles, particularly to those associated with Bet Tzedek, in hope that they support the pending request for Appointment Appointment of Special Counsel.
Sheriff Lee Baca:In your online message in the Sheriff Department's web page, you pronounced you commitment to the Legal, Civil, and Human Rights of the Inmates. We call upon you to comply with U.S. and International Law:
- Please allow access to inspect and to copy the papers that formed the basis for Arrest and Booking of Richard Fine, if any.
- If indeed you have no such papers whatsoever - as communications with your office demonstrate - please let Richard Fine go!
October 28, 2009
Sheriff Lee Baca
Los Angeles County
Dear Sheriff Baca:
I am writing in the hope that you immediately release Atty RICHARD FINE, held by you with no records to form the legal foundation for your conduct, Your conduct may be ruled upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction as false imprisonment and abuse of civil rights under the color of law, pursuant to U.S. Law. It may also be ruled by International Human Rights Court as Deprivation of Liberty and Abuse of Human Rights. I have been asking for the past two weeks to inspect and to copy the following records:
1) Arrest - March 04, 2009, 11:05, Dept 86, Mosk Courthouse, Downtown Los Angeles,
- Falsely marked in Sheriff Department records as if it took place in San Pedro.
2) Booking - March 04, 2009, 12:23pm, location unknown,
- Falsely marked in Sheriff Department records as if it took place in San Pedro.
- Denied by the San Pedro Sheriff Station.
I added in recent day to my request also the following request:
3) Immediate review of the integrity of the Sheriff Department's computer system.
The evidence indicated that the Sheriff Department's system was an affront and abuse of the Human Rights of all who live in LA County, since it allowed the false imprisonment of persons with no legal foundation, and the creation of false representation of legality.
In response to my requests in the past two weeks, I got this afternoon a phone call from Sergeant BURSON in your office. I am grateful for your response. However, Sergeant Burson suggested to me, that after review by the Legal Department, he could possibly release to me a REMOVAL ORDER as a response to my requests. In reply, I explained to Sergeant BURSON, that the only good such paper would do, was to evidence one more time, that you had and you have no records whatsoever to substantiate either the ARREST or the BOOKING of Atty RICHARD FINE on March 04, 2009. I am readily familiar with the paper that Sergeant BURSON offered, and it could not address any of my requests, since that paper:
1) Surely could never be read as a REMOVAL ORDER, as suggested by Sergeant BURSON.
2) Even if read as a REMAND ORDER - was irrelevant in this case.
3) Was never in your possession at the time of the ARREST or BOOKING.
4) Was invalid on its face.
The response by your office today documented one more time that you had:
a) NO WARRANT WHATSOEVER FOR THE ARREST AND BOOKING.
b) NO JUDGMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ONGOING FALSE JAILING.
I THEREFORE AGAIN REQUEST THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF FALSELY JAILED ATTY RICHARD FINE.
Events as they appear today are Rampart scandal dj vu all over again:
The only plausible explanation for the events of March 4, 2009, was that the Warrant Detail was deliberately misled by Judge DAVID YAFFE. He first asked for the Warrant Detail to be present, purportedly for arresting RICHARD FINE. He then read from the bench the purported sentencing and he also purported to sign the Judgment.
However, review of the records indicated that he omitted the whole proceeding from the records of the case, and that the Judgment that he purported to sign, was invalid and Fraud on Its Face. There was no chance error there either... All eight Orders, Judgments, and later also Writs in that case - Marina v LA County (BS109420), were of the same type - Fraud on their Faces. Therefore, the case was selected as part of the small collection that was presented to County officials as preliminary evidence of the LA-JR (alleged LA Judiciary Racket).
However, the way it stands now, regardless of alleged corruption of Judge DAVID YAFFE, it is the Sheriff Department that is clearly failing to comply with the law. The last thing we need is prosecution of the Warrant Detail at the LA Superior Court, with Judge DAVID YAFFE appearing to preside in the case... He may even follow the errors he made in the Judgment for Jailing of Richard Fine with some fatal errors in the Jury Instructions... That script was already produced in the Rampart Scandal... I THEREFORE AGAIN REQUEST THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF FALSELY JAILED ATTY RICHARD FINE.
Thanks for your attention to my requests, and I hope to hear back from your office as soon as possible,
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Auditor Controller
Los Angeles County General Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S Attorney General
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.
RE:1) NOTICE UNDER SECTION 307 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT.
2) Request for Bet Tzedek bylaws in re: Grievance by candidate clients
3) Read: Amended-09-10-27 DRAFT LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, IN RE: LA-JR (the alleged LA Judiciary Racket),
Dear Judge Friedman, Mr Kamin, Mr Pasternak, Mr Samuels, and General Counsel, Bank of America Corporation
Thanks to Mr DAVID PASTERNAK for the confirmation of receipt and reading, copied below. I take it as acceptance, with no challenge, that the his conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) as well as the conduct of his Bet Tzedek colleagues - State of California Judge - the Honorable TERRY FRIEDMAN and Bank of America Associate General Counsel - SANDOR SAMUELS should be deemed upon review as racketeering.
I therefore am also addressing this notice, conspicuously marked: NOTICE UNDER SECTION 307 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT to
(1) Mr SANDOR SAMUELS - Associate General Counsel, Bank of America Corporation, and
(2) GENERAL COUNSEL, Bank of America Corporation,
Compliance with Section 307 of Sarbanes-Oxley
If counsel reasonably believe that material violation of law may have
occurred, is occurring or is about to occur, as set forth in Section 307 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the SEC Rule promulgated there under (17 CFR
205), counsel must notify the General Counsel. This notice may be in any form,
but should conspicuously state that it is being made under Section 307 of the
Mr SANDOR SAMUELS is kindly requested to fully report to the GENERAL COUNSEL regarding:
1) His own FRAUD - as opined by Fraud Expert - relative to COUNTRYWIDE records and declarations, filed under the caption referenced above.
2) Resulting FRAUD - as opined by Fraud Expert - of his Bet Tzedek colleague, DAVID PASTERNAK,
3) Additional alleged Fraud conducted on behalf of the BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION by BRYAN CAVE, LLP, appearing while NOT Counsel of Record, in violation of Outside Counsel Procedures of Bank of America Corporation. However - the evidence - records filed by BRYAN CAVE, LLP document that such appearance took place in full cooperation with BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION. Such conduct is alleged as Fraud in its own sake.
I fully reported such conduct to the Bank of America Audit Committee in several complaints, pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), yet to be addressed. The full details can also be found in records of U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Houston Texas, case of Borrower William Alen Parsely (4-05-Bk-90374) Dkt #256-260, filed by JOSEPH ZERNIK in Pro Se. The same records can also be viewed free of charge at archive: http://inproperinla.com/
SANDOR SAMUELS and the GENERAL COUNSEL, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION are kindly requested to finally forward my complaint for review by the Audit Committee, and to inform me of the outcome of such review. I would also appreciate informing me on how they decided to address these issues in re: Certifications per Sarbanes Oxley (2002) in periodic reports to regulators.
Mr KAMIN and BET TZEDEK -House of Justice, are kindly requested to provide the response to requests previously made:
Does the House of Justice have bylaws for handling grievances by individuals maliciously, and probably also criminally, harmed by a House of Justice top Officer, while acting in Office, in response for request for help in re: REAL ESTATE FRAUD by an individual from Bet Tzedek Office, by leaving such request for help by hand delivery on the premises of the House of Justice, in response to solicitation for such requests for help by the House of Justice on the House of Justice website?
The House of Justice failed to post warnings on all its brochures and literature, such as:
Client Beware, some of our officers may be yet to be convicted felons, and may retaliate if you ask for help regarding their own alleged crimes.
No such notices were found on the web site in June 2007, at the time that Mr SANDOR SAMUELS served as CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, and I filed a request for help in Bet Tzedek office, which immediately led to retaliation, but no help, I therefore ask to file grievance pursuant to the HOUSE OF JUSTICE own bylaws.
Media, Others in the Jewish and Legal Community.