Monday, June 8, 2009

Surprisingly Quick Response by the U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit...

Another day in the trenches...
The U.S. Appellate Court 9th Circuit was surprisingly quick to respond to my newsletter... I distributed it in the early morning hours, and by afternoon the court corrected the irregularities in the docketing of Richard I Fine's Emergency Petition...[1]

I wish I was my own side-kick when I filed my own emergency petition with the 9th Circuit last year...

Regardless, my advice to Att Richard I Fine, had I ever talked with him, would have been not to build up any expectations for relief by the 9th Circuit Court... If he is positively surprised, that's great. But for me it was one of the worst points in the whole ordeal - the way I was treated by the 9th Circuit Court - because I had falsely exagerated expectations...
In a way it was also the "moment of clarity" - which comes after you "hit rock bottom" - using the Big Book of AA terminology...
Also filed today was a 2-page complaint by fax to Steve Goldman, Chief, White Collar Crime Squadron, FBI Los Angeles - against Magistrate Carla Woehrle, her law clerk Donna Thomas, and pro se clerk Chris Sawyer, all at the U.S. district court, LA, for their handling of trial court litigation records in the cases of Richard I Fine...
It was almost a copy of the letter I filed with Mr Goldman exactly a year ago regarding the handling of my own litigation records in Zernik v Connor et al by the same team... It looks like they are running out of new tricks... It is like deja vu all over again... as Yogi Berra used to say...

Also had an intersting discussion with the Pacer technical team in Texas... It always comes to me as a surprise, since I have never considered myself as a technical/computer expert... Yet, I must admit it is in my blood- both my brothers and two of my cousins are PhDs in Computer Science... With it came some interesting findings... It always surprises me when I realize that I am telling technical people about problems that they should be concerned about, but are not...

The Pacer technical team felt that the system was as secure as can be... After all, it is presumably under the wings of the DOD. I guess that such security arrangements protect Pacer against a surprise attack by Osama Bin Laden from his cave where he sits and plans with his wi-fi internet connection...

But they forgot to place some critical safeguards against the Carla Woehrles, Donna Thomases, and Chris Sawyers... Because just as is the case in the mortgage/banking industry - most or all of the frauds in the dockets are inside jobs...
[1] Now Att Richard I Fine's Emergency Petition is posted online in Pacer:
[2] The Big Book of AA, page 42
[3] Complaint letter to Chief of the White Collar Crime Squadron, Steven Goldman:

Jailed Human Rights Activist Att Richard I Fine’s 9th Circuit Court Petition Demonstrates Vague and Ambiguous Filing Procedures...

The petition itself was denied the leave to be posted in the Pacer docket, albeit - neither the respective ruling, nor of its legal foundation were recorded. Reported refund of the filing fees was similarly neither recorded nor reasonably explained, resulting in a vague and ambiguous court filing…


Los Angeles, June 8, 2009, payments of ~$45,000 per judge per year, were taken by ALL Los Angeles Superior Court judges for years. Such payments were ruled in October 2008 as “Not Permitted”,[i] pursuant to the California Constitution, and would be called by a lay person “Bribes”.[ii] As part of alleged retaliation for his role in exposing such payments accomplished anti-trust attorney, former U.S. Prosecutor, human rights activist Att Richard I Fine was disbarred, and more recently - on March 4, 2009 - indefinitely jailed.[iii] Such jailing - for contempt - by Judge David Jaffe, came at the end of proceedings where Att Richard I Fine sought to disqualify Judge David Jaffe for a cause, since the judge was among the judges who took such payments…

Although the matter is of the highest public policy significance, major news outlets consistently fail to report on developments in this case. As reported by Full Disclosure Network, the ONLY consistently reliable news source in this matter, the ruling to jail Att Richard I Fine and conditions of his incarceration demonstrated alleged severe abuses of human rights in LA County, California, by judges of the LA Superior Court. Other ongoing human rights abuses of historic proportions by judges of the LA Superior Court were alleged in the continued incarceration of the estimated 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) - a full decade after the onset of the 2-year (1998-2000), 200-investigator probe that demonstrated that they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced.[iv]

Records and dockets of complaints, filed by Att Richard Fine at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, in attempt to restore his rights, evidenced further alleged abuses of Due Process rights, including, but not limited to setting of incarceration conditions that deliberately compromised Att Richard Fine’s ability to physically file his papers in court, and the failure to hear, to this date, his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on March 19, 2009.[ii] , [v]

On June 3, 2009, Att Richard I Fine therefore filed a petition with the U.S. Appellate Court, 9th Circuit. [vi] Data from the U.S. courts’ case management system Pacer of Att Richard I Fine’s and two other detainees’ petitions filed on or around the same date were copied below. Such records demonstrated the differential treatment and the vague and ambiguous nature of the docketing and filing of Att Richard I Fine’s petition.[vii]

Petitions of both other detainees were posted in full in the online docket, 44 pages in one, and 8 pages in the other. Only in the case of Att Richard I Fine, the petition itself was NOT posted online. Therefore the Pacer docket would not allow others to follow whatever takes place in this action.[viii] In addition, since the petition itself was not posted in the Pacer docket, one couldn’t tell with certainty: Was it a habeas corpus petition per se, or was it a petition for a writ of mandate, pertaining to the conduct of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles? What specific claims were made? What specific relief was sought by Att Richard Fine?

Furthermore, the 9th Circuit Court Pacer docket did not allow to ascertain who signed the petition. Was Att Richard I Fine himself? Was it his counsel? Was it another unknown party? Such questions were pertinent here, since part of the abuse cited in the Full Disclosure Network report was: “Since incarceration on March 4, 2009 Petitioner has been denied all access to writing materials and to all written materials and legal documents.” Moreover, regardless of the fact that such obstacles were deliberately set up by the LA County Sheriff’s Department, papers that Att Richard I Fine had filed with the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, were consequently stricken off the record of that court – at the request of the LA County Sheriff’s Department - for failure to bear signature of pro se petitioner or his counsel…

In fact, it was left unclear whether the 9th circuit court accepted this filing either. Such ambiguity was enhanced by the failure to state any schedule for proceedings, although the docket claimed "ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PETITIONER". Furthermore, the Full Disclosure Network reported a refund of the filing fees, which could indicate denial of the leave to file the petition as presented to the clerk. However, such refund was noticed by phone only, and no record was provided in the Pacer docket of the unusual decision to refund the fees, neither was any reasonable explanation provided for such decision.

Upon review, as a whole, the Pacer record of Att Richard I Fine’s petition may therefore be deemed as: (a) Substantially deficient, departing from the standards for docketing of other detainees’ petitions; (b) Demonstrating denial of the leave to post the petition itself in the docket, with no record of such ruling, or its reasons; (c) Possibly also demonstrating denial of the leave to file the petition in its current form – as reflected by the refund of the filing fees and failure to set up schedule – again – with no explicit recording of such ruling, if any, and its reasons, and (d) Overall - vague and ambiguous docketing and filing procedures.

Instant petition, like other cases, previously described [ii], demonstrates various alleged abuses of Due Process and First Amendment rights, all stemming from the failure to formulate standard, basic court procedures - pertaining to Pacer filing and docketing - as Rules of Court. Proposal was filed with the U.S. Congress over a year ago, to enforce the Rule Making Enabling Act on all case management systems in the courts – an essential measure for the safeguard of the integrity of the courts[ix].

[i] October 10, 2008 ruling by the California Court of Appeal, 4th District:

[ii] Review of the case of “not permitted” payments, taken by the LA Superior Court judges:

[iii] Overview of the case of jailing Att Richard I Fine for contempt

[iv] May 1, 2009 complaint filed in U.S. Court, District of Columbia: Zernik v Melson at al.(1:2009cv00805) alleging widespread corruption and racketeering by LA Superior Court judges and others:

[v] The Habeas Corpus petition and related dockets and papers can be viewed under :

[vi] June 6, 2009 Full Disclosure Network report of the 9th Circuit Court petition filed by Att Richard I Fine:

[viii] 9th Circuit Court Pacer docket for Att Richard I Fine says only:
06/03/2009 1 1 pg, 128.65 KB

The Pacer docket of petition by another Pro Se detainee on the same day provides the full 44-page petition and the following Pacer docket text:
06/03/2009 1 44 pg, 1.7 MB
COUNSEL. Pursuant to G.O. 6.4 (c)(1)(3) A TEMPORARY STAY OF
REMOVAL IS IN EFFECT pending further order. Petitioner detained: Yes.
The schedule is set as follows: Certified Administrative Record due
07/29/2009. Response to motion for stay due 08/26/2009 for Eric H. Holder
Jr., Attorney General. (GR)

The Pacer docket of petition by another detainee on the previous day provides the full 8-page petition and the following Pacer docket text:
06/02/2009 1
8 pg, 277.83 KB
COUNSEL. Pursuant to G.O. 6.4 (c)(1)(3) A TEMPORARY STAY OF
REMOVAL IS IN EFFECT pending further order. Petitioner detained: Yes.
The schedule is set as follows: Certified Administrative Record due
07/28/2009. Response to motion for stay due 08/25/2009 for Eric H. Holder
Jr., Attorney General. (BY)