Friday, November 13, 2009

09-11-13 Hi Shirley - Updates on the Richard Fine case in Facebook notes.

Shirley Moore

_ _ __ _ _

No. 1


Hi Shirley:

Running the fundraiser for Richard Fine in a Casino, under the “Life's A Bluff” title, is more appropriate than you could ever realize... I have just finished working on several manuscripts for submission to various computer science, scholarly and professional journals, in the U.S. and abroad. The claim is: FALSE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, PREVALENT IN THE U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM, ARE TOOLS FOR LARGE-SCALE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. Anti-corruption activist Richard Fine - a textbook case - is falsely imprisoned for 7 months in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California, through bluffing and flimflams in four different systems...

The paper alleges that all agencies which are involved in the case are just playing little bluffs… None of the records of these courts or the sheriff's department are considered real court records (authenticated, effectual) by the same agencies... Just little flimflams...

Accordingly, the same agencies now are denying requests to inspect and to copy the records - which are public records by law… They probably can't understand what the fuss is all about either... After all, it has been going on in Los Angeles for years, on a much larger scale. The Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), were shown to be victims of corruption of the LA Superior Court (1998-2000 Rampart investigation), and were estimated at 8,000, 16,000, or 30,000 - depending on the source. They were almost exclusively black and latinos. They were never released, to this date - a decade later. They are still falsely imprisoned. It is a Human Rights disgrace of historic proportions… However, we are very conscientiously taking care of Human Rights offenders around the globe...

Joe Zernik


No. 2


Hi Shirley:

We have assembled a group of civil cases of LA Superior Court, where we claim that the records of the court itself are full evidence of the conduct of the LA-JR (alleged LA-Judiciary Racket) as an enterprise in a pattern of racketeering activity. Most are related to real estate, which originally the case of Richard Fine was just as well. I am now committed to this cause full time, and we are organizing a group to appear before an International Human Rights Court:

1) We are seeking criminal cases, where defendants believe that the records by themselves can demonstrate that they were bluffed by the LA Superior Court (see civil case of Poster Girl – Barbara Darwish, below).

2) We are seeking additional civil cases, where litigants believe that they were flimflammed by the LA Superior Court, and the flimflam can be evidenced from court records by themselves. A prime example is the case of Poster Girl – BARBARA DARWISH. She was bluffed in May 2002 to appear for a real estate litigation of the LA Superior Court in the Culver City Municipal Court, where a judge who remained unnamed in court records – as “Muni Judge” – ran on her a flimflam “bench trial” to take her 6-unit Santa Monica rental-property… I located her, and she provided a declaration – it was in fact Judge JOHN SEGAL who ran the flimflam with Atty DAVID PASTERNAK.

3) We are seeking people who were flimflammed by Atty DAVID PASTERNAK – acting for the LA Superior Court. Numerous Grant Deeds were retrieved from office of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorder, that are likely to be opined as FRAUD. They were falsely executed by Atty David Pasternak on behalf of the LA Superior Court. Anybody who was involved in a case related to real estate, where Atty DAVID PASTERNAK was involved, is likely to be of interest.
Would be grateful for any inquiries, and would provide additional information by email to all who write to me.

4) Judges that were documented as repeat actors in flimflams included so far: JACQUELINE CONNOR, JOHN SEGAL, TERRY FRIEDMAN, PATRICIA COLLINS, GERALD ROSENBERG. Anybody who was involved in such a case with these judges is likely to be of interest.

5) Judge DAVID YAFFE is of course of special interest. Anybody who believes that he/she was bluffed by him, is likely to be of interest.

6) Law firms that colluded with the court in flimflams – are too many to list here. Two of the largest are SHEPPARD MULLIN, LLP and BRYAN CAVE, LLP. Anybody who was involved in a case that he/she believes to be a flimflam, involving these two law-firms, is likely to be of interest.

7) Banks and financial institutions are often involved in the flimflams in litigations against individuals. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION – are documented as engaging in flimflams with the judges. Anybody who was involved in such case, involving these two financial institutions, is likely to be of interest.

Joe Zernik


No. 3


Hi Shirley:

It is obvious that Real Estate and Criminal Defense attorneys know the story very well - for them it is a daily routine of the profession, as practiced in Los Angeles, California courts. However, most don’t dare to say a word. I got some tips, and they were very instrumental. The simplest way to do it – is to go to an Internet Café, and leave an anonymous comment on my blog:

In such accounts Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR repeatedly appears as a figure that wields great power to intimidate attorneys, both criminal defense attorneys, and real-estate attorneys in civil litigations. In both cases, the goal is to coerce counsel not to effectively represent the client, or else - the threat is of sanctions that would tarnish the license to practice law, or even have the license lost. In fact, both happened to Richard Fine, and other attorneys who filed complaints about LA-JR judges. In criminal cases - counsel is pressured not to stand up for the client's rights, or object to evidence that Judge Connor wanted to have admitted, and in real-estate cases - I can state based on my account - no experienced Real Estate attorney would dare file any claims of Fraud and Deceit on behalf of the client, since the Fraud and Deceit are most likely by the LA-JR itself.

Accounts of coercion and threats are probably the easiest to tell without providing data that would clearly identify the counsel. However, even as a tip, such accounts should include some details that would provide some levels of credibility.

Joe Zernik


No. 4


Hi Shirley:

Bluffs, flimflams, and denial of access to records… This is where things are today with the Richard Fine case. I am writing to you hoping that you publicize the facts, since I am not good in that department. The details in general are kind of technical, both on the legal and on the computer systems side. I provide links to references at the bottom, including one I wrote for easy reading as fictionalized version of events - "An Urban Myth...". I also got some help along the way from a non-profit civil rights group.

1) Judge DAVID YAFFE, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

He eliminated the March 4, 2009 Proceeding, where Richard Fine was reported to be sentenced to "continuous confinement" and also arrested, from the records of the litigation. It simply never happened as far as the record is concerned. David Yaffe never issued a March 4, 2009 Warrant for the arrest of Richard Fine, either. The record of the March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt was false on its face (Invalid endorsement by Judge Yaffe - "Dated March 24, 2009" - on a record that was stamped on its face "FILED - March 4, 2009"), and an invalid court record (Lacking authentication and ineffectual). David Yaffe did generate, on the other hand, a March 4, 2009 Minute Order, which was written as if no sentencing ever took place. However, the March 4, 2009 Minute Order is not a valid court record either (Lacking authentication and ineffectual). It's all just little bluffs... In reading the Reporters Transcript, on the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that it was an "off the record" proceeding. And media, likewise, reported it (there were at least two reports) as if it were a true court proceeding, at the end of which Judge DAVID YAFFE sentenced Atty Richard Fine to "continuous confinement". Undeniably - the Warrant Detail indeed immediately went ahead and arrested Richard Fine, and led him out of the courtroom. Undeniably - he is jailed to this date - seven months later. However, there is no indication of that in the formal court records of the litigation. It all as if it happened by error... surely not by Judge DAVID YAFFE's intention...

This is what I call "The Double Books", or "The Fingerprints of the LA-JR". They appear in each and every one of the cases that we are selecting. The judges deliberately created records that would appear to a lay-person as true court records, but in fact, they deliberately made them "false on their face" and invalid. However, at the same time, they got these orders and judgments executed. I believe that these Fingerprints of the LA-JR are also some of the most effective evidence in documenting the conduct of an enterprise in a pattern of racketeering activity, because it is all based on the court records themselves. Atty Richard Fine's version of events, or Judge Yaffe's are not the central evidence at all. It cuts out all the "he said she said" out of the claims of the conduct of the LA-JR.

Denial of Access to Court Records at the LA Superior Court–

The LA Superior Court denies for months requests, pursuant to U.S. law (Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc, 1978) and First Amendment rights, to access the Richard Fine records:

a) Register of Actions (California Docket) The LA Superior Court never producing the Register of Actions (California docket) during any of the proceedings in the LA Superior Court itself, during the Habeas Corpus review at the U.S. District Court, or during review of the Petition to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Likewise, the LA Superior Court continues to deny repeated requests to access the Register of Actions in this case in recent months. The reports that the two Petitions, which were filed on behalf of Atty Richard Fine were reviewed in these two U.S. Courts were ludicrous. There is no way that these Petitions could be reviewed by these two U.S. Courts, while the LA Superior Court never produced the Register of Actions. To make it simple - it is like writing a Book Review, but not only never reading the Book, also never bothering to read the Cliff's Notes, just writing the Book Review as a bluff, or a flimflam...

b) Other Electronic Litigation Records in Sustain – The case management system of the LA Superior Court, which the court falsely established as “privileged”.

Requests to access these records were forwarded to the Presiding Judge of the LA Superior Court - CHARLES MCCOY and the Clerk of the Court JOHN CLARKE. They never responded themselves, but instead I got lengthy letters from the Counsel for the Court, FREDERICK BENNETT, These letters are false and deliberately misleading. They also contradict each other, but never provide a reason why access is denied. It is also obvious why – because there couldn't possibly be a reasonable explanation why an honest court would deny access to the public records in this case.

2) Sheriff - LEE BACA, Sheriff Department, County of Los Angeles

Conducted on Richard Fine a sham, warrantless arrest and sham booking, and is falsely imprisoning Richard Fine with no papers at all to provide a legal foundation for the confinement. The Sheriff entered false data in the online Inmate Information center. The arrest and booking of Atty Richard Fine were listed as if it were carried out by Municipal Department 86, in San Pedro. No such Department existed. However, it came in handy - the Sheriff Department then conveniently claimed that the arrest and booking papers were held by the Booking Agency - following standard procedures. After I made it clear that I knew that such agency never existed – the San Pedro Municipal Dept 86 - the Sheriff's Office would not answer any more questions regarding the papers. Richard Fine is in solitary confinement for 7 months, in a remote hospital room, with no access to the main jail facility, and practically is never out of his room. The most plausible explanation - he was never booked at all, and he is not on the Inmate County List of the jail. Therefore, he must never be present in the three-times a day Inmate Counts, he basically has to never exist in the jail... It really was not an arrest, and it really isn't jailing - the Sheriff was really just playing a little flimflam...

Denial of Access to Records of the Sheriff Department –

Arrest and Booking Records of Richard Fine – Through three weeks of almost daily communications, access is denied. The Sheriff’s office is refusing to allow inspection of the records, which are prescribed as public records by the California Public Records Act. It is also evident why – because there are no papers, and never were. The latest that I heard from Commander Laing was: “The Office of the Sheriff practices full transparency”. And if I wanted to see the records “You would have to get a court order for that”.

3) Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE and Judge JOHN WALTER, U.S. Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles

Ran on Richard Fine a sham Habeas Corpus Petition proceedings. None of the papers that were the Orders, Report and Recommendations, and Judgment were real court records (authenticated, effectual). They were just playing a little bluff...

In addition, I raised concerns of dishonest handling of the paper records that were filed on behalf of Atty Richard Fine with the U.S. District Court, and the Supervisor of the Intake Unit – SHARON MCGEE – looked into it, and then told me that she concurred with my concerns, and that she raised the issues herself before the court. I then followed up with a written request, which was submitted to TERRY NAFISI - Clerk of the U.S. District Court - for investigation of such concerns. No reply whatsoever was received.

Denial of Access to Records of the U.S. District Court, LA –

a) The Richard Fine Habeas Corpus Petition Paper Record – Requests to access the original paper that was filed on behalf of Richard Fine as Habeas Corpus Petition are denied. On September 18, 2009, I appeared in the U.S. District Court Clerk’s office and hand delivered a written request. The Duty Clerk claimed that the petition, filed on March 19 or 20, 2009 (the stamp was hand altered, you can't tell for sure), was already shredded. I later requested to inspect documentation of the shredding. No response was received at all. There cannot possibly be a reasonable explanation why an honest court would deny access to this public records, or if it were indeed shredded – to the documentation of the shredding.

b) The Richard Fine Habeas Corpus authentication records I was reliably informed by Richard Fine from jail that he had never received any authentication with any of the orders or judgment of the court. I therefore repeatedly requested in communications with TERRY NAFISI – Clerk of the U.S. District Court, and also in a visit on Sept 18, 2009 delivered by hand a written request – to inspect and to copy the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings – today’s instrument of authentication in the U.S. Courts). The request was explicitly denied by the Duty Clerk, with no explanation at all.

I later received a letter from the Clerk's Office that appeared as an offer to allow me access to the NEFs. I responded, and I am still waiting.

4) Chief Judge ALEX KOZINSKI and Circuit Judges RICHARD TALLMAN and RICHARD PAEZ, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

Followed suite - and ran on Richard Fine a sham Petition review. I figured it out even before they issued the denial. You can see my filing (Dckt #2), protesting sham court actions as a common, widespread severe abuse of Human Rights in the U.S. today - by the court that were charged with protection of such rights... Regardless, they issued the June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition (Dckt #4), which never was and never will be a real court order. I was on the service list, and I received that order by mail as well - it names Chief Judge ALEX KOZINSKI and Circuit Judges RICHARD TALLMAN and RICHARD PAEZ as those who issued the order. However, the order was undated, unsigned, and unauthenticated. And that is also the way that it appears in the court docket in Pacer - the electronic court records of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit... It was just a little flimflam...

Denial of Access to Records of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit –

a) The Richard Fine Petition Authentication Records I was reliably informed by Richard Fine from jail that he had never received any authentication with the denial order. In addition – I was listed as Party in Interest, and I was served by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, with the June 30, 2009 Order (Dckt #4) of denial as well – a paper that carried the names of the three Judges of the Court of Appeals, but was undated and unsigned by them, with no authentication at all. Written requests for the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings - today's authentication records) remain unanswered.

The denial of access to the public records is not only denial of the rights of Richard Fine, but denial of the rights of all of us. The right to access court records is one of the oldest in Common Law. It must be considered as an integral part of the Habeas Corpus - The Great Writ. There simply is no way to practice Habeas Corpus with no access to court records. Trying to make it simple - it is as if the police were required as part of their duties to make sure that all drivers have valid driver's licenses and car registration and insurance, but police would not be allowed to ask drivers to show them the records...

What we are witnessing in Los Angeles County, today - 2009, are concerted efforts by the courts to establish and enforce new standards - false arrest, false imprisonment, false review of habeas corpus and related petitions, and repeal of the right to access court records... It is back to the deep past - by way of digital technology...

It is a grim picture for anybody who cares for his/her own Liberty. Surely, I never dreamed that I would witness anything like this in my lifetime.

Joe Zernik


I.Fictionalized account of the arrest and jailing of Richard Fine: 09-10-21-An Urban Myth....

II. List of eight (8) records of the LA Superior Court that were related to the jailing of Att Richard Fine, all of which are of the type "false on their faces" - the Fingerprints of the LA-JR, with links to images of the records themselves, and notes detailing the defects in each record:
09-11-03 Jailing of Atty Richard Fine - Evidence of the conduct of an enterprise in a pattern of racketeering activity

III. Image and text of the false court record that was served by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit:
09-11-11 What do you call an unsigned order, denying a prisoner's petition received from Chief Judge, 9th Circuit, Alex Kozinski? SLEAZE? FLIMFLAM?

IV. Overall easy language narrative explaining why none of the records were true court records, and efforts to access court records to establish more definitively that they are false and deliberately misleading records produced by the courts:
09-11-13 Hi Shirley - Updates on the Case of Richard Fine


1) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Jailing of Atty Richard Fine was purported to originate from ancillary proceedings to -
Marina v LA County (BS109420)

2) U.S. Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles
The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was purported to be litigated under -
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

3) U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
The Emergency Petition of Atty Richard Fine from his Habeas Corpus Petition was purported to be reviewed under -
Fine v Sheriff (09-71692)



Many or most court records in the three cases listed above and many more can be found archived at:

Organization is far from perfect; however by default it is alpha-numeric, and the three cases above each starts with a market, respectively:


09-11-13 Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference

from Wikipedia

Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference

The Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference (or CFP, or the Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy) is an annualacademic conference held in the USA or Canada about the intersection of computer technology, freedom, and privacy issues. The conference founded in 1991, and since 2000, it has been organized under the aegis of the Association for Computing Machinery. It was also originally sponsored by CPSR.


June 15-18, 2010, in San Jose California and cyberspace!

Topic Suggestion:


Samples: 1) 2)

Additional URL: