page counter []
"...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* "Los Angeles County got the best courts that money could buy". KNBC (October 16, 2008) * "Innocent people remain in prison" LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) * Los Angeles County is "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud." FBI (2004) * “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000) * "Condado de Los Angeles tiene las mejores canchas que el dinero puede comprar".KNBC (16 de octubre de 2008) * "Las personas inocentes permanecen en prisión" LAPD Blue Ribbon Panel de Revisión Report (2006) * Condado de Los Angeles es "el epicentro de la epidemia de bienes raíces y el fraude de la hipoteca." FBI (2004) * "... Los jueces juzgado y condenado a un asombroso número de personas por crímenes que no cometieron." Prof. David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * "Esta es una conducta asociada con los dictadores más represivos y los estados de la policía ... y los jueces deben compartir la responsabilidad, cuando es condenado a personas inocentes." Prof. Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine, la Facultad de Derecho (2000)

Thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) remain locked up more than a decade after official, expert, and media report documented that they were falsely prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in the largest court corruption sandal in the history of the United States...

Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006):


Nuestro derecho a acceso los expedientes publicos, nuestra libertad y nuestros derechos humanos fundamentales están todos conectados en las caderas!

10-10-01 Corruption of the California courts noticed by the United Nations

In summer 2010, the staff report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States, noticed and referenced the Human Rights Alert April 2010 submission, pertaining to "corruption of the courts, the legal profession, and discrimination by law enforcement in California".

10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

10-05-19 Notice to the US State Department // La notificación al Departamento de Estado de EE.UU. // Mitteilung an das US State Department

From: jz
To: Bob Hurt , "lawsters@googlegroups.com"
Subject: RE: Notice to US State Department as part of the 2010 UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States - Fwd: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-case
Date: May 19, 2010 3:21 PM
Hi Bob, Hi All:

Please take a look at the latest version of the powerpoint presentation. [1] I would like to have your input on whether the added evidence- primarily NEFs -of fraud in court records from the Richard Fine cases at the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - made the presentation clearer, or just more confusing to the reader.

I fully agree with your opinion regarding Misprision of Treason.  My personal opinion, as a non-attorney, has been much worse than that for a few years - that the US government has reached a constitutional crisis, as a result of treason by the judiciary as a class, where there is no remedy in the checks and balance inherent in the US constitution.

That was the reason that already a while back I realized that if there would be any remedy - it would be ONLY through the international community.  Please take a few minutes and read the submission to the UN, [2] it is rather short.  The submission dealt with large scale Human Rights violationsper se.  However, it stated that the implications were much more serious - the evidence showed disintegration of US government frameworks, with risks to world peace and welfare that were difficult or impossible to assess.

For such reason, it further drew the conclusion that no action by the International Community was not a viable option

The revised powerpoint presentation, I believe, provides more direct evidence, through the case of Richard Fine, of the large scale shell-game fraud that is PACER and CM/ECF.  

Richard Fine himself refuses to internalize the facts, although I served the records on him in jail (that was one of the primary purposes of my filing with the US Supreme Court in his case):
- He continues to believe that his habeas corpus petition was reviewed by the US district court, central district of California. The evidence shows that he was subjected to fraudulent proceedings, where the minutes, orders, judgement, mandate were never deemed valid court records by the court itself.
- He continues to believe that his petitions and appeal to the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit were indeed reviewed, but the evidence shows that all of them only resulted in unsigned, unauthenticated records, which a reasonable person would conclude -just like their counterparts at the US district court - were void, not voidable court records.
- He continues to believe that Anthony Kennedy denied his Application to the US Supreme Court on March 12, 2010.  In fact, again it was an unsigned, unauthenticated decision, which was noticed by a person who was not even a clerk, or deputy clerk of the US Supreme Court. Again, a reasonable person would conclude that such unsigned letter by Attorney Danny Bickell could never be deemed a valid US Supreme Court Order. Indeed, the "Denial" by Justice Kennedy failed to appear in the log of US Supreme Court Orders.

Regardless of the futility of his court filings in and of themselves, it is my opinion that his case would be of historic significance, in the detailed documentation that is produced of the alleged fraud in all agencies of the justice system - from the LA Superior Court, through the Sheriff of Los Angeles County jail system, to the US court of appeals, and the US Supreme Court.  That approach, of course entirely ignores the issues and the arguments, which were brought up by Richard Fine in his filings. Likewise, it entirely disregards the reasoning and the determinations that were stated in various purported judgments.  Such approach only inspects the records to see if they were honest, valid, and effectual court records,which required Full Faith and Credit, or - as is my opinion - only Void Not Voidable court records,

That said, the powerpoint presentation is limited to concluding that PACER and CM/ECF generated unreasonable ambiguity regarding the validity of court records and court procedures, and proposed a language for the UN report that stated only concerns regarding PACER and CM/ECF,and called upon the US to demonstrate that PACER and CM/ECF upheld the fundamental principles of Due Process (US law terminology) and Fair Hearings (international law terminology):
1) Published Rules of Court
2) Notice and service of court minutes, orders,judgments on parties in litigation 
3) Public access to court records - to inspect and to copy.

I believe that it would be much easier to gain support for such statements in soliciting expert opinions (based on discussion with such experts), and also to gain support from other nations involved in the UPR process.

Asking the US government to demonstrate that such basic principles were upheld in PACER and CM/ECF, in fact speaks volumes about the large scale fraud in the US courts, without ever using the word fraud itself... That is the essence of "diplomatic language," in my opinion.

Your comments on the clarity of the presentation would be gratefully appreciated.

Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert

As usual, I copy this message to Darcy Smith, US Marshal Service, to indicate to anybody who emails with me that most likely my email correspondence is reviewed by this or that agency.
[1] Revised powerpoint presentation

[2] Human Rights Alert 2010 US UPR Submission

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hurt 
Sent: May 18, 2010 12:56 PM
To: 'jz' 
Subject: RE: Notice to US State Department as part of the 2010 UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States - Fwd: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-case

Do you mean to day you cannot tell the truth that Human Rights Abuses occur in America when complaining about them through diplomatic channels?  

What adversarial tone?  Do the readers presume adversarial conditions DON’T exist, EVER in the case of human rights alerts or conditions?  If so, what purpose does diplomatic handling of human rights abuses serve?

Bob Hurt  • 2460 Persian Drive #70 • Clearwater, FL 33763 USA • (727) 669-5511
Lawmen • Files • Archive •  Scholarship • Jurisdictionary • GetZooks! • 3+G Free

From: jz [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:26 PM
To: Bob Hurt; lawsters@googlegroups.com
Cc: Smith,Darcy (USMS)
Subject: RE: Notice to US State Department as part of the 2010 UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States - Fwd: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-case

Hi Bob, Hi All:

The reason for the approach I have taken, is that my reading of the instructions of the United Nations regarding "submissions" [1] as part of the UPR process, was that any language that was not "diplomatic" could be sufficient reason for the nation under review to refuse to address certain submissions.  Therefore, the tone could not be adversarial, which is the standard in legal intercourse and legal actions.  Instead, the UPR process is of the nature of diplomatic negotiations among nations which are on amicable terms. 

Otherwise, the intercourse here is founded on ratified International Law pertaining to HUMAN RIGHTS, not US criminal code in general. Therefore, the particular sections that you quoted are not the most relevant, albeit - as part of ratified International Law - the government of the US is required to provide equal protection pursuant to the US Constitution and US law.  I believe that the most relevant issues under the UPR process are the large-scale abuse of Human Rights of the people of the US as a result of the conditions detailed in Human the Rights Alert submission [1], related to the large-scale shell-game fraud built into PACER and CM/ECF - the online public access and case management systems of the US courts. Yet, even on that basis, I avoided claiming outright "FRAUD" or "PERVERSION OF JUSTICE", or "DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS", or "DEPRIVATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW", or "DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY", or "DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING", or "DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT FOR NATIONAL TRIBUNALS FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS", although I deeply believe that a competent panel adjudicating based on ratified international law would find all the above valid claims.

For example, although nations that are considered friendly to the US provided "submissions" (not "complaints") as part of the 2010 UPR of the United States, centering on the unreasonably high percentage of US population that is incarcerated, on the fact that the US practices capital punishment at unreasonable frequency and without sufficient safeguards against execution of the innocent, on discrimination against women and against minorities,  the nature of the "submissions" was amicable, not adversarial. 

In short - we are engaging here in diplomacy, not adversarial legal actions.  That said, my personal views, not being an attorney, are that the matters detailed in Human Rights Alert submission, and likely also in submissions by others, amounted to serious violations of both US and ratified International Law.  The goal of communications at this point, pertaining to the Human Rights Alert submission, claiming major deficiencies in PACER and CM/ECF are:
a) Define consensus language, which persons of authority would be likely to lend their name and authority to, and
b) Define consensus language that the UN is likely to adopt relative to respective conditions of Human Rights in the US. 

Any comments on the language proposed in the presentation (pages 31-33), and any suggestions of persons of authority to approach would be greatly appreciated. 

Joseph Zernik. PhD
[1] Powerpoint presentation - Human Rights Alert submission for UPR of the US by the UN
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hurt
Sent: May 18, 2010 8:43 AM
To: 'jz'
Subject: RE: Notice to US State Department as part of the 2010 UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States - Fwd: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-case

I don’t know why you want to sidestep the core purposes of your writing:  redress of grievance.  You’d have nothing to say if you didn’t want redress, relief, remedy, or some kind of action that will correct the problem and bring about an improvement.

I gave you the ten-point feedback below in order to help you make your point.    If you don’t spell it out who did what to whom in violation of what law/rule/regulation and what you want as remedial or corrective or relief or redress action, you defeat your whole ultimate purpose in sending in the notification.  You really SHOULD express it as a complaint, if you want anyone to take it seriously.

I want you to look at just one law that should get this point across:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
18 USC § 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2382
18 USC § 2382. Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

As you see, every one in the USA has an obligation to report felonies and treasons to a US officer, or face retribution through fine and imprisonment.  That means when you give information to a US officer about such crimes, that officer has the obligation to act on it, either to file a formal criminal charge or to take the matter to some US officer for that purpose.

Thus, you SHOULD have the expectation of implicating the US recipient of your complaint in a conspiracy for NOT doing something to bring about relief, if not remedy.

Bob Hurt  • 2460 Persian Drive #70 • Clearwater, FL 33763 USA • (727) 669-5511
Lawmen • Files • Archive •  Scholarship • Jurisdictionary • GetZooks! • 3+G Free

From: jz [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:58 AM
To: Bob Hurt; lawsters@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Notice to US State Department as part of the 2010 UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States - Fwd: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-case

Hi Bob, Hi All:

This is not a litigation, nor is it a situation where I am asking any particular remedy. Instead, it is a situation where I am trying to document and exhaust attempts to communicate and discuss the UPR submission of Human Rights Alert with the US State Department, following guidelines of the United Nations.  The "stakeholder" who provided submissions to the UN, are encouraged by the UN to communicate with the State Department, in advance of the State Department response on the submissions, due in August 2010.  The State Department has no authority over the US courts, therefore, it is not expected that tthe US State Department would be able to provide any remedies.  However, in case the State Department had difficulty understanding the nature of the facts and the allegations regarding fraud in PACER and CM/ECF, such communications would serve to provide the State Department with clarifications, so that the State Department may be able to provide a better response to the UN on the facts and the allegations.

I hope I made it clear to readers of this list what the purpose of the communication was.  However, separately, I am asking the reader of this list for comments on the clarify of the presentation itself. [1]  In particular comments are requested regarding the proposed language for the UN report, to be issued in November 2010, which would be the basis for further discussions between UN and US State Department on way that the US would address the deficiencies between 2010 and 2014 - the next review by the UN.  This is not litigation - this is an amicable diplomatic process among member nations of the UN.  Therefore, for example, no mention was made of the word FRAUD in the revised presentation, albeit, the evidence clearly point to that effect.

The next step in the process leading to November 2010, would be lobbying with nations who sit on the review committee, and with nations who provided Submissions, as stakeholders, regarding alleged violations of Human Rigths in the United States (quite a few did) - in an attempt to demonstrate to them the allegations, and lack of response from the US State Department and other agencies, previously approached.

Joseph Zernik 


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hurt
Sent: May 18, 2010 4:34 AM
To: 'joseph zernik'
Subject: RE: Notice to US State Department as part of the 2010 UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States - Fwd: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-case


If you want any specific action when you submit text like that below, I hope you will begin to request that relief specifically.    If you can, identify a particular perpetrator, not just a system, and a specific victim (including we the people), and the specific act or offense.

If you frame your complaints the way you might a cause of action in a lawsuit, you might get recipients to maneuver toward the solution you seek. 

1.      Cause of action (the crime or tort)
2.      Actors – perpetrator, victim, collaborators
3.      Summary of Statutes / Regulation / Code / Laws / Legal Duties which the perpetrator breached
4.      Jurisdiction – who/what court/ department has it and supporting law
5.      The Cause’s Elements (items  constituting the crime or tort)
6.      Specific facts supporting each element
7.      Injury - Who did or failed to do What Whom and How that caused and constituted injury
8.      Damages – compensatory / punitive money
9.      Specific relief you seek (injunctive, declaratory, payment for damages, punishment)
10.  Memorandum of Law - Case law supporting the complaint, claim, arguments, relief

Look at the Florida Litigation Guide (see Files) for some examples of causes of action, elements, and supporting law.

Somehow, your commentaries, complaints, and writeups seem lethargic to me.  I believe you should remove to-be verbs and passive voice from your writings.  They deprive your explanations of life and action, and impart ambiguity. Write sentences that say Who did What to Whom and in What Way.  I know you never learned this in your pedagogy and that you will feel like a cat must when someone rubs it up-fur.  But you will get used to it and it will make your sentences come alive.  Look at what I have written above and how I normally write as examples.  You seldom see to-be verbs or passive voice in my work.  You probably feel pretty good reading it.

Bob Hurt  • 2460 Persian Drive #70 • Clearwater, FL 33763 USA • (727) 669-5511
Lawmen • Files • Archive •  Scholarship • Jurisdictionary • GetZooks! • 3+G Free

From: lawsters@googlegroups.com [mailto:lawsters@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of joseph zernik
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 5:05 AM
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Cc: Smith, Darcy (USMS); Senator Feinstein- DC; Senator Feinstein- SF; Rep Barney Frank - Chair, House Financial Services Committee; Attention Rep Barney Frank; Attention Senator Christopher Dodd - Chair, Senate Banking Committee; Attention Senator Leahy-Judiciary Committee; Representative Conyers - House Judiciary Committee; Senator Carl Levine
Subject: Notice to US State Department as part of the 2010 UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States - Fwd: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-cases of

Outline of the first ever Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States:
  • April 2010 -    Reports by stakeholders due with the UN.
  • August 2010 -   Response on the reports by the US State Department due with the United Nations
  • November 2010 -  Review session and report issued by the United Nations
  • Later than November 2010 - US State Department and the UN discussion on future goals.
  • 2014 -           Next UPR by the United Nations of Human Rights in the United States.

Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:53:16 +0300
To: upr_info@state.gov
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-cases of the Los Angeles Superior Court

To: US State Department, UPR Office
From: Human Rights Alert, NGO
RE: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-cases of the Los Angeles Superior Court
Please accept the message below, forwarded to US Congress Judiciary Committees, as additional evidence of serious, widespread violations of Human Rights by the US Justice System in Los Angeles County, California, which the US government is refusing to address, and which were the core of April 2010 Human Rights Alert submission  (linked below) to the  the United Nations and to the US State Department UPR Office.

This message is forwarded to the UPR Office of the US State Department, following the outline of the UPR process in UN publications and in the "UPR Tool Kit," (linked below), and as part of further effort to enter discussion of the alleged violations of Human Rights in the United States, in hope that the US State Department will respond on the allegations in its submission to the United Nations as part of the UPR, due August 2010.

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGOhttp://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
1) Urban Justice Center, New York
2) UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:44:10 +0300
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - US Supreme Court and Cal Court of Appeals to review non-cases of the Los Angeles Superior Court
Cc: "Smith, Darcy \(USMS\)" , "Senator Feinstein- DC"<1-202-228-3954@metrofax.com>, "Senator Feinstein- SF" <1-415-393-0710@metrofax.com>, "Rep Barney Frank - Chair, House Financial Services Committee"<1-202-225-6952@metrofax.com>, "Attention Rep Barney Frank" <1-202-225-0182@metrofax.com>, "Attention Senator Christopher Dodd - Chair, Senate Banking Committee" < 1-202-224-1083@metrofax.com>, "Attention Senator Leahy-Judiciary Committee"  <1-202-224-3479@metrofax.com>, "Representative Conyers - House Judiciary Committee" <1-202-225-0072@metrofax.com>, "Senator Carl Levine" <1-202-224-1388@metrofax.com>
[] - []
Marina v LA County (BS108420) and Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) US Supreme Court and California Court of Appeals to review non-cases of the Los Angeles Superior Court
What media reports, such as AHRC - below, and most observers failed to realize is that the legal battles on both cases that are subject of the news report at hand represent the deep seated alleged corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - based on conduct of litigations that the court itself never deemed valid court cases of the Superior Court of California in the first place.

To wit - in both Marina v LA County - the case in which Richard Fine was purported to be arrested, and inSturgeon v LA County - the case that purported to review the "not permitted" payments to Los Angeles County judges, judges and referees presided with no Assignment and no Appointment Orders.

To wit - in both cases the purported judgments were never authenticated and never entered by the Court as required by California Code in order to make such judgments "effectual for any purpose."[1]
To wit - in both cases the Los Angeles Superior Court refuses to allow access to the Registers of Actions (California civil dockets) - the definitive court records of the cases.

Therefore, in previous rounds of the same charade, purported habeas corpus on the arrest and false imprisonment of Richard Fine - at the US District Court in Los Angeles, at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and at the US Supreme Court, as well as purported appeal at the California Court of Appeal, 4th District were conducted out of compliance with fundamental rules and laws - with no dockets for the cases that the respective courts purported to review.  And in the upcoming review round, would again be presumably conducted by the US Supreme Court and the California Court of Appeals, 4th District with no dockets of the cases from the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The ongoing denial of access to court records in Los Angeles County courts, in disregard of First Amendment rights was alleged as fundamental violation of Human Rights in ratified International Law in report filed with the UN in April 2010, scheduled for review as part of Universal Periodic Review (first time ever) of Human Rights in the US in November 2010. [2]
The jurisdiction of review courts pertaining to judgments that were never entered is of course dubious at best.  Such fact is likely to be the explanation for the conduct of the Sheriff and the Los Angeles Superior Court – in refusing to respond to the review courts at all. In turn, the review courts - the California Court of Appeals, 4th District, and the US Supreme Court - have developed their own avenue to review non-cases of the lower courts - by responding in kind – unsigned, unauthenticated decisions…

It’s a full blown  display of the  United States "alternative justice system" in action!

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
LINKS:[1] Search for entered judgments in Marina v LA County and in Sturgeon v LA County in the judgment archives of Los Angeles Superior Court:
An Article
California Judges Losing Ground In Fight To Save Their Illegal Payments:
May 16, 2010

By Full Disclosure Watch (View author info)

Los Angeles, California -Full Disclosure Network presents a nine minute video news update on the long protracted legal battle involving a David and Goliath fight to stop judicial, bias, bribery, conflict of interest and corruption in the California Courts.


Richard I. Fine
, jailed taxpayer advocate Attorney
Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch public interest attorney
and activist Fred Sottile who describes the circumstances of the two cases both involving Los Angeles County
Richard I. Fine vs Sheriff Leroy Baca, L A County and Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles that have now reached the highest courts and are expected to be resolved within the next few days after an extraordinary legal battle against all odds. Here are some of the particulars:

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010

Richard I. Fine vs Sheriff Leroy Baca, L A County
Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Re: Appeal on Writ of Habeas Corpus)
Both Richard Fine and Sterling Norris are very positive regarding the new developments that hold promise they will win in both their cases based on the following two documents:

Sheriff Baca declined to respond (see waiver here) in the U S Supreme Court on Richard I. Fine'sPetition for Writ of Certiorari that could free him from solitary "Coercive Confinement" in the L A County Men's Central Jail. He has been held there for fourteen months even though he has never been charged or convicted of a crime.

L A County and Superior Court Judges Association failed to respond in the Judicial Watch Sturgeon vs County of L. A. case causing the California 4th District Court of Appeals send this notice to respond that the case will be decided on the opening brief and oral argments presented by Judicial Watch if they do not respond by Friday May 21, 2010.

View Comments (0) | Post a comment

For more information, please check out the articles listed below:

·  Theodore Boutrous - Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
 ·  Sterling E. Norris
 ·  Richard I. Fine
 ·  Free Richard Fine Website
 ·  Judicial Watch - Tom Fenton - President
 ·  Please join this emergency show tonight, as Judge Yaffe throws homeowners attorney Richard Fine in jail today without cause - Justice4Us - Dr. Shirley Moore
 ·  Atty Richard Fine, Imprisoned for Freedom Fighting - Brooke Kelley
 ·  The Fine Pursuit of Exposing Corruption - Janet Levy
·  Richard Fine Files Federal Suit Against California State Bar and the State Bar Court - AHRC News Services
·  Attorney Richard Fine resume and some of his unique cases with societal impact - AHRC News Services
·  Attorney Richard Fine Challenges State Bar Action as a Gross Violation of First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech and to Petition the Government to Redress Grievances - Richard I. Fine
·  Former U. S Prosecutor, While Battling Illegal County Payments to Los Angeles County Judges, Falls Victim To Identity Theft and Mail Fraud - AHRC News Services
·  Attorney Richard Fine files suit against judges - Gary Walker
·  False Imprisonment of Richard Fine in California -Appeal for Protection under International Law - Joseph Zernik
·  Lawyer takes a stand from his cell - Victoria Kim
·  The Best Courts Money Could Buy - Free Richard Fine
·  Commissioner Shaw of the 9th. Circuit Court of Appeals Issues A Stay On Disbarment of Richard Fine - Tom Shapinsky
·  Letter to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices regarding California Court Corruption and the Financial Crisis - American Homeowners Resource Center
·  U. S . HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY A JOKE? - Full Disclosure Watch
·  Elwood Lui - Jones Day
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group.
To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Sign Petition - Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición - Liberar a Richard Fine

RICHARD FINE was arrested on March 4, 2009 and is held since then in solitary confinement in Twin Tower Jail in Los Angeles, California, with no records,  conforming with the fundamentals of the law, as the basis for his arrest and jailing.

Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.

Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine -