.

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):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/

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

Saturday, July 31, 2010

10-07-31 Human Rights Alert's Request for US Congress Judiciary Committees to Establish by Law the Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts

Human Rights Alert's Request for US Congress Judiciary Committees to Establish by Law the Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts. Los Angeles, July 31 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) forwarded a request to the US Congressional Committees on the Judiciary for urgent review and legislative initiative regarding case management and online public access systems of the US courts.  Such systems were introduced over the past decade through a large-scale project by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, albeit with no public oversight.  Moreover, the courts failed to publish Rules of Courts to govern their operation.  Evidence was provided that such systems have caused precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts, particularly in the areas of Banking Regulation and Human Rights. The evidence showed that litigations, which were widely reported by media as court actions, were only pretense, with no valid judicial review at all.

The following key deficiencies were identified:
1)       All courts that were examined, from the District Courts, through the Courts of Appeals, to the US Supreme Court, have failed to publish Rules of Court to set the legal foundation for the operation of case management and online public access systems, in apparent violation of Due Process rights.
2)       The manner in which case management and online public access systems were operated today, the public at large, and even attorneys could not distinguish between valid and effectual court records and records that were deemed void, not voidable by the courts themselves.  Both types of records were published in online public access systems in a manner that had to be deemed as serious violation of various fundamental Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights. 
3)       Public access was routinely denied to critical judicial records, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights, and the range of judicial records, which were publicly accessible varied among the courts with no foundation at the law at all.
4)       The key role of Clerks in authentication of court records, which was established over the centuries as a critical safeguard for integrity of the courts, was largely eliminated - a sea change in administration of the courts, which was never established by law. Dockets were now constructed by unauthorized persons, and the Clerk refused to certify them. Unauthenticated judgments were entered in the Index of Judgments with no authority at all.
5)       Discrimination against pro se litigants, and unprecedented authority for counsel to enter court records with no prior review by authority of the Clerk, which were established in the case management systems, undermined Due Process and Fair Hearing rights.
6)       Similar conditions were documented in the courts of the several states as well.

Key features were outlined of the desired legislation:
1)       Any case management and online public access systems should be recognized as inherently affecting changes in court procedures. Therefore, their installation must be established by law. Validation of such systems must be undertaken prior to their installation, in a manner that is legally and publicly accountable - e.g. through agencies under control of the legislative branch.
2)       Data that must be entered only by authority of the Clerk of the Court should be defined, including, but not limited entries in the online dockets, where the name, authority, and digital signature of the person entering the data should be publicly accessible.
3)       All court records must be publicly accessible, pursuant to First Amendment, Due Process, and Public Trial rights, including, but not limited to all authentication records, unless access is denied by law or through documented sealing orders.
4)       Authentication records of the US District Courts (NEF - Notices of Electronic Filing) and the US Courts of Appeals (NDAs - Notices of Docket Activity) must be re-drafted, to form valid certification of authentication records, clear and unambiguous reference should be included in such records to the judicial records being authenticated, as well as visible names, authority, and digital signatures of those issuing the authentication records � as signs of intention to take responsibility. Dockets must be constructed only by authority of the Clerk.  Judgments must be entered into the Judgment Index only by the authority of the Clerk.
5)       Counsel must not be permitted to enter court records in the dockets with no prior review by authority of the clerk; pro se litigants and counsel should be given equal standing in access to such systems.
6)       Key provisions of such legislation should apply to the courts of the several states as well.
Conditions now prevailing in the US justice system were deemed as undermining the framework of lawful and effective government.  Such conditions incurred risks that cannot be easily assessed to stability of US financial infrastructure, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law. 
The proposal was copied to the US State Department and the United Nations, as part of the pending, first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.  The April UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems by the legislative branch.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
The proposal was also copied to the Basel Accord Committee, since in such Accords, the US government made commitments for honest and effective regulation of the US banking system, valid risk assessment, and effective risk reduction.
LINKS01-07-31-Human-Rights-Alert-s-Request-for-the-Judiciary-Committees-to-Establish-Case-Management-and-Online-Public-Access-System-of-the-US-Courts-by-Law
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35149271/

Thursday, July 29, 2010

10-07-29 Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court, in re: Richard Fine // Evidencia adicional para el fraude en los EE.UU. Corte Suprema, in re: Richard Fine

William Suter
Clerk of the US Supreme Court
Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court, in re: Richard Fine
Los Angeles, July 29 - Human Rights Alert (BGO) released additional evidence of fraud at the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine v Lerory Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) - application for stay of execution of ongoing solitary confinement.  Records recently retrieved from the US Supreme Court file in the case failed to discover any valid court records supporting the purported denial of the Application in the Supreme Court Conference either on April 23, 2010, as scheduled, or on April 26, 2010, as noted in the online Supreme Court docket. [1] Court records also failed to show any record of service and notice to the parties of the purported denial.  Information obtained from the imprisoned former US prosecutor Richard Fine, likewise, indicated that he had never received any notice and service at all of the purported denial.

The Application was first submitted to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The online Court docket noted denial by Justice Kennedy on March 12, 2010, and Richard Fine received a notice to that effect as well.  However, the notice was by Counsel Danny Bickell, who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk. Moreover, the notice was unsigned, and the copy in Court file was never stamped "FILED". Furthermore, there was no valid record of denial by Justice Kennedy to form the legal foundation for such notice.
[2]

Former US prosecutor Richard Fine then re-submitted the Application to Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who in turn referred it to the US Supreme Court conference, scheduled for April 23, 2010.

Prior to the April 23, 2010, Mr Danny Bickell, again - with no authority at all, eliminated from the court file records filed in the case, which included evidence, including, but not limited to details of his March 12, 2010 invalid notice of denial by Justice Kennedy.  Mr Bickell's conduct relative to the March 12, 2010 notice and the consequent elimination of records from the Court file was subject of a complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Washington DC.
[3]

On April 23, 2010, outcome of the conference remained unknown.  However, an April 26, 2010 note in the US Supreme Court online docket, [1] indicated denial of the Application.  The records, which were obtained on July 26, 2010 from the Court file, showed no legal foundation at all for the April 26, 2010 denial note in the online Court docket.

Therefore, it was alleged that the case documented the repeated publication of false and deliberately misleading notes in the online US Supreme Court docket, the issuing of false notices by unauthorized US Supreme Court staff relative to the purported March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy, and failure of the US Supreme Court Justices to dispose of matters before them.

Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing on February 20, 2009 of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.  Since March 4, 2009, he has been imprisoned in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California.  Albeit, no warrant was ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing was ever entered in his case.

The case of Richard Fine documented a pattern of publication of false records in online public access systems, and denial of access to true judicial records:
1)      The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case.
2)      The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine.
3)      The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court.
4)      The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal.
5)      The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 and April 23/26, 2010 denials, which were not supported by the Court records in the case.  Access to true dockets in the case management system of the Supreme Court was yet to be permitted.

Notice of the newly discovered records of the US Supreme Court was also submitted to the US State Department and the United Nations.  Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert as part of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States in the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.  The April 2010 UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems.

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.

LINKS
[1] 10-07-28-RE-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Additional-Evidence-for-Fraud-at-the-US-Supreme-Court-pertaining-to-purported-denial-of-the-Application-in-Confe
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/
[2] Alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records in Fine v Baca (09-A827)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/
[3] Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
Human Rights Alert - NGO 
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
*    
"Innocent people remain in prison"
*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
*  
"...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
*  
"This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."    
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339

2010 UPR OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES
April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
b) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
d) UPR Tool Kit by the Urban Justice Center:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

10-07-27 Martha Minow, Dean of Harvard Law School, Solicited for Representation in re: Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records


Martha Minow
Dean, Harvard Law School
Martha Minow, Dean of Harvard Law School, Solicited for Representation in re: Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records
Los Angeles, July 27 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, solicited Martha Minow, Harvard Law School Dean,  for representation in original action in the Supreme Court of the United States, pertaining to alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records and misprision by William Suter, Clerk of the Court. [1]
Human Rights Alert claimed fraud in notices issued by Court Counsel Danny Bickell pertaining to Applications in Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), which claimed denial by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively, and in the corresponding online dockets of the Court. The notices were claimed to be false on their faces and issued with no authority at all by Counsel Danny Bickell. [2] [3] Moreover, notice in Fine v Baca was shown to have no foundation in records of the Court file.
Both cases pertained to penalties imposed on attorneys who represented clients in causes, which were not favored by government.
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.  He has been imprisoned in solitary confinement for the past 17 months in Los Angeles, California, with no warrant ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing ever entered.
Attorney Orly Taitz represented clients in cases questioning the native, born citizenship of President Barack Obama.  Serious sanctions were imposed on her.
The alleged abuse represented intimidation of counsel who stood for the rights of the people, and collusion of the courts at all levels in creating false public perception that such conduct was reviewed by the courts and was found in compliance with the law.
The courts transitioned to internet based publication of records and dockets - albeit with no validation of such systems and with no Local Rules of Courts to govern such practices.  The courts published unverified online records, which the courts themselves never deemed valid court records, but which media and the public at large falsely assumed were true and valid court records.  In parallel, the courts restricted access to true court records. 
The request forwarded to Dean Minow detailed such conduct relative to the imprisonment of Richard Fine:
1) The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case.
2) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine.
3) The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court.
4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal.
5) The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy, which was not supported by the Court records in the case.  Access to true court dockets of the Supreme Court's case management system was yet to be permitted.
Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert in the context of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States as part of the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.
The April 2010 UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
LINKS:
[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34940014
[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835883/
[3] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/

Contact:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
Human Rights Alert - NGO
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
Locations of visitors to this page
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
http://droitsdelhommealertelosangele.blogspot.com/
http://inproperinla.com/
http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
http://ireport.cnn.com/people/HumanRightsA?numResults=10&view=documents
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
*    
"Innocent people remain in prison"
*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
*  
"...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
*  
"This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."    
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339

April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
b) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
d) UPR Tool Kit by the Urban Justice Center:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/

Sunday, July 25, 2010

10-07-25 William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz

William Suter
US Supreme Court Clerk
William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court Asked to Certify, Provide Copies of Dockets in re: Richard Fine, Orly Taitz
Los Angeles, July 25 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed request with William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court to certify the online dockets of Applications pertaining to former US prosecutor Richard Fine and Attorney Orly Taitz, and provide copies of the dockets from the Court’s own case management system. [1]
Request pertained to Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), applications for stay of executions, submitted to Justices Kennedy and Thomas, respectively.
Both applications originated from penalties imposed on counsel who represented clients in causes that were not favored by government.
In the former – Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the secret taking by all Los Angeles Superior Court judges of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”), which necessitated the signing by the California governor of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”).  Richard Fine was arrested on March 4, 2010, and has been held in solitary confinement ever since. No warrant was ever issued in his case, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”.
In the latter – Orly Taitz filed complaint pertaining to native, natural born citizenship of President Barack Obama. Serious sanctions were consequently imposed on her.
In both cases, denial of the applications were noted in online Court dockets and in letters by Counsel Danny Bickell.  However, in both cases, review of the records [2] [3] raised serious concerns regarding contradictions, defects, and invalidity of both the dockets and the respective letters by Danny Bickell.
Moreover, the online public access system of Supreme Court dockets appeared as vague and ambiguous in both design and operation.
Human Rights Alert filed in April 2010 report with the United Nations,
[4] as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States, which focused on the role of invalid online public access and case management systems in undermining integrity of the courts. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
LINKS
[4] http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/

Saturday, July 24, 2010

10-07-24 Misprision of Clerk - Pure and Honest Beyond Suspicion: The Clerks and the Emergence of Executive Branch Supervision of the Federal Courts // Encubrimiento de Secretario Pura y Honesta Más allá de la sospecha: los empleados y la emergencia de Supervisión Poder Ejecutivo de los Tribunales Federales


William Suter
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the US
.
[No picture found]
.
Terri Nafisi
Clerk of US District Court, Central District of California
.
John A Clarke
Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Misprision of Clerks
"Pure and Honest Beyond Suspicion:" The Clerks and Emergence of Executive Branch Supervision of the Federal Courts
Historic review, linked below, [1] highlights the key role of Clerks of Court in integrity of the courts, or lack thereof.  It also emphasizes the need for executive branch oversight of the clerks, which otherwise - left for supervision only by the judges who appointed them, are prone to corruption.
.
The evidence is overwhelming of the central role of clerks of courts in corruption of the justice system in the United States today:
.
a) At the Supreme Court of the US, Clerk WILLIAM SUTER permitted Counsel DANNY BICKELL to issues unsigned notices of denial of applications by the Justices, e.g. in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), while not authorized as Deputy Clerk, and with no valid records to provide the foundation for such notices. Complaint alleging public corruption was filed with US Attorney Office, Washington DC.
[3]

b) At the US District Court, Central District of California, Clerk TERRI NAFISI permitted unauthorized personnel to construct the dockets and issue court minutes, orders, judgment in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine.  Clerk Nafisi now refuses to certify the docket as one that was constructed pursuant to the law of the US and by authority of the clerk. 
Complaint alleging public corruption was filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles.
[2]
.
c)  At the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Clerk JOHN CLARKE ran certain litigations, such as Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), where none of the judges were assigned, and where all court fees were falsely designated as "Journal Entry". Such practice was deemed by accountancy textbooks the cardinal sign of high level financial management fraud.  Moreover, both the clerk and the presiding judge refused to disclose the ultimate designation of such funds, and the Clerk refuses to certify the dockets in such cases as ones that were conducted pursuant to the law of California.
Complaint alleging public corruption and real estate fraud by the court  was filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles. [4]
.
US Attorneys Office so far refuses to take action, or even acknowledge receipt of the complaints.
.
Any help in identifying any cases in recent history, where either US or state court clerks were prosecuted by US Dept of Justice, would be greatly appreciated.
.
LINKS
[1] http://inproperinla.com/10-07-23-order-in-th-court-history-of-clerks-of-us-courts.pdf
[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34194403/
10-07-12-Complaint-for-public-corruption-against-US-Magistrate-Carla-Woehrle-and-others-at-the-US-District-Court-Central-District-of-California-s
[3] http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
10-07-01-Complaint-against-US-Supreme-Court-Counsel-Danny-Bickell-Alleged-Public-Corruption-and-Deprivation-of-Rights-s
[4] http://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/
10-07-19-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-against-Judge-John-Segal-Clerk-John-Clarke-Attorney-David-Pasternak-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-i
Human Rights Alert - NGO
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
http://droitsdelhommealertelosangele.blogspot.com/
http://inproperinla.com/
http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
http://ireport.cnn.com/people/HumanRightsA?numResults=10&view=documents
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Locations of visitors to this page
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
*     "Innocent people remain in prison"
*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
*   "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
*   "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."    
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339
____________
Pure and Honest Beyond Suspicion: The
Clerks and the Emergence of Executive
Branch Supervision of the Federal Courts,
1839-1869
As the federal government attempted to centralize its operations and
to regulate the conduct of its officers during the three decades spanning
the middle of the nineteenth century, the clerks� relationship to
that government was transformed. This transformation was effected by
three separate legislative initiatives: a resolution requiring the clerks to
submit regular reports of their fees to the Secretary of the Treasury; a
pair of laws limiting the total amount of fees each clerk was allowed to
retain; and another law establishing a uniform fee schedule. This section
describes these initiatives in more detail while providing an account
of some of the difficulties encountered by officials within the
executive branch in enforcing them.
The Reporting Requirement of 1839
The need for some kind of oversight of the clerks and the fee system
had been apparent since at least 1818, when it was discovered that
Theron Rudd, the clerk of the District Court for the Southern District
of New York, had absconded with more than $117,000 he had embezzled
from the court.
4 7 The incident exposed the inherent problem of
entrusting court administration to fee-collecting clerks supervised
almost exclusively by the judges who appointed them.
4 8

Thursday, July 22, 2010

10-07-22 Complaint filed against California Court of Appeal, 2nd District - Public Corruption, Racketeering // Queja presentada contra el Tribunal de Apelación de California, el Distrito 2 º - Corrupción Pública, el chantaje

photo of the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles photo of the Second District Court of Appeal in Ventura
Los Angles, July 22 – complaint [1] was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District - alleging public corruption in three pretense appeals originating from a pretense litigation in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), which proceeded from 1998 to 2006, and was alleged in a previous complaint as real estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts.
Justices DANIEL CURRY, CHARLES VOGEL, J HASTINGS, AND NORMAN EPSTEIN, Clerk of the Court of Appeals JOSEPH LANE, and Attorneys RICHARD GREEN (Green & Marker), MITCHEL J. EZER (Ezer Williamson & Brown), and DAVID PASTERNAK (Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton) – were listed as accused of public corruption and deprivation of rights in conduct amounting to racketeering by the Courts in three pretense appeals in Galdjie v Darwish - B163970, B179667, and B191327.
Previous complaint detailed conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court - where a group of Judges and the Clerk colluded to take the 6-unit Santa Monica rental property of Defendant Darwish. The hallmark of the alleged fraud at the Superior Court was in directing Defendant Darwish in May 2002, on a day that Jury Trial appeared was schedule at the Court, to proceed to the Municipal Court of Culver City, where an anonymous “Muni Judge” conducted a pretense “Court Trial” and falsely represented entering judgment in the case. Defendant Darwish provided a declaration that it was Judge John Segal.
Superior Court records showed that neither a Judgment, nor an Appealable Order was ever entered in the manner required by California law to make it “effectual for any purpose”. 
.
Table 1: Appealable events in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as falsely recorded in the Register of Actions (California civil docket), Los Angeles Superior Court
.
Date - - - - -Judge- - - -  Nature of Judicial Record or Proceeding- - - Comments
1 05/20/02 “Muni Judge” Ruling on Submitted Matter Alleged fraud in registration of a judgment. “As to the first cause of action, the court enters judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff…”
2 05/07/04 Segal, John Hearing-Other Alleged fraud in registration of an Order Appointing Receiver.

The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District ran three (3) pretense appeals in the case – two of them were denied, and the third was voluntarily dismissed.
California law is clear regarding jurisdiction the Court of Appeal to conduct appeals only in entered judgments, when Notice of Appeal was filed within 60 days from the Date of Entry of Judgment or Appealable Order. 
Records of the Court of Appeals, 2nd District showed:
a) The first appeal was listed as originating from a “Judgment Date” of September 5, 2002, a date on which neither proceeding nor filing was listed at the Superior Court. The respective date of Notice of Appeal was listed as December 19, 2002.
b) The second appeal was listed with no “Judgment Date” at all.
c) The third appeal was listed as originating from a “Judgment Date” of April 26, 2006. The only proceeding or filing at the Superior Court on that date was “Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Application To Extend Time To Close Escrow” – not an appealable court action.
.
Table 2: Appeals in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as falsely recorded in the online public access system of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
Appeal # - - - “Judgment Date” *- - - Notice  --Trial Court- - - Cal Court- - -  Disposition 
- - - - -  --  - - - - - -  -- - -- - - - - - -  --   - -- - - - - - - Judge- - - - - - -Appeal Justices
1 B163970 09/05/02 12/19/02 Segal, John Curry, Daniel Affirmed in full
Vogel, Charles Final
Hastings, J. Signed Published
113 Cal.App.4th 1331
2 B179667 None Listed 11/24/04 Segal, John Curry, Daniel Affirmed in full
Epstein, Norman Final 
Hastings, J.

3 B191327 04/26/06 05/18/06 Segal, John None Listed Voluntary dismissal
Final
* The public access system of the California Court of Appeal does not list any Dates of Entry of Judgments
.
The complaint alleged that the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, in such pretense appeals committed numerous serious violations of the law. 
The complaint further alleged that the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, through a series of decisions over more than a decade colluded with the Los Angeles Superior Court in ambiguation of both entry of judgment and notice of entry of judgment, and jointly, the Courts created conditions that enabled racketeering, as detailed in the complaint.
The complaint further alleged that in such pretense appeals, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, joined forces with the Los Angeles Superior Court in efforts to establish “oral modifications of real estate contracts” as permitted by law. Los Angeles County was distinguished already in the early 2000s in FBI reports as “ the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud”. The complaint alleged that the Courts themselves were central to propelling the County to such distinction.
The complaint further noted that the online public access system of the California Courts of Appeals failed to include any registration of the Dates of Entry of Judgments. Therefore, the online public access system was alleged as fraud by design an in operation, and the enabling tool for racketeering by the Courts.
The complaint against the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.

LINKS
[1] 10-07-22-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-against-the-California-Court-of-Appeal-2nd-District-in-Re-Public-Corruption-racketeering-in-Galdj
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/

CC:
1) Prof David Burcham – former Dean, Loyola Law School
2) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky – Dean, Irvine Law School
3) Attorney Connie Rice – Los Angeles Advancement Project
4) UPR Office of the United Nations
5) UPR Office of the US State Department: 
6) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein – Senator from California
7) US Senate and House of Representatives – Judiciary Committees
 
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* "Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
* "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." 
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
* "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted." 
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

10-07-21 Rhodes v MacDonald at the US Supreme Court - failure of Associate Justice Thomas to dispose of matter before him


10-07-21 Rhodes v MacDonald at the US Supreme Court  - Failure of Associate Justice Thomas to dispose of matter before him.

Litigation originated from claims of ineligibility of US President Barack Obama for his office, pertaining to place of birth.

In response to an Application for Stay of Execution (of sanctions) submitted to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Applicant Orly Taitz was never served by the US Supreme Court with a purported order denying the application.

The Applicant then filed the motion requesting the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court for verification of signature of Justice Thomas.

Her motion should not have been for verification of signature...  There is no legal foundation for such motion... Her motion should have been for Due Process of Law -notice and service by the US Supreme Court of orders and mandates that are verified by a Justice of the US Supreme Court and attested by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court, and require "full faith and credit".

Alternatively, in the absence of a verified, attested order, motion should have been for Justice Thomas to comply with the Code of Conduct of US Judges, and expediently dispose of judicial matters brought before him.

See also similar conduct by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), where complaint was consequently filed alleging public corruption by US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell.
[1]
Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO

LINKS:
[1]
10-07-01-Complaint-against-US-Supreme-Court-Counsel-Danny-Bickell-Alleged-Public-Corruption-and-Deprivation-of-Rights-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO

LINKS:
[1]
10-07-01-Complaint-against-US-Supreme-Court-Counsel-Danny-Bickell-Alleged-Public-Corruption-and-Deprivation-of-Rights-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.


MOTION -REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE OF JUSTICE THOMAS WAS SUBMITTED TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTSPosted on | July 20, 2010 | 

No.
In The 
Supreme Court of the United States

Rhodes
v
MacDonald

REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE OF JUSTICE THOMAS AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION IN RE 

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE sanctions originally submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA  92688
949-683-5411

ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS

REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE OF JUSTICE THOMAS AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION IN RE 

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION as to the sanctions originally submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas

Background of the request and statement of facts

1 On July 8 2010 Application for stay of sanctions 10A524 was docketed with the Supreme Court and addressed to Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas.

2. On July 16, Friday 2010, around 9PM EST Applicant Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq (hereinafter Taitz)  checked the electronic docket of the Supreme court, it showed no answer from Clarence Thomas.

3. On the same day Taitz has issued a press release, stating that there is no answer from Justice Thomas. Above press release was sent to some 28,000 media outlets and  some 300,000 individuals.

4. On Saturday July 17, 2010 Taitz started getting comments on her web site from some Obama supporters  gloating about the fact that Justice Thomas dismissed her application. Originally, Taitz dismissed those as a dumb joke, but as those comments continued, she checked the electronic docket of the Supreme Court and to her amazement found, that somebody made a new entry on Saturday July 17, 2010, and backdated it for Thursday the 15th of July, stating that Justice Thomas dismissed her application.

5. On Saturday the court was closed, Justices and clerks were not there, therefore the applicant has reasonable belief and suspicion, that above entry was not authorized.

6. There appears to be a pattern of docket entries made or deletions of entries from the docket  done when the Supreme Court is closed.

7. On January 7, 2009 Your Honor reviewed another application for stay filed by Taitz on behalf of her clients: 08A524 Lightfoot v Bowen. Your Honor distributed above application  to be heard in the conference of the full court on January 23, 2010.

8. This case was followed by a number of citizens with great interest, as it dealt with Barack Hussein Obama�s illegitimacy to US presidency.

9. Some 360,000 US citizens have filed a petition by Net world Daily magazine, that was addressed to Justices, asking them to hear the case on the merits.

10. Before inauguration, on January 19, 2010 Application 08A524 was on  the docket of the Supreme Court.

11. On January 21, 2009, when Supreme Court was reopened for business after inauguration, and two days before the scheduled conference, application was not there, it was deleted by someone, as if it never existed.

12. Numerous outraged citizens, including members of the media and state representatives, called the Supreme Court and demanded to re-enter the application on the docket.

13. On January 22, 2009 Taitz received a phone call from a stays clerk, Danny Bickell, who asked Taitz to tell her supporters  not to contact the Supreme Court, he stated that application was never deleted. Taitz responded that she has affidavits and screen shots from her supporters, showing that the case disappeared. At that time Mr. Bickell stated that it was a computer problem, that affected all the cases. Taitz responded, that this statement is not true either, as she has an affidavit from Attorney Theresa Ward, ESq, member of the bar of the Supreme Court, who could see other cases on the docket, but Taitz case was not there. Ms. Ward called the Supreme Court and complained. At that point Mr. Bickel stated that the case will be re-entered within an hour and asked Taitz to contact her supporters and ask them not to contact the Supreme Court, as the problem was fixed. Above conversation happened on January 22, at the end of the day, while the conference of all nine justices was supposed to be the next morning.

14. On January 23, 2009 all nine justices supposedly discussed the case.

15. On January 26, 2009 it was announced that the justices decided not to proceed with oral argument.

16. On March 9, 2009 Justice Scalia was giving a lecture and signing his books in Los Angeles.

17. Taitz attended the lecture, asked Justice Scalia questions during Q and A and later at the book signing asked Justice Scalia, why the case was not heard in oral argument, why wasn't it heard on the merits. To her amazement, Justice Scalia had no clue the case even existed, he could not remember one word, one thing about the case. When Taitz asked Justice Scalia about other similar cases, he could not remember a thing either, even though he was supposedly the Justice, who referred some of those cases to the conference in the first place, which means that he supposedly read those cases more than once.

Argument

Currently, there is a clear pattern of entries being made on the docket of the Supreme Court, or entries or even cases deleted, when the court is closed and the Justices and the clerks are not there. While it is not uncommon for the clerks to make entries a day or two after the order was made, it is uncommon to do it when the court is closed. It is more unlikely for such entry to be made on an inauguration day, when all the Justices were not there and could be seen on TV attending the inauguration. Supreme Court is not a city bus, when one can go in and out any time he feels like. Supreme Court has tight security, and there were situations where cases were held for nearly a month, when it was told to the applicants, that the documents are undergoing Anthrax scan. It is highly imptobable, that someone would be working in the Supreme Court, when it is closed, particularly on inauguration day.

It is also of concern, that Justice Scalia could not remember any of the cases dealing with legitimacy of Barack Obama, particularly in light of the fact that at the lecture he gave on March 9, 2009 he stated that the Justices pick for oral argument cases not based on beauty of writing or legal argument, but based on importance to the country. What can be more important than legitimacy of a person sitting in the position of the president and Commander in Chief?

Of Additional concern is the fact that in both cases unexplained activity happened, when the cases were to the detriment of Mr. Obama, stating that he was not eligible to the presidency due to the fact that he had foreign allegiance and citizenship and due to the fact that he refused and still refuses  to unseal his original birth certificate, and the short version received does not show the name of the hospital or doctor or signatures. Taitz also provided information, that the social security number used by Mr. Obama, 042-68-4425, was issued in the state of CT, while he resided in Hi, and it was issued to an elderly individual, born in 1890.

Points and authorities

Taitz cannot provide any points and authorities, as nothing like that ever happened in the Supreme Court and Taitz is requesting your Honor to review the above Motion as the matter of first impression.

Relief requested
1. Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert (to be identified at a later date)  and view the orders pertaining to her cases and verify and clarify,  that there is a valid signature of Justice Thomas and his clerk on the denial of application 10A56, entered on the Docket on Saturday 17, 2010.
2. Taitz is requesting an appointment to visit the Supreme Court with a forensic document expert and verify that there genuine signatures of all nine Justices on the denial of her case 08A524 discussed in conference on January 23, 2009.
3. Taitz is requesting your Honor to grant her and her computer security expert  (to be identified at a later date) access to the electronic docket of the cases pertaining to her and her clients, in order to ascertain who made an entry in the docket 10A56 on Saturday, July 17, 2010 and who deleted the Application 08A 524 from the docket of the Supreme Court and whether such person was authorized to make such changes to the docket.

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

07.20.10.

Certification

I certify that true and correct copy of the above was served on

Kumar Neal Katyal
Acting Solicitor General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania ave, N.W.
Washington DC 20530-0001

Hugh Randolph Aderhold, JR
Assistant US Attorney
P.O.Box 1702
Macon, GA 31202-1702
US Commission

on Civil Rights  
624 Ninth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20425 C

Public Integrity Section
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
The Honorable Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
International Criminal bar Hague
BPI-ICB-CAPI

Head Office
Neuhuyskade 94
2596 XM The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel : 0031 (70) 3268070
0031 (70) 3268070
Fax : 0031 (70) 3353531
Email: info@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org

Regional Office "Americas / Bureau Regional  Ameriques / Oficina Regional Americas
137, rue St-Pierre
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H2Y 3T5
Tel : 001 (514) 289-8757      
001 (514) 289-8757
Fax : 001 (514) 289-8590
Email: admin@bpi-icb.org
Website: www.bpi-icb.org

Laura Vericat Figarola
BPI-ICB-CAPI
Secretaria Barcelona
laura_bpi@icab.es

Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1-2-
08029 Barcelona, Espana
Tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24

United Nations Commission for
Civil Rights Defenders
Orsolya Toth (Ms)
Human Rights Officer
Civil and Political Rights Section
Special Procedures Division
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Tel: + 41 22 917 91 51
Email: ototh@ohchr.org

Signed
/s/ 

Orly Taitz
Dr Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

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 -

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine