.

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

Monday, August 30, 2010

10-08-30 Fraud Opined in Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts

Patrick Leahy - Chair, US Senate Judiciary Committee
Fraud Opined in Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts
An Urgent Call of Legislative Action
Los Angeles, August 30 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, submitted paper for peer-review and consideration for publication in top-tier law journals, opining large-scale fraud in case management and online public access systems of the courts in the United States. Digital voting machines were previously shown to be vulnerable to malfunction and malfeasance.  Likewise, the current study outlined conditions of digital case management and online public access systems that govern the courts, jails, and prisons in the United States and documented large-scale abuse of such systems. 
Material deficiencies were identified in all systems, which were examined. Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of invalid court records as part of pretense of judicial review. Invalid case management and online public access systems were described, which enable collusion between judges and large financial institutions in pretense court proceedings, which undermined any prospect of effective banking regulation in the United States. 
Moreover, a "chain reaction" effect was documented, where the US courts, up to the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged in pretense review of cases originating from pretense actions of the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles. 
Corrective actions were outlined, which were urgently needed - comprehensive review and the establishment of publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons. 
The paper further called for restoration of public access to judicial records, which were now concealed in case management systems of the courts, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights. The paper further claimed that only upon restoration of public access to such records, the full scope of judicial misconduct in the United States would be exposed.  Therefore, the paper also called for the establishment of Truth and Reconciliation Commission - for review of conduct of the judiciary in the United States.  Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate's Judiciary Committee previously proposed the establishment of such commission for review of conduct of the US Department of Justice.
The paper opined that such actions were likely to affect restoration of effective banking regulation, access to the courts, the rule of law, and the safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era. 
Two pervious papers, peer-reviewed and pending publication by international computer science journals opined fraud in the Los Angels County, California, Sheriff's Department "Inmate Information Center" - the online public access system - which enabled unlawful imprisonments, [1] and in PACER & CM/ECF - case management and public access system of the US District Court, Central District of California - which enabled the conduct of pretense court actions. [2]
Expert opinion previously issued by an international Computer Science expert, based on manuscripts authored by Dr Zernik, which analyzed Sustain - the case management system of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, stated "credible evidence" of "fraud" and called for review of the system by US-based Computer Science experts. [3]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.
Key WordsLiberty, Access to the Courts, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Fraud, United States Courts, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Digital Signatures, Relational Databases, Functional Logic Verification, Case Management Systems, Online Public Access Systems, Prisoners' Registration
LINKS
[1] 
A peer-reviewed paper, opining fraud in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department "Inmate Information Center":
Data Mining as a Civic Duty - Online Public Prisoners Registration Systems - pending publication, SONET2010
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-1-prisons-pending-publication-s.pdf[2] A peer-reviewed paper, opining fraud in PACER & CM/ECF at the US District Court, Central District of California:
Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdf
[3] Qualified opinion of Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, regarding fraud in Sustain - case management system of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30454036/

Friday, August 27, 2010

10-08-27 RE: Richard Fine - request for restoration of access to justice filed with Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, USDOJ

 
Laurence Tribe_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Richard Fine


10-08-27      RE: Richard Fine - request for restoration of access to justice, and for corrective actions re: publicly and legally accountable validation of case management and online public access systems of the courts, jails, and prisonsExecutive Summary Los Angles, August 27 – request [1] was filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, for restoration of access to justice in the case of the imprisoned, 70 year-old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine.  The request was filed with Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative. 

Richard Fine, had exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by California judges in Los Angeles County of "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 County, California. 

Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, “Sentencing Proceeding” for contempt was conducted on Richard Fine at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, which was never validly recorded by the Court. Instead, the Court published false and deliberately misleading online records.  The request claimed that the March 4, 2009 “Sentencing Proceeding” was only a pretense, which was never deemed a valid court proceeding by the Court itself.

On March 4, 2010, Richard Fine was arrested in open court by the Warrant Detail of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – albeit with no warrant at all. Richard Fine has been held ever since in solitary confinement – albeit no judgment/conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.  Instead, the Sheriff’s Department insisted on holding him under false and deliberately misleading online inmate registration records, stating that he was arrested and booked on location and by authority of the non-existent “Municipal Court of San Pedro”.

The request detailed Richard Fine’s attempts to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court – Central District of California, through the US Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States. In all United States courts involved, no valid judicial records were ever entered by the courts.  Court minutes, judgments, mandate, decisions were either not signed by the judges and/or not authenticated by the clerks of the respective courts.  Concomitantly, false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online by all courts involved, which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid judicial review, and that his petitions, appeal, and applications to the various US courts were duly denied.  Therefore, the request claimed that Richard Fine was denied access to justice, and was instead subjected only to pretense judicial review at the US courts – National Tribunals for Protection of Rights.

The request further provided documentation and/or expert opinions regarding the inherent invalidity of case management and online public access systems of all courts involved, as well as the Sheriff’s Department.  Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of invalid court records, as part of pretense of judicial review:
a)       Online public dockets were implemented at the courts, where the authority of the clerk was never invoked, and where the clerks were unaccountable for validity of the records;
b)       Online prisoners’ registration systems were implemented in the jails, where authority of record supervisors was never invoked, and where records supervisors were unaccountable for validity of the records;
c)       In all agencies involved the matter published online false and misleading records, while public access to public records was denied, and
d)       All courts, which were inspected, failed to publish local rules, establishing procedures governing the implementation, validation, and use of case management and online public access systems at the courts.

Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to accord due process in acceptance, review, and response on the request for restoration of Richard Fine’s access to justice. With it, Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to initiate corrective actions through comprehensive review and publicly and legally accountable validation of all case management and online public access systems at the courts, jails, and prisons.

The request claimed that any action by Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe to affect the restoration of Richard Fine’s access to justice and to establish by law the validation of case management and online public access systems of the courts, would affect substantial impact on restoration of access to justice in the United States, the rule of law in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond, and the safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the United States.
LINKS:
[1] 
10-08-27 Request for Restoration of Access to Justice Filed With Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe in re: Richard Fine s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36516113/

Monday, August 23, 2010

10-08-22 Letter to Prof Laurence Tribe: PRACTICAL OVERVIEW: The alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket (LA-JR) and failure of US banking regulation // Carta al Profesor Laurence Tribe: visión práctica: El presunto Los Angeles Judicial Raqueta (LA-JR) y la insuficiencia de la regulación bancaria de EE.UU.


Laurence Tribe
Harvard Law Professor
Special Counsel
US Department of Justice

RE: PRACTICAL OVERVIEW:
The alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket (LA-JR) and failure of US banking regulation

Prof Laurence Tribe
Senior Counsel
Access to Justice Initiative
US Department of Justice

Dear Prof Tribe:

In case you have no time to review the records attached to my complaints, previously filed with your office, and to study the history of the LA-JR over past decades, you may find the following Practical Overview a helpful guide.

The Overview was originally written in response to comment by an online reader, who blamed today's Attorney General ERIC HOLDER for conditions now prevailing in Los Angeles County, California.  Needless to say, the problem is decades old.

The Overview emphasizes the transition of the court and financial institutions into the digital era, and failure of the US government to adequately manage the transition, as key to accelerated breakdown of lawful government frameworks.

I would be glad to provide you detailed evidence in support of the statements below.

Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

CC:
1) United Nations Human Rights Council
2) Basel Accords Committee
3) US Congress Banking and Judiciary Committees
________________

A PRACTICAL OVERVIEW
The Alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket (LA-JR) and Failure of US Banking Regulation

GENERAL
The following is not intended as advocacy for US Attorney General ERIC HOLDER. However, one must realize that problem is decades old, and confronting the LA-JR and failing US banking regulation is a tall order.

The LA-JR controls the largest county court in the United States (~600 judges and commissioners), and the most populous county in the country (>10 millions residents), which according to FBI brought us, and the world at large, the current financial crisis.  Already in the early 2000s, FBI reports concluded that Los Angeles County was "The epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud, which is a high national priority to fight".

The direct links between top management at Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC), which triggered the current crisis and the LA-JR are fully documented below. 
[1]  The direct links between the LA-JR and Brian Moynihan, President of Bank of America Corporation (BAC) - CFC successor, are likewise documented below. [1]
A. KEY EVENTS IN EVOLUTION OF THE LA-JR AND BREAKDOWN OF US BANKING REGULATION (1980-2010)
1) IRAN CONTRA SCANDAL - ~1982-1992CIA and FBI were involved in wholesale drug trafficking, where the target was Los Angeles County, California. One aspect of the scandal, which was entirely overlooked in the 1997 US Department of Justice Special Report in the matter, was any discussion of the outcome - collusion by federal and local justice system agencies in large-scale violations of the law.  It is claimed that the Iran-Contra Scandal created conditions, which compromised any prospect of rule of law in Los Angeles County, California, for decades to come.

2) SUSTAIN  ~1985SUSTAIN and other computerized case management systems at the Los Angeles Superior Court are deemed invalid.  Main features of the systems are similar to those listed below under PACER & CM/ECF.
The Los Angeles Superior Court was at the forefront of installation of case management systems, which led to further precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts.  Such systems are deemed the enabling tools of the LA-JR in its current manifestation in both the civil and criminal divisions. The systems were installed during the tenure of today's California Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE in leadership positions at the Los Angeles courts.
SUSTAIN, which is now used also in other state courts in the United States, was developed and is maintained by the Los Angeles County based DAILY JOURNAL - the largest legal newspaper in California.

3) COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (CFC) ~1990s-2000s  The evidence is overwhelming of evolution of Los Angeles County-based CFC into a corrupt organization, and the tight collusion between CFC and the LA-JR. 
[1]  It is claimed that CFC would not have evolved the way it did, absent the infrastructure of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California.

4) RAMPART SCANDAL INVESTIGATION - 1998-2000 Large-scale corruption of the courts and large-scale false imprisonments were covered up by US agencies, by permitting the local Los Angeles County agencies to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate their own corruption.

5) LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF OVERSEER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS - 2001-2009Operation of the Office under US Judge GARY FEESS must be deemed upon review as further cover up of massive corruption.

6) PACER & CM/ECF -  2000sThe online public access and case management systems of the US courts are deemed invalid, as detailed in a paper, peer-reviewed by an international, academic, computer science conference. 
[2] The systems enabled the conduct of pretense litigations and the online publication in PACER of pretense minutes, orders, and judgments of the courts.
All US district courts and US Courts of Appeals, which were examined, without exception:
a) Failed to publish Local Rules of Court, detailing the nature of valid signatures by judges and by clerks in the system.
b) Employed the systems to curtail public access to court records, in apparent violation of the common law right to access court records - to inspect and to copy, which was re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court as First Amendment right in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc(1978).  The most common documents, which are hidden from public access, are the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) - which the courts deem today as authentication/attestation by the Clerk.
c) Implemented authentication/attestation records (NEFs/NDAs), which must be deemed invalid on their faces, as to form.
Combined, the defects listed in a)-c), above, inherently undermined the central role of the Clerk of the Court as an accountable check and balance in the safeguard of integrity of the courts.

7) E-SIGN ACT - 2002 It is claimed that the law, as enacted, and failure/inability of US government to promulgate the law, left the nature of signatures largely undefined in the digital era.  Such conditions are claimed as central in deterioration of integrity of both the courts and financial institutions.

8) COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (CFC) COLLAPSE - 2008
The collapse of CFC in January 2008 ushered in the current financial crisis.  The US directed merger of CFC with BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION (BAC) must be deemed upon review incomprehensible.
Contrary to the current focus on investigation of events related to the coerced merger of BAC with MERRILL LYNCH, the earlier merger of BAC and CFC should be the focus of attention.  Refusal of US agencies and senior US officers to liquidate CFC, and the forced merger of CFC with BAC led the evolution of BAC into a corrupt organization, with fully documented, direct links to the LA-JR.  
[1]

B. KEY PATRONIZERS OF THE LA-JR:
1)  Some, but not all at the US DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, including, but not limited to:
CARLA WOEHRLE - US Magistrate;
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS - US Judge;
JOHN WALTER - US Judge;
AUDREY COLLINS - Chief Judge;
TERRI NAFISI - Clerk of the Court.

2) Some, but not all at the US COURT OF APPEALS, 9TH CIRCUIT, including, but not limited to:
ALEX KOZINSKI - Chief Judge
RICHARD PAEZ - Circuit Judge
RICHARD TALLMAN - Circuit Judge
MARY M SCHROEDER - Circuit Judge
ANDREW KLEINFELD - Circuit Judge
A WALLACE TASHIMA - Circuit Judge
N.R. SMITH - Circuit Judge
STEPHEN REINHARDT - Circuit Judge
STEPHEN S TROTT - Circuit Judge
KIM M WARDLAW - Circuit Judge
MOLLY DWYER - Clerk of Court

3) Some, but not all at the US Supreme Court, including, but not limited to:
WILLIAM SUTER - Clerk of the Court
DANNY BICKELL - Court Counsel

4) US ATTORNEY OFFICE & FBI BRANCHES, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA;

5) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS - former US Attorney, Central District of California (today Director of US Department of Justice Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services);

6) KENNETH KAISER - Assistant Director of FBI for Criminal Investigations;

7) KENNETH MELSON - former Director of US Attorneys Office at US Department of Justice  (today Director of US Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives);

8) GLENN A FINE - US Department of Justice Inspector General.

In contrast, you would find US Senator DIANNE FEINSTEIN fighting for over a decade to compel the US Attorney Office to institute effectual Public Corruption and Civil Rights Division in southern California, and US Representative DIANE WATSON a strong supporter of the cause.
LINKS
[1] 
July 11, 2010 complaint filed with SEC and US Controller of the Currency, alleging racketeering by Bank of America Corporation and its President Brian Moynihan at the Los Angeles, California Courts:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32907453/
[2] Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts
http://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdf

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

Sunday, August 22, 2010

10-08-22 Racketeering Complaint against LA Superior Court Judges Patricia Collins, Lisa Hart-Cole, Others // Queja contra Extorsión LA jueces del Tribunal Superior Patricia Collins, Lisa Hart-Cole, Otros

Judge Lisa Hart-Cole
Los Angeles Superior Court

10-08-22      RE: SC087400Complaint against then Judge Patricia Collins, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Attorney David Pasternak, Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI) and others - for public corruption and racketeering by judges, financial institutions, and large law-firms in pretense proceedings at the Court.

Los Angles, August 22 – complaint [1] was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, and Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against former Judge Patricia Collins, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Attorney David Pasternak, Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI), and Attorney Richard Ormond (Buchalter Nemer, LLP) - for public corruption and racketeering in pretense proceedings at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  Others named as accused in the complaint were Judge Jacqueline Connor, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy,Judge in Charge of Writs and Receiverships David Yaffe, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, and Court Counsel Fredrick Bennett, who were all alleged as central figures in conduct of a racketeering enterprise at the Court.
In early December 2007, Attorney David Pasternak, acting as pretense “Receiver” on behalf of the Court under Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), was perpetrating real estate fraud, as later opined by highly-decorated FBI veteran, fraud expert James Wedick. Target of the fraud was Beverly Hills property of Complainant Zernik.  Judge Jacqueline Connor had instigated the scheme two years earlier.
To accomplish the fraud, collusion by Mara Escrow, a subsidiary of ORI – a large financial institution, was required. However, Complainant alerted Mara’s Senior Escrow Officer Liz Cohen that she was about to perpetrate real estate fraud. Therefore, Ms Cohen refused to collude with Attorney Pasternak and the Court.
On December 7, 2007, to overcome the hurdles, Attorney David Pasternak and others engaged in two pretense “Ex Parte Proceedings” in two separate courthouses on the same morning:
1)        In the first “Ex Parte Proceeding”, at the Beverly Hills Courthouse, Attorney David Pasternak, acting as pretense “Receiver” - with no valid and effectual Appointment Order, and Attorney Richard Ormond, on behalf of Mara Escrow, appeared before Judge Lisa Hart-Cole to request Court approval of various documents, never previously seen by Complainant, including, but not limited to:
a.        “Grant Deeds”, which were later opined as “fraud”;
b.        “Indemnity Agreement” for Mara Escrow – for future criminalities, and 
c.        Gag Orders – to prohibit pro se Defendant from speech in defense of self with escrow or with the title company, who were conspiring with Attorney Pasternak, the Court, and others to commit real estate fraud.
At the onset, Defendant filed a Peremptory Challenge with Judge Hart-Cole.  In the proceeding that ensued, both Judge Hart-Cole and Attorney Richard Ormond refused to disclose the name of the latter, or the identity of the party, which he represented in Court in the proceeding.            
Consequently, Judge Hart-Cole issued Minutes of Recusal. However, later she secretly “disposed” of the Minutes in Sustain - the Court’s case management system, effectively eliminating the proceeding from the record.
2)        In the second “Ex Parte Proceeding”, at the Santa Monica Courthouse, Judge Patricia Collins introduced Attorney Pasternak as an “Ad Hoc Receiver”.  In response to then Defendant Zernik’s objections for abuse of Free Speech and Possession rights in such “Ex Parte Proceeding”, Attorney Pasternak justified the need for the proceeding in his shortage of funds.  Judge Collins then pretended in open court to approve Attorney Pasternak’s requests.  However, Judge Collins secretly created for the proceeding void registration and void Minutes in Sustain – with no certification by Clerk.
Consequently, on December 17, 2007, Attorney Pasternak concluded the fraud in conveyance of title on the property.  However, the fraud in conduct ofSamaan v Zernik continues to this date – the case continues to be listed as “Pending” – since no Judgment was ever entered in the case.
The complaint alleged that the mere notion of conducting such proceedings at the Court reflected the impunity of the enterprise.
Pretense “Receiverships” by Attorney Pasternak in other cases at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, were documented in complaints previously filed with the US Attorney Office.  The scheme was claimed as part of the larger enterprise, founded in the conduct of pretense proceedings and issuing of pretense minutes, pretense orders, and pretense judgments.  Sustain, the case management system of the Court, was alleged as the enabling tool of the racket.
The complaint, was claimed of high public policy significance, since David Pasternak, who was alleged in a series of complaints as a central figure in the enterprise, was former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, former Member of the California Judicial Council, and former President of Bet Tzedek (“The House of Justice”) – a prominent Los Angeles Jewish/legal charity.  Therefore, the complaint alleged that his conduct reflected widespread public corruption of both the California courts and the legal profession.
Moreover, the complaint alleged that conduct of Samaan v Zernik was unique in documenting conditions, where the Los Angeles Superior Court was not only permissive and conducive, but also coercive of criminalities by financial institutions.  The complaint alleged such conditions - collusion of judges, large financial institutions, and large law-firms in an enterprise - undermined any prospect of establishing effective banking regulation in the United States.
The complaint quoted the official Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006), which concluded that the Los Angeles Superior Court “must be investigated”, and highly decorated FBI veteran, Fraud Expert James Wedick, who opined (2008) “investigation should be immediately instituted”, as well as Congressional Inquiries on FBI and US Department of Justice by the Hon Dianne Feinstein, Senator, (2008, 2010) and the Hon Diane Watson, Congresswoman, (2008) in related matters.  Complainant asked the US Department of Justice to institute such investigation and accord equal protection to all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California. 
Judges were previously prosecuted for racketeering in San Jose and San Diego, California, and in Cook County, Illinois.  Judges are today prosecuted for racketeering in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.  Judges are also prosecuted in El Paso Texas, and large-scale corruption of the courts and the legal profession is under investigation in Florida.  Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe recently warned of deteriorating conditions at the state courts in the US, comparing them to those of “third world” nations.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the courts in the United States.
LINKS
[1] Complaint

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

10-08-18 Additional Evidence for Racketeering by Judges and Financial Institutions at the Los Angeles Courts // Evidencia adicional para la extorsión por los jueces y las instituciones financieras en el Los Angeles Cortes

Additional evidence of alleged collusion by judges and financial institutions in racketeering in real estate matters at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
.
Please sign the petition:
Calling upon the UN Human Rights Council to issue an honest and effectual 2010 Report on the US justice system and Human Rights in the United States.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/calling-upon-the-un-human-rights-council-to-issue-an-honest-and-effectual-2010-report-on-the-us/ 


_______________________________________________
[photo]
Deborah L. Sanchez,Judge
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
BELLFLOWER JUDGE RUNS AMOK
On August 17, 2010 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Deborah Sanchez, in the Bellflower Courthouse Dept. 2, decided she didn't have to obey either a Bankruptcy Court Stay or the laws on Disqualification of a Judge.

In post-foreclosure Unlawful Detainer case #09C03210, Shepard Investments v James Krage, Judge Sanchez decided she herself could assume federal jurisdiction and rule on the validity of  a Bankruptcy Stay that was issued on December 23, 2010 and that the Bankruptcy Court had ruled  to still be in effect.

When Defendant Krage questioned her right to rule on the Federal question by Disqualifying Judge Sanchez for Bias and Prejudice, Judge Sanchez ignored the Procedures proscribed by law (Code of Civil Procedures 170.1 and 170.3) and Ordered her own Disqualification stricken, instead of letting an independent Judge rule on it, as prescribed by law.

Plaintiff Shepard Investments Inc had previously lost 3 tries in Bankruptcy Court to get Relief from the Stay, so they convinced the local judge to make a federal decision and give them a Writ of Possession.

Shepard Investments is a renegade Foreclosure Auction purchaser that has violated the law many times to get quick possession of homes they bought at foreclosure auctions. 

Defendant Krage successfully forced Shepard Investments to dismiss 2 previous Unlawful Detainers, because 1) they didn't timely file the Trustee's Deed Upon Sale, and 2) they bought the property under a Fictitious Business name (Summer Creek Homes) that they hadn't renewed in 4 years.

Most Unlawful Detainers that Shepard Investments have won could be overturned with either violation, and both violations occurred in over 50 post-foreclosure Unlawful Detainer cases.
The main points here are that a California Judge should not assume Federal Jurisdiction to rule on the validity of a Federal Bankruptcy Stay, and that a Judge should not rule on her own Disqualification for Allegations of Bias and Prejudice.   Only Federal Judges can rule on the validity of a Stay, and State Judges are not allowed to rule on their own Disqualification, but rather must have the Disqualification Allegations heard by an independent Judge, as required by law.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

10-07-26 US Department of Justice challenges state Chief Justices to fix access to justice systemic deficiencies // EE.UU. Departamento de Justicia del Estado desafíos Presidentes de Cortes Supremas de arreglar el acceso a la justicia deficiencias sistémicas

NLADA
National Defender Leadership Institute
http://www.nlada.net/library/article/national_dojspeechto%20chiefjustice07-26-2010_gideonalert





U.S. Department of Justice challenges state Chief Justices to fix access to justice systemic deficiencies


On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech [1] to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations.  “If some of the things I’ll be asking of you, in your capacity as chief justices and as occupants of the bully pulpits in your respective states, will resemble judicial ‘activism,’ they will bear no resemblance to activism of an ideological stripe, right or left, but will bear the ‘activist’ label only to the degree that activism is understood as the opposite of passivity – a passivity that disclaims responsibility for the systems of which you are, after all, the stewards.”
The active participation of Chief Justices in reform is critical, Professor Tribe noted, to counterbalance the “hydra-headed monster” of “too many people to be served effectively” in the face of state legislators’ “appetite for imprisonment that ignores the veritable mountain of evidence which shows that alternatives to incarceration are often more effective at reducing recidivism while also less costly” and their “unwillingness to provide the legal assistance needed to provide meaningful, adequate defense.”
The often overlooked linked between broken justice systems – both civil and criminal – and escalating risks to public safety was of particular focus in the speech.  Tribe stated that “clogged” and at times “corrupt” public courts lead to a “vicious cycle of cynicism and disaffection in which the system’s democratic legitimacy, the very foundation of its capacity to articulate and enforce the rule of law, disintegrates.” Tribe continued: “[T]hat in turn leads increasing numbers to flout the law.” 
Tribe was particularly concerned about the plight of juveniles in our nation’s courts: “[W]ithout any credible defense, those young people are far more likely to end up in detention or incarceration, where they’re much more likely to be exposed to assault or sexual abuse, much more vulnerable to suicide, and far more likely to commit further crimes after their release. You, as our chief justices, can make a difference. Every child in delinquency proceedings should have access to justice via a right to counsel at every important step of the way: before a judicial determination regarding detention, and during probation interviews, pre-trial motions and hearings, adjudications and dispositions, determination of placement, and appeals. The changes you can bring about will affect these young people for the rest of their lives. And you could save not only their lives but the lives of those they might otherwise endanger years into the future.”
The DOJ gave very specific recommendations to the state chief justices.  Recognizing that the “consequences of juvenile adjudications are serious and long term” and that “the lack of representation can reshape a child’s entire life” from “expulsion from school, exclusion from the job market, eviction from public housing, and exclusion from the opportunity to enlist in the military,” DOJ challenged the state chief justices to be the protectors of the right to counsel.  Lauding those states that “do not accept a waiver of counsel from juveniles under any circumstances,” DOJ recommends that “every state in the country should adopt a rule that at the very least requires consultation with an attorney prior to waiver of counsel.”  Furthermore, the DOJ recommends that each Chief Justice create a state task force – a la Nevada -- to evaluate “the adequacy of the way your state is discharging its federal constitutional duty under Gideon.”
In closing, Tribe stated, “[t]here may well be times when, as you contemplate the enormity of this challenge, the task ahead will seem so daunting that paralysis is the first reaction. Believe me – I’ve felt that, too. But, if the search for a universal solvent for the intractable problems of justice can be paralyzing, the commitment to these achievable reforms can be empowering.”
People or Organizations: 
Author/Organization: 
 David Carroll


Publication Date
Publication Month: 
 07
Publication Day: 
 27
Publication Year: 
 2010


LINKS:
[1] Prof Laurence Tribe's speech to the Conference of Chief Justices:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35916291/10-07-26-Prof-Laurene-Tribe-s-Keynote-Remarks-at-the-Annual-Conference-of-Chief-Justices-s

Saturday, August 14, 2010

10-08-02 Richard Fine's Letter from Jail: Citizens Army Needed To Reform Judicial System Top To Bottom


Letter from L.A. County Jail:
By Richard I Fine

This open letter is directed to all citizens, groups and public servants who are concerned that Americans have lost our constitutional rights, and most importantly, are willing to step forward and take the necessary action to restore those rights.

I, like you, have believed that those rights are protected by a fair, impartial judiciary resistant to corruption.

I believed that the integrity of the judicial system and the judges who worked within the system. 
Then, I became involved in a series of cases in which judges were receiving illegal payments from Los Angeles County, who was a party before them. The judges did not disclose the payments and did not disqualify themselves. They then decided the cases in favor of L.A.County.
My belief was shaken but not shattered, as I believed the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, would condemn such action and restore the constitutional rights.

This did not happen.

Instead, I was imprisoned indefinitely for fighting to uphold our constitutional rights.

America
 has been revered as the one nation in the world which represented a bastion of liberty and human rights and freedom from oppression. This is no longer true.

It is now up to us, the American citizens, to take action to restore our constitutional rights and rebuild our democracy.
RESPONSE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIAL
On July 26, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied my Petition for Rehearing. The Court had before it L.A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe’s July 13, 2010’s admission that he (1) never intended to make a finding as to whether Mr. Fine had standing to disqualify Judge Yaffe as was stated in the March 18, 2008 Order, and (2) that the March 18, 2008 Order was only a draft and not filed. The admission occurred 17 months after Judge Yaffe used the March 18, 2008 house order as a basis to hold Fine in contempt of court in the case of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowner’s Association v. County of Los Angeles, L.A.S.C. Case No. BS 109420. (Marina Strand case.)

JUDGE YAFFE'S ADMISSION & DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS 
The admission demonstrated that Judge Yaffe engaged in “fraud upon the court”, obstruction of justice and denial of due process. The denial of the Petition for Rehearing violated all previous U.S. Supreme Court case precedentsJudge Yaffe made the July 13, 2010 Minute Order in response to my June 28, 2010 motion to vacate the U. S. District Court's June 29, 2009 denial of my petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. In such motion I showed that no March 18, 2008 Order appeared on the docket of the Marina Strand Case, and consequently no March 18, 2008 order existed. Further Judge Yaffe was responding to my complaint against him made to the California Commission on Judicial Performance. Such complaint contained this fact, among others in seeking Judge Yaffe's removal.

JUDICIAL ETHICS 
The U.S. Supreme Court case is Richard I. Fine v. LeRoy D. Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, U. S. Supreme Court Case No. 09-1250. The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was: “Whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself?” Judge Yaffe took the position that he did not have to recuse himself because I did not have the right to disqualify him. That position changed more than two years later on July 13, 2010 as shown in the July 13, 2010 Minute Order.

SUPREME COURT IGNORES JUDICIAL CORRUPTION 
The case involved the largest judicial corruption scandal in American history. Since the late 1980’s, California Counties have been making payments to state-elected judges located in their counties in addition to the state judges’ compensation paid by the State of California. In 2008, these county payments were held to violate Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal. App. 4th 630 (2008) Rev. Denied 12/23/08. By this time, the illegal payments by L.A. County alone to state L.A. Superior Court judges were over $300 million. Ninety percent of the state judges in Californiahave received these illegal payments from counties in which their courts were located. In L.A. County, the payments were $46,366.00 per judge per year in 2009 and $57,000.00 per judge per year in 2010.

ALL CALIFORNIA STATE JUDGES IN LOS ANGELES TOOK ILLEGAL PAYMENTS 
All of the state judges presided over cases in which the county which paid them the illegal payments was a party before the judge, without disclosing the illegal payments to the opposing party.

RETROACTIVE CRIMINAL IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION 
After the Sturgeon decision, the California Legislature passed California Senate Bill SBX 211, which was enacted on February 20, 2009. It became effective on May 21, 2009. On December 22, 2008, Judge Yaffe testified that he had takenand was taking L.A. County payments, did not disclose such on his Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest and could not remember any case in the last three years that he decided againstL.A. County.

JUDGE YAFFE SAT AS WITNESS & JUDGE ON THIS CASE 
Judge Yaffe was both the judge and witness in the contempt proceeding and “judged his own actions”. This act violated due process as stated in the case of In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) – “No man can be a judge in his own case . . . No man is permitted to try a case where he has an interest in the outcome.”

The U.S. Supreme Court had the December 22, 2008 transcript of Judge Yaffe’s testimony before it when it decided to deny the Petition for Rehearing. The U.S. Supreme Court justices knew that they were violating due process as set forth by the precedent of the Murchisoncase, when they denied the Petition for Rehearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices also knew that they were denying due process because Judge Yaffe’s admission in the July 13, 2010 Minute Order demonstrated his “fraud upon the court” in the Marina Strand case.

This “fraud upon the court” vitiated the entire Marina Strand case and voided any order or judgment of Judge Yaffe. (See U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1897); Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Co., 254 U.S. 348 (1920).).

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court justices knew that the direct payments of $46,366.00 per year from L.A. County to Judge Yaffe violated due process as stated in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927) cited in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. ___ (2009), slip opinion page 10:

“Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the state and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Caperton also stated at slip opinion, page 16: “Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise, when without the consent of the other parties, a man chooses the judge in his own case . . .” L.A. County has “bought the L.A. Superior Court” through the L.A. County payments to the state L.A. Superior Court judges.

GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
Finally, if Judge Yaffe having decided cases in favor of L.A. County for three years, the L.A. County payments to Judge Yaffe may be considered “bribes”. This is particularly true since California Senate Bill SBX 211 gave retroactive immunity from state criminal prosecution for the payments. In Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), the U.S. Supreme Court stated::
“A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice.”

In this regard, Judge Yaffe also violated 18 U.S.C. section 1346 - the intangible right to honest services. In Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. - (decided June 24, 2010), the Supreme Court held that bribery and kickbacks were violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1346.

Also, on July 26, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Fine’s Application to be set free from L.A. Men’s Central jail. The U.S. Supreme Court had before it a June 18, 2010 Minute Order from Judge Yaffe in which Judge Yaffe admitted that Fine had requested a hearing to be set free on May 17, 2010, and Judge Yaffe refused to hold such hearing.

Judge Yaffe also admitted in the June 18, 2010 Minute Order that Fine had informed him that continued incarceration will not induce him [Fine] to furnish information.”

U S SUPREME COURT NOW ALLOWS “COERCIVE CONFINEMENT”
The denial of the Application violated U.S. Supreme Court precedent which holds that confinement beyond the time that bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which the person is committed is a denial of due process. (See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972); McNeil v. Director Tatuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245 (1972). A reasonable relationship was interpreted in the Jackson and McNeil cases to mean penal confinement. In California, “penal” confinement for a contempt of court conviction is five days under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1218. Fine has been incarcerated for 17 months, since March 4, 2009. 
No federal court cited any case in support of the denial of Fine’s writ of habeas corpus, which opposed the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court cases. The U.S. District Court did not cite any case to support its conclusion that Judge Yaffe should not have been recused. The Ninth Circuit did not rely upon the Caperton case and did not cite to that part of the Tumey case set forth above which addressed due process to support its conclusion that Judge Yaffe should not have been recused. The Ninth Circuit did not cite any other case on the subject.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a one word ruling: “Denied.”

The result of the denial of the Petition for Rehearing and the Application to be set free is that the United States Supreme Court has removed the constitutional right of due process.

All of the federal judges and justices took an oath of office on becoming a judge or justice to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws of theUnited States.

Further, under Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior. . .”

JUDICIAL CONFLICTS & ABUSE 
The actions of the District Court, Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and U S District Judge John F . Walter, the Ninth Circuit justices Steven Reinhardt, Steven Trott, and Kim Wardlaw the U.S. Supreme Court justices in the federal Habeas Corpus case of Fine v. Baca demonstratedthat: (1) they did not engage in legal analysis for reasoning; (2) they did not uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States; and (3) they did not follow the rule of law.

POLITICAL CORRUPTION & THE COURT

Further in this highly charged political corruption case, it was unconscionable of the Ninth Circuit to select as a panel Justices Reinhardt, Wardlaw, Trott. Justice Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. The ACLU is a "quote" partner with Leroy D. Baca Sheriff of Los Angeles County in the Court Mandated management of the Men's Central Jail according to an interview on Full Disclosure Network ACLU representatives and high ranking sheriff's officials. The ACLU further admitted received funds from L A County for monitoring the Men's Central jail. Justice Trott is a former member of the Los Angeles District Attorney's. According to his current financial disclosure form he is presently receiving approximately $12,000 per year in pension benefits from L A County. Justice Wardlaw according to the interview with her husband William ("Bill") Wardlaw is a family friend of L A Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. In 2004 her husband William ("Bill") Wardlaw attempted to convince L A County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to run for Mayor of Los Angeles. Bill Wardlaw also appeared as a contributor to the election campaign of Zev Yaroslavsky. Bill Wardlaw is a partner in the investment consulting firm of Freeman, Spogli which engages in managing investments for Counties and other governmental organizations. Kim Wardlaw's financial disclosure forms unfortunately did not disclose whether she and Bill Wardlaw maintained L A County investments and whether Freeman Spogli was managing L A County investments as various parts of the financial disclosure form were blacked out.

JUDICIAL POWERS ABUSED 
Their actions demonstrated that they abused their power and the trust placed in them by their position to:
  1. undermine and destroy the constitutional right to due process;
  2. promote bribery and dishonesty within the judiciary;
  3. “cover-up” for those members of the judiciary who had taken illegal payments and then presided over cases in which the person who made the illegal payment was a party; and
  4. incarcerate those persons such as Fine, who had challenged such illegal conduct.

All three of these Ninth Circuit Justices should not have presided over my case, as each of them had financial or political relationship with L A County, the L A County Sheriff or an L A County supervisor. They were biased from the outset of the case. The Ninth Circuit has approximately forty-nine available judges to have decided Fine's case. It is incredulous that the Ninth Circuit selected three judges who have relationship with L A County to be the Judges to preside over my (Fine's) case.

Their actions are outside the realm of “good behavior” and appropriate sanctions are both mandated and should be immediately implemented. This is necessary to restore the federal judiciary to a place of honesty and integrity where it will hopefully again gain the respect which it has now lost.

CITIZEN ACTION NEEDED 
Immediate federal legislation must be passed:
  1. prohibiting any federal, state, county or municipal judge or justice from taking any compensation from any person appearing before him or her, or likely to appear before him or her, with the exception of a governmental entity of which the judge or justice is an elected official or employee;
  2. prohibiting any elected judge or justice from presiding over a case in which a party or its lawyer contributed greater than $500.00 to the judge or justice in the judge in the justice’s last election campaign and since such election until the time of the case; and
  3. requiring every judge or justice to disclose on the record at the commencement of each case any information which is reasonably related to the question of disqualification under federal or state law or codes of ethics, even if the judge or justice believes there is no basis for disqualification.
  4. The law should be retroactive to January 1, 2007 to encompass the Marina Strand case and the federal writ of habeas corpus involving Mr. Fine.
At the State of California level, the state judges and justices have taken the same oath with the added inclusion of upholding the constitution and laws of the State of California. Additional reforms are also necessary to stop the unlimited coercive confinement to which I am unlawfully subjected.

I recommend that we make into law those cases that have upheld constitutional rights. By doing this, the courts will not have the opportunity to disregard constitutional rights in the future as they have done in my case.

In the Marina Strand case, Judge Yaffe violated California Code of Ethics:
  1. Canon 4D(1) – by engaging in financial dealings that may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position or involve the judge in frequent transactions for continuing business relationships with . . . persons likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves;
  2. Canon 3E(2) – by not disclosing on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification; and
  3. Canon 3E(1) – for not disqualifying himself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.
Judge Yaffe also violated California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) – by not disqualifying himself when a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

In the Marina Strand case and in the habeas corpus case Judge Yaffe never disputed that he violated these Canons or Code sections by taking the L.A. County payments in the Marina Strand case. He only argued that he should have been “caught” earlier. He never acted upon his legal responsibility that he should have disqualified himself at the outset of the Marina Strand case.

California
 must now “clean up” the judiciary. Chief Justice George, who presided over nearly 20 years of illegal county payments to judges, is now retiring. The counties can immediately stop the illegal payments and relieve their budget crises.

Irrespective of Senate Bill SBX 211’s retroactive immunity against disciplinary action, judges who took the illegal county payments can either retire, or be voted out of office at their next election.

IMPEACHMENT AS A REMEDY? 
Ultimately, there is impeachment as a remedy to rid the judiciary of such judges as Judge Yaffe who violated the law, violated the Code of Judicial Ethics, took L.A. County illegal payments and in return for such payments made orders and judgments in favor of L.A. County and its co-applicants as occurred in the Marina Strand case, committed “fraud upon the court” and obstructed justice by making false orders and unlawfully incarcerating those who challenge them, such as Fine.

Impeachment proceedings must immediately be instituted against Judge Yaffe by the California legislature. The Attorney General and the L.A. District Attorney must immediately institute criminal charges for obstruction of justice. The United States Attorney General must immediately institute charges for violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 – The intangible right to honest services. Only by taking these actions will the errant members of the California judiciary understand that the public is serious about ridding the judiciary of the unsavory judges. Judge Yaffe has already been reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance. At the same time, it is incumbent that the Governor demand that the California Supreme Court, on its own motion, reverse its denial of the writ of habeas corpus in the case of Fine v. Superior Court decided March 5, 2009. This reversal would be based upon Judge Yaffe’s admission in his July 13, 2010 Minute Order that he never intended to decide whether Fine had standing to file a verified Statement of Disqualification in the March 18, 2008 Order and that the March 18, 2008 Order was a draft and not filed, as distinguished from having been represented as a real order in the March 27, 2008 Order Striking Notice of Disqualification.

GOVERNOR MUST ACT 
The Governor must also demand that the California Supreme Court, on its own motion, and that the L.A. Superior Court, on its own motion, void and annul all orders and judgments of Judge Yaffe in the Marina Strand case, including the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt against Fine which incarcerated Fine. This voiding and annulling would also be based upon Judge Yaffe’s July 13, 2010 admission of fraud upon the court and obstruction of justice. The Governor must further demand that the California Supreme Court reverse its order disbarring Richard I. Fine. Such order violated the First Amendment, was made in retaliation for Fine’s position against the illegal payments from the counties to the judges and specifically disbarred Fine for having been correct in filing cases that he filed challenging the County payments to the judges as being a violation to Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution as was held in the Sturgeon case before the California Supreme Court initiated its Order of Disbarment. To encourage the California Supreme Court and the L.A. Superior Court to act, the Governor should inform them that he will withhold all court funding until they act as requested and that he will not approve any court funding in the new 2010-2011 budget until they act as requested. Further, the Governor should arrange the introduction of legislation to repeal California Senate Bill SBX 211 which was enacted as part of the 2009-2010 budget package. This will remove the retroactive immunity and will also remove the judiciary’s successful action to reinstate the illegal county payments to judges which is presently in litigation.

Only by removing these illegal payments will California begin to have an honest judiciary.

Finally, the Governor should also arrange for the introduction and passage of California legislation parallel to the federal legislation outlined above.

For over 20 years Californians have lived under a “third world judicial system” in which illegal county payments to state judges have eviscerated any semblance of due process and constitutional rights.

Judge Yaffe’s conduct of making false statements about court orders and unlawfully imprisoning Fine to satisfy his greed for L.A. County payments demonstrated the low level to which the California judicial system has sunk.

The federal judiciary and the U.S. Supreme Court’s acceptance and approval of such California judiciary conduct indicate that the United States is no longer a nation governed by the “rules of law.”

Now is the time for the citizenry to exercise its voice and its power, to express to its public servants that change must occur, and to demand and institute the necessary

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