.

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

Thursday, September 30, 2010

10-09-30 Regardless of mounting evidence of widespread judicial corruption in Los Angeles County, California, annual reports of the US DOJ Public Integrity Section show not even a single indictment in 25 years


Regardless of mounting evidence of widespread judicial corruption in Los Angeles County, California, annual reports of the US DOJ Public Integrity Section show not even a single indictment in 25 years
Los Angeles, September 30 - Human Rights Alert and Joseph Zernik, PhD, released compiled statistics from the annual reports of the past 25 years of the Public Integrity Section of the US Department of Justice. [1] Mounting evidence existed of widespread judicial corruption in Los Angeles County, California, [2]  and official reports called for investigation of integrity, or lack thereof, of the Los Angeles Superior Court. [3] Regardless, the annual reports of the US DOJ Public Integrity Section showed not even a single indictment of a Los Angeles judge in the past 25 years.
In 2008, the U.S. attorney in L.A. decided to disband its Public Corruption Unit, in what was officially explained as a way to "enhance the effort to prosecute such cases." [4] And although in June 2010 it was announced that the Public Corruption Unit was re-established, [5] the US Attorney Office in Los Angeles refused to acknowledge receipt of any complaints, which were filed with the office, pertaining to judicial corruption, either before or after that date. [2]
The statistics were released in the wake of news of suicide of Justice Department prosecutor, who had played a lead role in the corruption case against former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) by the Public Integrity Section, [6] and who faced contempt hearings in that matter.
"One may reasonably conclude that the Public Corruption Section of the US Department of Justice was transformed in recent decades, as part of pattern of conduct of the US Department of Justice as a whole, which led Senator Leahy, Chair of the US Senate Judiciary Committee to propose already in 2009 that a Truth and Reconciliation Committee was needed as part of the review of conduct of  the Department" [7] said Dr Zernik.
Human Rights Alert previously filed request with Attorney General Eric Holder for equal protection of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California, against racketeering by judges of the courts. [8]
Human Rights Alert (NGO) 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, 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.

LINKS:
[1]  09-04-10 Compiled Statistics of US Department of Justice Public Integrity Section reporting State Judges Indictments
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38470005/

[2] Complaints filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles, Public Corruption and Civil Rights Unit, pertaining to Judicial Corruption:
09-11-21 Complaint Filed with FBI against Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in re: Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) - Alleged Fraud and Perversion of Justice through Pretense Judicial Review of the Emergency Petition from the Habeas Corpus Petition at the US District Court s
10-06-21 Dr Zernik's Complaint Filed with Us Attorney Office Los Angeles against Mr David Pasternak for Public Corruption Deprivation of Rights s
10-06-28 Human Rights Alert Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles, Re Large Scale False Imprisonments in Los Angeles County s
10-07-04 Human Rights Alert Complaint against the California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law in re: Richard Fine.
10-07-08 Complaint Filed with US orney Office, Los Angeles, against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights in Imprisonment of Richard Fine s
10-07-12 Complaint for public corruption against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and others at the US District Court, Central District of California s
10-07-15 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke - for public corruption and deprivation of rights s
10-07-19 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office against Judge John Segal, Clerk John Clarke, Attorney David Pasternak, Los Angeles Superior Court - in Re: Public Corruption in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - real estate fraud by the court s

10-07-22 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office against the California Court of Appeal,2nd District, in Re: Public Corruption, racketeering, in Galdjie v Darwish s
10-08-09 Complaint Filed with US Attorney Office against California Judge Jacqueline Connor for Public Corruption and Racketeering s
10-08-22 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office and Prof Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel, US Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative against former Judges Patricia Collins Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI), Attorney David Pasternak and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, for public corruption and racketeering s

[3] 06-07-15 LAPD's Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[4] 2008 Closing the Public Corruption Unit of the US Attorney Office, Los Angeles

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/20/local/me-shakeup20
[5] 2010 Reestablishment of the Public Corruption Unit of the US Attorney Office, Los Angeles

10-06-12-us-attorney-los-angeles-created-public-corruption-civil-rights-unit-la times.pdf

[6] 10-09-30 Suicide of US Prosecutor who led the Senator Stevens investigation
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/09/federal-prosecutor-in-stevens-case-commits-suicide.htm

[7] 09-02-09 Transcript of Senator Leahy speach, calling for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in re US Justice Department
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38472251/

[8] 10-05-20 Request for Equal Protection by Attorney General Eric Holder of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California, and respect for duties and obligations of the US government in international law and accords-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31659872/

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

10-09-28 Seeking top-tier, peer-reviewed, English-language, international law/human rights/law and technology journals as potential venues for publication.


Los Angeles, September 28 - following the publication in an international computer science journal of two peer-reviewed papers, documenting the fraud in computer systems of the United States courts and the Los Angeles County jail, [1] [2] Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, are seeking top tier, peer reviewed, English-language, international law/human rights/law and technology journals, as potential venues for the publication of a new paper, documenting the scope of US justice corruption, which is enabled by such systems.
Six (6) Harvard and Yale law schools based, top-tier US law journals in the respective fields [3] refused to acknowledge receipt of such manuscript. [4] Therefore, suggestions are sought for top tier, peer reviewed, English-language, international law/human rights/law and technology journals, as potential venues for such publication.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) 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, 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.




LINKS/ ATTACHMENTS
[1]   Zernik, J: Data Mining as a Civic Duty  Online Public Prisoners Registration Systems,  
International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010) 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328591/ 

[2]  Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts,  
International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010) 

[3] 10-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37077401/

[4] Zernik, J: Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts in the United States - A Call for Action

Abstract*,**
Conditions, which prevail today in the justice system in the United States are

reviewed through a series of four case studies. The cases demonstrate the

conduct of pretense litigations and pretense judicial review in courts ranging from

the State of California, County of Los Angeles, through the US District Court, US

Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. The unique role

of digital public access and case management systems, which were implemented

in the courts in recent decades is further analyzed, to show how such systems

enable false imprisonment, the taking of property under pretense of lawfulness,

and alleged criminality by financial institutions. Corrective actions are outlined -

publicly and legally accountable validation (certified, functional logic

verification) of all such systems, and restoration of the clerks’ accountability for

the integrity of electronic court records. Computing professionals are called upon

to perform their civic duties in the validation and monitoring of the systems, and

the public at large is required to keep its vigilance in the monitoring of such

system, as a quintessential safeguard of integrity of the courts. Truth and

Reconciliation Commission is also likely to be required in efforts to restore the

rule of law and to safeguard Human Rights in the United States in the digital era.

Otherwise - dysfunctional courts, abuse of Human Rights, and failing banking

regulation go hand in hand. Although the justice system in the United States is

the focus of the review, the conclusions are applicable in any nation, where digital

systems are today implemented at the courts.

____
* Human Rights Alert (NGO), PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750, Tel: 323-515-4583

Fax: 323-488-9697, jz12345@earthlink.net ,

http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
* * The author is grateful for help by Legal Director of a Civil Rights organization and unnamed Professors of Compute Science.  


10-09-20 Ongoing Fraud Alleged by Judge David Yaffe in Purported September 17, 2010 Order for Release of Richard Fine


Los Angeles, September 20 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, alleged ongoing fraud by Judge David Yaffe regarding false imprisonment of Richard Fine – through the issuance of an invalid court record, in lieu of a valid court order, for the release of Richard Fine from a year and a half of solitary confinement.
On March 4, 2009, Richard Fine was imprisoned by the Warrant Detail of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, albeit – with no Warrant ever issued, and with no Judgment/Conviction or Sentencing ever entered by the Judge David Yaffe.  Instead, Richard Fine was held under solitary confinement for a year and a half by the Sheriff under false and deliberately misleading records – stating that Richard Fine was arrested on location and by authority of a non-existent “Municipal Court of San Pedro”. [1]
On September 17, 2010, Richard Fine was released by the Sheriff. Again - with no valid Order ever entered by the Court. [2]
Instead, September 17, 2010 Minutes were issued under caption of Marina v LA County (BS109420), where issuance of an order was described, but no evidence of an actual Order ever being issued and signed by Judge Yaffe was ever found.  The Minutes failed to spell out that an Order was ever signed by Judge Yaffe to affect the release of Richard Fine on that date, either. 
Moreover, the September 17, 2010 Minutes fail to appear among the list of court records in the case, which was published online by the Court.  Likewise, the Case Summary failed to state that any Order was signed by Judge Yaffe on September 17, 2010, or entered by the Court on that date.
Such vague and ambiguous litigation was typical of the conduct of the Court under the caption of Marina v LA County all along.  To this date the Los Angeles Superior Court denies access to inspect and to copy the definitive record of the litigation in Marina v LA County  - the Register of Actions (California civil docket) – in apparent violation of First Amendment rights.  The habeas corpus and all appeals and petitions originating from it were subjected to pretense review in the United States courts, from the US District Court, Central District of California, through the Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States, without the docket – the foundation record of the case -  ever being produced by the Court.
Combined, the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Richard Fine are alleged as an example of arbitrary and capricious deprivation of Liberty through collusion of Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Leroy Bacca.  
Combined, the publication of invalid records in the online public access system of the Court, and denial of access to true electronic Court records in Sustain – the case management system of the Court – have been previously shown to be the routine tools enabling such fraud and abuse of Human Rights.
Richard Fine 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.
Richard Fine attempted to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court, through the US Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States; however, all United States courts involved in the matter denied Richard Fine access to valid judicial review; instead, Richard Fine was subjected only to pretense judicial review, while false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online, affecting the pretense that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid and effectual judicial review and was duly denied.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) 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, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.

LINKS
[1] Records pertaining to the March 4, 2009 arrest and booking of Richard Fine
[2]  Records pertaing to the September 17, 2010 release of Richard Fine

10-09-19 Correcting False Reporting by the Los Angeles Times re: Release of Richard Fine



From: jz
Sent: Sep 19, 2010 5:17 PM
To: newstips@latimes.com, lawsters@googlegroups.com
Cc: DARCY SMITH , Laurence Tribe , larry@tribelaw.com, lguinier@law.harvard.edu, rkennedy@law.harvard.edu, minow@law.harvard.edu, d.ramirez@neu.edu
Subject: Correcting misleading reporting by the Los Angeles Times in re: Release of Richard Fine

To the Editor:

Please accept the correction, below, to your misleading September 18, 2010 report "Attorney Richard Fine spent a year and a half behind bars on contempt-of-court charges. Is that justice?" [1] 

The report provided the readers false information, starting with its first sentence: "Richard Fine -- was released Friday from Los Angeles County Jail after spending a year and a half behind bars on contempt-of-court charges."

The true facts in the matter are that Richard Fine was both taken into custody and released from custody with no due process of law and with no valid and effectual court records to provide the legal foundation for the conduct of Sheriff Leroy Baca in this matter.

Isn't time that the Los Angeles Time start responsibly reporting regarding the conduct of the justice system in this county?
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

[1] Attorney Richard Fine spent a year and a half behind bars on contempt-of-court charges. Is that justice?
__________________________
Former US Prosecutor Richard Fine released last night - with no due process of law - additional evidence of false imprisonment

Los Angeles, September 18 - 70 year old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine was released last night from a year and a half of solitary confinement with no evidence that his release was the outcome of due process of law. California law is explicit in stating that the Sheriff must not take any person into custody, or release any person from custody, without valid court orders to such effect. The release of Richard Fine with no evidence of court order to that effect, however, matches his taking into custody with no warrant and with no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered in his case.
Combined, Richard Fine's taking into custody and his release with no due process of law provide evidence of false imprisonment through collusion of Judge David Yaffe, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca.
As documented in court actions filed by Richard Fine over the past year and a half, such conduct was fully patronized by the United States courts - national tribunals for protection of rights - 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.
Richard Fine 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.
Richard Fine attempted to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court, through the US Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States; however, all United States courts involved in the matter denied Richard Fine access to valid judicial review; instead, Richard Fine was subjected only to pretense judicial review, while false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online, affecting the pretense that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid and effectual judicial review and was duly denied.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) 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, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.

10-09-18 Richard Fine Released with no Due Process - Additional Evidence of False Imprisonment


Former US Prosecutor Richard Fine released last night - with no due process of law - additional evidence of false imprisonment
Los Angeles, September 18 - 70 year old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine was released last night from a year and a half of solitary confinement with no evidence that his release was the outcome of due process of law. California law is explicit in stating that the Sheriff must not take any person into custody, or release any person from custody, without valid court orders to such effect. The release of Richard Fine with no evidence of court order to that effect, however, matches his taking into custody with no warrant and with no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered in his case.
Combined, Richard Fine's taking into custody and his release with no due process of law provide evidence of false imprisonment through collusion of Judge David Yaffe, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca.
As documented in court actions filed by Richard Fine over the past year and a half, such conduct was fully patronized by the United States courts - national tribunals for protection of rights - 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.
Richard Fine 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.
Richard Fine attempted to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court, through the US Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States; however, all United States courts involved in the matter denied Richard Fine access to valid judicial review; instead, Richard Fine was subjected only to pretense judicial review, while false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online, affecting the pretense that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid and effectual judicial review and was duly denied.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) 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, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.

Monday, September 20, 2010

10-09-20 Ongoing Fraud Alleged by Judge David Yaffe in Purported September 17, 2010 Order for Release of Richard Fine


Los Angeles, September 20 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, alleged ongoing fraud by Judge David Yaffe regarding false imprisonment of Richard Fine – through the issuance of an invalid court record, in lieu of a valid court order, for the release of Richard Fine from a year and a half of solitary confinement.
On March 4, 2009, Richard Fine was imprisoned by the Warrant Detail of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, albeit – with no Warrant ever issued, and with no Judgment/Conviction or Sentencing ever entered by the Judge David Yaffe.  Instead, Richard Fine was held under solitary confinement for a year and a half by the Sheriff under false and deliberately misleading records – stating that Richard Fine was arrested on location and by authority of a non-existent “Municipal Court of San Pedro”. [1]
On September 17, 2010, Richard Fine was released by the Sheriff. Again - with no valid Order ever entered by the Court. [2]
Instead, September 17, 2010 Minutes were issued under caption of Marina v LA County (BS109420), where issuance of an order was described, but no evidence of an actual Order ever being issued and signed by Judge Yaffe was ever found.  The Minutes failed to spell out that an Order was ever signed by Judge Yaffe to affect the release of Richard Fine on that date, either. 
Moreover, the September 17, 2010 Minutes fail to appear among the list of court records in the case, which was published online by the Court.  Likewise, the Case Summary failed to state that any Order was signed by Judge Yaffe on September 17, 2010, or entered by the Court on that date.
Such vague and ambiguous litigation was typical of the conduct of the Court under the caption of Marina v LA County all along.  To this date the Los Angeles Superior Court denies access to inspect and to copy the definitive record of the litigation in Marina v LA County  - the Register of Actions (California civil docket) – in apparent violation of First Amendment rights.  The habeas corpus and all appeals and petitions originating from it were subjected to pretense review in the United States courts, from the US District Court, Central District of California, through the Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States, without the docket – the foundation record of the case -  ever being produced by the Court.
Combined, the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Richard Fine are alleged as an example of arbitrary and capricious deprivation of Liberty through collusion of Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Leroy Bacca.  
Combined, the publication of invalid records in the online public access system of the Court, and denial of access to true electronic Court records in Sustain – the case management system of the Court – have been previously shown to be the routine tools enabling such fraud and abuse of Human Rights.
Richard Fine 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.
Richard Fine attempted to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court, through the US Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States; however, all United States courts involved in the matter denied Richard Fine access to valid judicial review; instead, Richard Fine was subjected only to pretense judicial review, while false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online, affecting the pretense that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid and effectual judicial review and was duly denied.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) 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, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.





LINKS
[1] Records pertaining to the March 4, 2009 arrest and booking of Richard Fine
[2]  Records pertaing to the September 17, 2010 release of Richard Fine

Saturday, September 18, 2010

10-09-18 Richard Fine Released with no Due Process - Additional Evidence of False Imprisonment


Former US Prosecutor Richard Fine released last night - with no due process of law - additional evidence of false imprisonment
Los Angeles, September 18 - 70 year old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine was released last night from a year and a half of solitary confinement with no evidence that his release was the outcome of due process of law. California law is explicit in stating that the Sheriff must not take any person into custody, or release any person from custody, without valid court orders to such effect. The release of Richard Fine with no evidence of court order to that effect, however, matches his taking into custody with no warrant and with no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered in his case.
Combined, Richard Fine's taking into custody and his release with no due process of law provide evidence of false imprisonment through collusion of Judge David Yaffe, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca.
As documented in court actions filed by Richard Fine over the past year and a half, such conduct was fully patronized by the United States courts - national tribunals for protection of rights - 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.
Richard Fine 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.
Richard Fine attempted to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court, through the US Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States; however, all United States courts involved in the matter denied Richard Fine access to valid judicial review; instead, Richard Fine was subjected only to pretense judicial review, while false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online, affecting the pretense that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded valid and effectual judicial review and was duly denied.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) 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, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems and online public access systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.

10-09-17 RICHARD FINE RELEASED FROM FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Attorney jailed on contempt charges freed after 1 1/2 years behind bars

September 17, 2010 | 10:39 pm
A 70-year-old lawyer who was sentenced to jail “indefinitely” on contempt-of-court charges was abruptly released Friday evening after spending a year and a half behind bars.
Richard Fine was released from Los Angeles County Jail in downtown Los Angeles shortly after 9 p.m. but did not wish to speak to a Times reporter, said his daughter, Victoria.
Fine, an antitrust and taxpayer advocate attorney, was thrown in jail last year by  Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe for failing to answer questions about his finances and for practicing law without a license.
The contempt charges stemmed from a case Fine filed on behalf of Marina del Rey homeowners who sued local developers. Fine had been ordered to pay sanctions and attorneys’ fees in the case.
Fine contends he was being targeted by Yaffe because of his challenges to county-funded benefits that judges receive on top of their state pay.
Rather than comply with Yaffe’s orders and be released from jail, Fine vowed to take his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In May, however, the court declined to take up his petition, meaning he could have remained in jail indefinitely as Yaffe had ordered. The judge could not be reached for comment late Friday.
While in solitary confinement, Fine filed habeas corpus petitions for his release with the California Supreme Court, district court and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that Yaffe was biased against him and should have recused himself from the contempt-of-court case.
His imprisonment was “the latest encounter in the 10-year campaign by Fine to restore due process in the California judicial system,” the attorney, who has been representing himself, wrote in his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Fine is the only attorney, of the approximately 208,000 California attorneys, with the courage to challenge the California judiciary,” he wrote.
In a telephone interview with The Times in May, Fine said the U.S. Supreme Court had made the wrong decision by allowing him to remain in jail. He said he would be filing another petition.
“I'm in fighting condition,” he said. “They haven't broken me down, and they won't break me down.”
-- Scott Glover

Friday, September 10, 2010

10-09-09 Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow, Board of Advisors of Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review Asked for Acknowledgement of Receipt of Paper Submitted to the Journal.

ראה תמונה בגודל מלא
Martha Minow, Dean
Harvard Law School

A Los Angeles, September 9 – In letter [1] to Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow, Professors Lani Guinier, Randal Kennedy, and Deborah Ramirez – members of the Board of Advisors of Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review - Human Rights Alert (NGO) repeated its request that the journal acknowledge receipt of a paper, authored by Joseph Zernik, PhD, recently submitted to the journal, titled: Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts – An Urgent Call of Legislative Action.
Previous requests for acknowledgement of receipt by the journal itself remained unanswered. [2]
The letter also included the Abstract of the paper, which documented and opined large-scale fraud in design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF – the online public access s and case management systems of the US district courts and courts of appeals.
The paper documented a series of cases, where such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of pretense court minutes, orders, and judgments, as part of pretense of judicial review. The public at large, and the harmed parties in particular, could not discern such facts in the online public access systems as designed and operated by the courts.
The paper further outlined a series of necessary corrective legislative actions - first and foremost - 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 and with it – restoration of the clerks’ accountability for integrity of dockets and counsel appearances. The paper also noted that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was also likely to be required. Such actions were opined as likely to restore access to the courts and the rule of law, and with it - the safeguard of Human Rights in the digital era.
The letter [1] also included the Author’s Biography. The biography was short on formal computer science training, and showed no evidence of legal education at all.  However, the biography showed that Dr Zernik analyzed and opined fraud in a number of government and corporate large database systems over the past decade, and that his opinions were supported in part or in full by top experts in the relevant fields.
Dr Zernik previously opined dishonest manipulation of the online public access system of the California Commission on Teacher’s Credentialing, coordinated with destruction of electronic pupil educational records at the Special Education Department of the Beverly Hills, California, Unified School District.  A lengthy double-investigation by the California Department of Education finally concluded: “The School District is out of compliance and in violation of the law”.
In early 2007, large-scale financial institution fraud was opined by Dr Zernik, enabled by EDGE - the underwriting monitoring system of Countrywide Financial Corporations, and related liabilities to the US Taxpayer at hundreds of billions of dollars were projected.  Such opinions, filed then with FBI, were materialized a year later with the collapse of the Corporation, resulting in considerable losses to the US Treasury.  Fraud opined by Dr Zernik regarding a number of individual underwriting records of Countrywide Financial Corporation was supported by opinions of renowned US fraud expert and litigation support consultant Robert Meister, who operates throughout the United States.
Dr Zernik also previously opined fraud in Sustain – the case management system of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  Two manuscripts authored by Dr Zernik were reviewed by Prof Eli Shamir, Department of Computer Science, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, whose contributions to computer science from its earlier stages included the development of fundamental tools in language analysis.  Prof Shamir issued a qualified opinion that “credible evidence” was produced of possible “fraud” by court staff was enabled by the system, and called upon US-based computer science experts to investigate the system. 
Additionally, fraud was opined by Dr Zernik in conduct of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, relative to pretense Receiverships employed by the Court for taking the properties of individuals or corporations with no legal foundation.  In Dr Zernik’s opined that such conduct was enabled and facilitated in operations of Sustain combined with the online public access system of the Court.  Dr Zernik’s opinion in this regard was fully supported by opinion of FBI veteran, fraud expert James Wedick, who had been decorated by US Congress, FBI Director, and US Attorney General for his achievements in law enforcement.  Mr Wedick opined “fraud being committed” and “investigation should be immediately instituted”. [italics in the original –jz]
Further fraud was opined by Dr Zernik in operations of the Los Angeles County, California, online Inmate Information Center, which permitted indefinite false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, jails.  A scholarly paper, analyzing and opining the fraud in the system, titled “Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems” was recently published by the peer-reviewed, new computer science/informatics journal - International Journal of Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining.  The editorial board of the Journal lists computer scientists, including Dr Alexander Troussov, whose current interests include the employment of graph theory and other mathematics and informatics tools in large-scale data mining combined with implementation of expert systems on complex, comprehensive systems of interconnected objects, images, persons, events, and related knowledge bases.  Combined, the Editorial Board of the Journal lists scholars from six European nations and Canada.
Fraud was opined by Dr Zernik in PACER & CM/ECF, in another paper, peer-reviewed and published in the same Journal, titled “Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts”.
It should be noted that in contrast with the array of high-reputation experts, who supported Dr Zernik’s analysis and opinions, the Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review is managed and edited by law school students alone. 
Dr Zernik expressed his disappointment by the fact that leading law journals in the United States refused to acknowledge receipt of a paper by a qualified author for due review, “I would leave it for the academic community to opine whether such conduct is, or is not, consistent with basic standards of academic integrity and management of academic journals.”
Human Rights Alert (NGO) [4] 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, 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] 10-09-09 Harvard Dean Minow, Board of Advisors of Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review Asked for Acknowledgement of Receipt of Paper Submitted to the Journal.
[2] 10-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37077401/

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

10-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System

Human Rights Alert - NGO
Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
Los Angeles, September 8 - following the publication in a computer science journal of papers, [1] which focused on analyzing invalidity and fraud inherent in the case management and online public access systems of the courts in the US, particularly – PACER & CM/ECF, another paper, [2] was submitted by Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) for review by top-tier US law journals, showing the harmful effects of the operation of such systems in the US. Harvard and Yale based law journals, to which the paper was submitted, refused so far to acknowledge receipt of the paper for peer-review. The paper included a series of individual case studies, analyzed from the legal perspective. It documented what was opined as serious Human Rights violations by the courts, through the issuance of abusive, yet invalid and void orders and judgments. A reasonable person,falsely relying on the courts' online public access systems would conclude that such orders and judgments were contrary to the law. However, the judges probably falsely felt they were not engaged in corruption - since such orders and judgments were in fact invalid and void on their faces – unsigned by a judge or unauthenticated by a clerk, as evidenced in the courts' case management systems. Albeit, the public at large, and the harmed parties, in particular, could not discern these facts. The paper also proposed key legislative measures that were required for correction of such conditions at the US courts, first and foremost - subjecting all such systems to legally and publicly accountable validation (logic verification) through legislative action. The paper also suggested that once full access to the electronic records of the courts was restored, and such systems were examined in detail, there would be a need to establish in the US a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, since the number of judges involved in such conduct was so large, that it would not be possible to prosecute them all.
The paper was submitted to six top-tier legal papers in the areas of Human Rights and Law and Technology - the most relevant fields, based at Harvard and Yale Universities: Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Harvard International Law Journal, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, and Yale Law and Technology Journal. In each case submission was conducted both through the online submission systems [3] and through direct email. In five of the cases, the journal editors refused to acknowledge receipt of the papers. In the sixth case, an email was received informing the author that the journal was "currently closed for submissions". None of the journals claimed that the paper was irrelevant relative to their respective stated areas of coverage, or that the paper was subjected to any kind of review and was rejected.
Conduct of the Harvard, Yale law journals should raise concerns regarding the state of Free Speech and Academic Freedom in the US.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) [4] 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, 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.
LINKS/ATTACHMENTS

[1] Papers recently published in a peer-reviewed computer science journal:


Zernik, J: Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010)   http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328591/ Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1:69-83 (2010) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/ # [2] Paper submitted for review by Harvard, Yale law journals:
Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the Courts – An Urgent Call of Legislative Action Joseph Zernik, PhD, Human Rights Alert (NGO)   Abstract  Digital voting machines were previously shown to be vulnerable to malfunction and malfeasance. Papers, recently published in computer science journal, likewise, outlined the invalidity 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. Invalid case management and online public access systems were claimed as key to deterioration of integrity of the justice system, which was previously opined in official, expert, and media reports.  Such systems enabled the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, the conduct of pretense court proceedings, and the issuance of pretense court records, as part of pretense of judicial review.  A series of case studies documented that the respective orders or judgments were either unsigned or unauthenticated in the digital case management systems, albeit, the public at large, and the harmed parties in particular, could not discern such facts in the online public access systems as designed and operated by the courts.  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 lower courts.  Corrective legislative actions were outlined, which were urgently needed - first and foremost - 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 and with it – restoration of the clerks’ accountability for integrity of dockets and counsel appearances.  Full enforcement of the law was called for regarding counsel, when engaged in conduct that was opined as fraud intended to pervert justice.  Truth and Reconciliation Commission was also likely to be required.  Such actions were likely to restore access to the courts and the rule of law, and to safeguard Human Rights in the digital era.    Key Words Liberty, Access to the Courts, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Fraud, United States Courts, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, California, Digital Signatures, Relational Databases, Functional Logic Verification, Case Management Systems, Online Public Access Systems, Court Dockets, Prisoners’ Registration   [3] ExpressO online submission system:
[4] Human Rights Alert (NGO) web sites:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/calling-upon-the-un-human-rights-council-to-issue-an-honest-and-effectual-2010-report-on-the-us/

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