Safe Mode: On
Richard Fine on CNN –Correction to Errors in Reporting by CNN

Washington DC, May 24 - the CNN report provide errorneous information regarding the core facts in the case of Richard Fine: "Superior Court Judge David Yaffe found Fine in contempt after he refused to turn over financial documents and answer questions when ordered to pay an opposing party's attorney's fees, according to court documents."
There are no honest, valid, and effectual court documents in the case of Richard Fine. That is the hallmark of the corruption in his case and in the cases of thousands of others who are falsely held in Los Angeles County, California.
As documented in a UTube clip, Motion to Intervene was filed in the case of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court, Washington DC. [1] The Motion to Intervene did not address the various arguments brought up by Richard Fine himself in the application to US Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg. Instead, it argued that Richard Fine must be immediately released for the simple reason that there were no records, conforming with the fundamentals of the law, to provide the legal basis for his confinement.
Therefore, the filing provided detailed evidence of the alleged fraud in respective records of the various agencies of the justice system:
(a) The Los Angeles Superior Court - refuses to this date to allow access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case, in disregard of First Amendment rights;
(b) The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - insists to this date on fraudulently claiming that Richard Fine was arrested and booked at an by the authority of the non-existent "Municipal Court of San Pedro";
(c) The US District Court, Los Angeles - purported to conduct a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but served minutes, orders, judgment, and mandate with no valid authentication at all;
(d) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - likewise served orders, judgments, and a mandate unsigned, and with no authentication at all.
The US Supreme Court handled such filing the same way the other courts did - the papers simply vanished. A declaration [2] posted at Scribd detailed what took place: The exhibits to the declaration provided the conformed copies that were received from the US Supreme Court as evidence of the filing. It also recorded the phone call with the US Supreme Court the next day: Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell initially tried to deny that the papers were filed and were held in his possession. Later he stated that he had not yet made the decision whether the papers would or would not appear in the Supreme Court docket of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827). When asked whether he was the Clerk of the Court or whether he was authorized as Deputy Clerk, he admitted he was neither.
Regardless, Mr Bickell stated that he would made the decision... And indeed he apparently did - the papers simply vanished with no Due Process at all...
No discrepancy notice or any other notation ever appeared in the docket to document the filing... Forget about the First Amendment right to to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." The US Supreme Court disregarded it, just like the lower courts...
The reason that the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case as presented by Fine was likely to be of the same nature - there was no judgment or mandate in the case to take the application of Richard Fine from, and therefore, the US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the matters that Richard Fine brought before that court.
For such reasons, the case and the filings of Richard Fine, futile as they may be, are of historic significance. Richard Fine, in his filings, documented in great detail the alleged fraud in the US justice system from top to bottom. [3]
[1] UTube clip - filing at the US Supreme Court in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827)
[2] 10-04-22 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court Dr Zernik’s Declaration RE Court Counsel Danny Bickell and Filing at US Supreme Court
[3] Human Rights Alert submission to the United Nations:
10-05-19 Human Rights Alert: PowerPoint presentation, as forwarded to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, as part of the 2010 UPR
10-04-19 Press Release: Human Rights Alert (NGO) Filed UPR Report with the United Nations
10-04-18 Human Rights Alert: Final submission to the United Nations for the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the US
10-04-19 Human Rights Alert: Final Appendix for Submission to the United Nations for the 2010 UPR of the United States
10-05-10 Human Rights Alert: Human Rights in the Digital Era – A Call for Publicly Accountable Validation of the justice system case management and online public access systems

Click to view image: 'Richard Fine - falsely held in Los Angeles County'

Added: May-25-2010 Occurred On: May-24-2010
By: jz12345
Tags: Judicial Corruption, los angeles County, california, FBI, sub-prime crisis, bank of america, Brian Moynihan
Views: 9169 | Comments: 18 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 1 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE

Advertisement below
Liveleak on Facebook