Safe Mode: On
Richard Fine: Remedies – Restoration of First Amendment Rights

Los Angeles, March 16 – in postings at the ABA Journal [1] Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles County resident, provided an overview of the case of Richard Fine as unparalleled documentation of the widespread corruption of the judiciary, particularly in Los Angeles County, California. Already in 2008, in complaint filed with FBI Director and US Attorney General, Dr Joseph Zernik provided credible evidence of racketeering by the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and requested appointment of a Special Counsel pursuant to 28 CFR §600 for investigation, and prosecution, if necessary, of those who deny First Amendment rights in Los Angeles County - to inspect and to copy judicial records that were the electronic records of the Court’s case management systems.
Such records included, but were not limited to the Index of All Cases, the Calendars of the Courts, the Registers of Actions, and the Judgments Index in Sustain - the civil case management system of the LA Superior Court. Dr Zernik provided evidence that following the installation of Sustain, the Los Angeles Superior Court adopted an unpublished local rule of court: “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only”. It was alleged that such unpublished local rule of court was contrary to both the Rule Making Enabling Acts (federal and state) and First Amendment rights.

Through the proposed limited mandate and limited term charge of such Special Counsel, Dr Zernik claimed that First Amendment rights could be restored in Los Angeles County, California, within 2 weeks - at least on court locations, not by remote access. It was further claimed that restoration of First Amendment rights and public access to court records would be sufficient to largely paralyze the racketeering by the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Moreover, it was alleged that restoration of such access to the criminal case management system records would allow speedy release of the thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) through petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Needless to say, restoration of such access would provide the ultimate evidence for the alleged fraud by Judge David Yaffe and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke relative to Marina v LA County and the alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine.

It was later realized that similar actions were required relative to the conduct of US Courts and US Courts of Appeals throughout the United States. In installation of PACER and CM/ECF, the case management and public access systems of the United States Courts, public access to court records and First Amendment rights pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) were curtailed with no foundation in the law. The attestations and certifications of records by the clerks of the courts were removed from public access with no foundation in the law and with no published Rules of Courts to substantiate such sea change in the operations of the courts. The denial of access to such certifications and authentications – the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) [2] was documented by Dr Zernik in US Courts across the nation. the case of Mr Fine’s habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) was but one example. [3] It was further documented that the US District Court, Los Angeles engaged in unrelated cases in the issuance of invalid NEFs – to perpetrate alleged fraud on litigants. Such fraud by the US District Court, Los Angeles, was also indirectly confirmed in the case of the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine.

In his 2008 complaints and requests to the US Department of Justice, Dr Zernik further alleged, that upon restoration of public access to court records in Los Angeles County, California, it would be discovered that the Registers of Actions and other electronic court records in Sustain were a catalog of criminalities by the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court over the past quarter century. It was proposed that such computerized data easily lent itself to be effectively used in the speedy construction of an index, which could be used to rank the criminality of the individual judges, based on such public records. Such index and such ranking could be instrumental in further reviews and determinations.

Dr Zernik further proposed that since it would not be possible to dispose of all 250 judges and 150 commissioners of the County of Los Angeles at once, the solution for the widespread corruption and racketeering of the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court should include the establishment of "Truth and Reconciliation Commissions". Similar processes were undertaken in various other countries upon emerging from various types of tyrannies. It was proposed that there was nobody as qualified and as credible as Mr Richard Fine to preside in such process.

In 2008 the FBI and US Attorney General office refused to answer on such complaints and requests by Dr Zernik. Later, in response to Congressional Inquiries by the Honorable Dianne Feinstein and the Honorable Diane Watson on behalf of Dr Joseph Zernik, senior officer of the US Justice Department filed responses with US Congress, which were alleged as fraud on US Congress, on Joseph Zernik, and on the people. Such responses by Kenneth Kaiser - Assistant Director of FBI for Criminal Investigations, and by Kenneth Melson - then Director of US Office of US Attorneys, are currently subject of complaint by Dr Joseph Zernik to US DOJ Inspector General - Glenn A Fine. Again - there was refusal of the DOJ-IG to respond on the complaints. Again - there was inquiry by the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, on behalf of Dr Joseph Zernik, why the DOJ-IG would not respond on the complaints.

As repeatedly documented, the US justice system was unable to address its own corruption. Further public measures and possibly international pressure may be required before any corrective actions are undertaken.


[1] The blocking of posting of comments on the Richard Fine case at the ABA Journal was removed after an earlier publication of that matter:

[2] Notices of Electronic Filings of the United States Courts – a Review

[3] Denial of Access to NEFs and other court records in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Richard Fine at the United States Court, Los Angeles

Click to view image: 'Defending the First Amendment'

Added: Mar-16-2010 Occurred On: Mar-15-2010
By: jz12345
Tags: Judicial Corruption, Los Angeles County, California
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States (load item map)
Views: 9828 | Comments: 2 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 1 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE

Advertisement below
Liveleak on Facebook