Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Human Rights Alert: 10-07-28 RE: Fine V Baca (09-A827) - Additional Evidence For Fraud at The US Supreme Court

    Transféré par

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    208 vues9 pages
    10-08-26 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 prisons Executive Summary Los Angles, August 26 – request for restoration of access to justice in the case of the imprisoned, 70 year-old, former US prosecutor Richard was filed with Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD. 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, pretence “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. On March 4, 2010, Richard Fine was arrested in open court by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Warrant Detail – albeit with no warrant at all. Richard Fine has been held ever since in solitary confinement – albeit with no judgment/conviction, or sentencing ever entered in his case. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department has 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, Richard Fine was denied access to justice, and was instead subjected only to pretense judicial review. Concomitantly, false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online, which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded judicial review, and was duly denied. The request further provided expert opinions regarding the inherent invalidity of case management and online public access systems, which enable the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, and conduct of court proceedings and issuance of invalid court records, which enabled the pretense of duly accorded judicial review. Key structural defects were identified in the justice system in the United States, which stemmed from invalidity of case management and online public access systems implemented in recent decades: a) Online public dockets were implemented at the courts, where the authority of the clerk is never invoked, and where the clerks deem themselves unaccountable for validity of the records; such systems enable denial of access to justice and enabling pretense judicial review; b) Online prisoners’ registration systems were implemented in the jails, where authority of record supervisor is never invoked, and where the records supervisors deem themselves unaccountable for validity of the records; such systems enable denial of liberty and imprisonments under pretense of lawfulness, and c) In all agencies, involved in this matter, the publication of false and deliberately misleading online dockets/prisoners’ registration was accompanied by denial of access to public records and/or First Amendment rights to access judicial records – to inspect and to copy, and failure to establish by law or by published local rules of case management systems and online public access systems. Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to accord due process in review of the request for restoration of access to justice for Rich

    Titre original

    2010-07-28 Inspection of paper court files in Fine v Baca (09-A827) in the Supreme Court of the United States: Declaration of George McDermott in Re: Unsigned Letter dated April 26, 2010, by Supreme unnamed Deputy Clerk re: Denial of the Application

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    10-08-26 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 prisons Executive Summary Los Angles, August 26 – request for restoration of access to justice in the case of the imprisoned, 70 year-old, former US prosecutor Richard was filed with Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD. 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, pretence “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. On March 4, 2010, Richard Fine was arrested in open court by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Warrant Detail – albeit with no warrant at all. Richard Fine has been held ever since in solitary confinement – albeit with no judgment/conviction, or sentencing ever entered in his case. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department has 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, Richard Fine was denied access to justice, and was instead subjected only to pretense judicial review. Concomitantly, false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online, which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded judicial review, and was duly denied. The request further provided expert opinions regarding the inherent invalidity of case management and online public access systems, which enable the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, and conduct of court proceedings and issuance of invalid court records, which enabled the pretense of duly accorded judicial review. Key structural defects were identified in the justice system in the United States, which stemmed from invalidity of case management and online public access systems implemented in recent decades: a) Online public dockets were implemented at the courts, where the authority of the clerk is never invoked, and where the clerks deem themselves unaccountable for validity of the records; such systems enable denial of access to justice and enabling pretense judicial review; b) Online prisoners’ registration systems were implemented in the jails, where authority of record supervisor is never invoked, and where the records supervisors deem themselves unaccountable for validity of the records; such systems enable denial of liberty and imprisonments under pretense of lawfulness, and c) In all agencies, involved in this matter, the publication of false and deliberately misleading online dockets/prisoners’ registration was accompanied by denial of access to public records and/or First Amendment rights to access judicial records – to inspect and to copy, and failure to establish by law or by published local rules of case management systems and online public access systems. Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to accord due process in review of the request for restoration of access to justice for Rich

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    208 vues9 pages

    Human Rights Alert: 10-07-28 RE: Fine V Baca (09-A827) - Additional Evidence For Fraud at The US Supreme Court

    Transféré par

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    10-08-26 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 prisons Executive Summary Los Angles, August 26 – request for restoration of access to justice in the case of the imprisoned, 70 year-old, former US prosecutor Richard was filed with Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD. 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, pretence “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. On March 4, 2010, Richard Fine was arrested in open court by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Warrant Detail – albeit with no warrant at all. Richard Fine has been held ever since in solitary confinement – albeit with no judgment/conviction, or sentencing ever entered in his case. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department has 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, Richard Fine was denied access to justice, and was instead subjected only to pretense judicial review. Concomitantly, false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online, which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded judicial review, and was duly denied. The request further provided expert opinions regarding the inherent invalidity of case management and online public access systems, which enable the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, and conduct of court proceedings and issuance of invalid court records, which enabled the pretense of duly accorded judicial review. Key structural defects were identified in the justice system in the United States, which stemmed from invalidity of case management and online public access systems implemented in recent decades: a) Online public dockets were implemented at the courts, where the authority of the clerk is never invoked, and where the clerks deem themselves unaccountable for validity of the records; such systems enable denial of access to justice and enabling pretense judicial review; b) Online prisoners’ registration systems were implemented in the jails, where authority of record supervisor is never invoked, and where the records supervisors deem themselves unaccountable for validity of the records; such systems enable denial of liberty and imprisonments under pretense of lawfulness, and c) In all agencies, involved in this matter, the publication of false and deliberately misleading online dockets/prisoners’ registration was accompanied by denial of access to public records and/or First Amendment rights to access judicial records – to inspect and to copy, and failure to establish by law or by published local rules of case management systems and online public access systems. Senior Counsel Laurence Tribe was requested to accord due process in review of the request for restoration of access to justice for Rich

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 9

    Digitally signed

    by Joseph Zernik
    Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
    Zernik, o, ou,
    PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
    Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
    Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.07.29
    02:36:36 +03'00'
    Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

    10-07-28 RE: Fine v Baca (09-A827) -Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court

    Attached are:

    1) 10-07-25 Online docket of the US Supreme Court in Richard Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los
    Angeles (09-A827), and
    2) 10-07-28 Declaration of George McDermott in re: Records of the US Supreme Court file in the case.

    Case history:

    The Application was first submitted to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. The online docket noted denial
    on March 12, 2010, and Richard Fine received a notice to that effect. Albeit, the notice was by Danny Bickell,
    who was not authorized as Deputy Clerk. Moreover, the copy of the notice in the Court file was unsigned, and
    was never stamped “FILED”. Moreover, there was no valid denial by Justice Kennedy to form the legal
    foundation for such notice. [1]

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

    Prior to the April 23, 2010, Mr Danny Bickell, again – with no authority at all, eliminated from the court file
    records filed in the case, which included evidence, including, but not limited details of his March 12, 2010
    invalid notice. Mr Bickell’s conduct relative to the March 12, 2010 notice and the consequent elimination of
    records from the Court file were subject of a complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Washington DC. [2]

    On April 23, 2010, outcome of the conference remained unknown. However, on April 26, 2010, a note
    appeared in the US Supreme Court online docket, (attached) indicating denial of the Application.

    On July 26, 2010, copies of the records from the US Supreme Court were obtained, (attached) which showed
    no legal foundation at all for the April 26, 2010 denial note in the online docket.

    Information obtained from the imprisoned Richard Fine indicated that he had never received any notice at all
    of the April 23, 2010/April 26, 2010 denial by the US Supreme Court conference. There is no evidence in the
    Court file that any notice was ever served pertaining to the purported April 23/April 26, 2010 denial, either.

    Therefore, it is alleged that the case documented repeated publication of false and deliberately misleading
    notes in the US Supreme Court online docket, issuing of false notices by US Supreme Court staff, and failure
    of the US Supreme Court Justices to dispose of matters before them.

    LINKS
    [1] Alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records in Fine v Baca (09-A827)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/
    [2] Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and
    Deprivation of Rights
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
    7/25/2010 Untitled Document

    No. 09A827
    Title: Richard I. Fine, Applicant
    v.
    Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California, et al.
    Docketed:
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (09-56073)

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Mar 1 2010 Application (09A827) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Mar 12 2010 Application (09A827) denied by Justice Kennedy.
    Mar 30 2010 Application (09A827) refiled and submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
    Apr 7 2010 Application (09A827) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 23, 2010.
    Apr 7 2010 Application (09A827) referred to the Court.
    Apr 26 2010 Application (09A827) denied by the Court.

    ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~


    Attorneys for Petitioner:
    Richard I. Fine 1824367
    Men's Central Jail
    441 Bauchet Street
    Los Angeles, CA 90012
    Party name: Richard I. Fine
    Attorneys for Respondents:
    (818)-545-
    Paul B. Beach Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi PC
    1925
    100 West Broadway Suite 1200
    Glendale, CA 91210
    Party name: Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California, et al.

    1/1
    . .
    George E. McDermott. Sharon V. Galloway
    143 N. Huron Drive 5634 Mt. Gilead Road
    Forest Heights, Maryland 20745 . Reisterstown; MD 2'1136
    301.996.9577 443.985.9333
    secretj ustice1?r@yaboo. com svgalloway@gmail. corn

    '~."""~ ·; .. "'·-;··i··../ · ~~

    Faicover'sheet
    Date July 28, 2010

    To Joseph Zurich

    With Judicial Rights Advocate

    Fax number
    Phone number 323·521-6209
    Re: . Follow-up to earlier affidavit regarding unsigned
    orders received from the United States Supreme Court July 26, 2010.
    Comments. Joseph here is my affidavit attesting to the visit at the

    Yours in truth George McDermott. Current candidate for United States Congress
    Number of pages including cover sheet 7 _
    Declaration of George McDermott
    Re: Richard I Fine v. Leroy BIUU, Sheriff ofLos Angeles County (09-A827)
    Documents obtained from the Supreme Court of the United States on July 26, 2010

    T, GEORGE MCDERMOTT, hereby declare as follows:


    Instant Declaration was written at the request of Joseph Zernik, as a memorandum
    of my July 26, 2010 visit to the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Coun of the United
    States in Washington DC and as authentication ofthe records I provide to Joseph Zernik.
    I have personal knowledge ofthe facts set forth herein, which I know to be true _
    and correct, except as to those matters therein stated as based -upon information and
    belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well. If called as a
    witness, I could and would competently testify 'with respect thereto.
    On July 26, 2010, around 10:00 am, with Mr Guy Babineau, whose mailing address is: and
    whose email is: M)' contact info is Guy Babineau, 45 SOllthampton Drive, Toronto,
    Ontario. MIK 4V6. Tel: 416-264-5819 email.@L1!abineaurQ)yahoo.comAtt, 5
    1) as my witness, I arrived at the Office of the Clerk of Supreme Court of the United
    States at One First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543.
    2) I requested the Deputy Clerk of duty to inspect and to copy the court file of Richard I
    Fine v. Leroy Baca, SheriffolLos Angeles County (09-A827).
    3) Upon opening the Court file, referenced above, I discovered four records on the left side.
    4) Exhibits 1-4 are true and correct copies of the records, which were discovered in the
    Court file, referenced above.
    5) No other record, which would be a signed order of the Court or signed notice by the
    Clerk ofthe Court, was discovered in the Court file, referenced above.
    6) I therefore asked the Deputy Clerk for copies of the signed orders of the Court in the
    case, referenced above.
    7) The Deputy Clerk then empharically srated that the Court did not issue signed orders in
    any case and that therefore r could not be provided with such records.
    I declare under penalty of peljury under the laws of the United States that the
    foregoing is true and correct.
    Executed this 28 day in July, 2010, in the Town eights, State of Maryland,

    BY'~~~;:;;;;~~"':'---
    GE ROE MCDERMOTT
    143 North Huron Dr., Forest Heights, MD 20745
    Phone: 301-839-5816; Cell: 301-996-9577
    E-mail: ~~cretiusticepr@vahoo.com
    ': ..

    OFFICE OF THE CLERK

    , . ' . ' ..

    . APPLICATION NO. 09A827


    . .

    • RichardT. Fine····

    ',' '

    .. .,..:
    , . .. v;
    . , , . '.: ,

    Leroy,D, Baca, Sheriff, LosAngeles Co@ty, Calif~rnia, et al. •

    '1'0; • Justice Kennedy·

    Application for Sta:y


    . " . , . .,.., . ' , .' .".,', ' ' ' ,

    Note; The Ninth.Circuitdenied applicant/s petitionfor rehearing and


    rehearing en bane February 10,2010 (CA9'sorder attached to the application
    by the Clerk's Office). Applicant has not submitted a petition for awrit of'
    certiorari or a petition fora writ of mandamus. .

    .' DFA't'··
    . . '/::,
    ·".'/'11 K·
    ·A .. ),IF'c!... , ','

    ..,. ".OJI\~O

    " .
    EXHIBIT 1
    ", .' '

    March 9,2010 . Danny Bickell X3024


    "

    Supreme Court the United$tates of


    , Office of.the"Cletk
    ,Washillgton,DC 20543~OOOl
    , William K. Suter
    ,.. Clerk of the Court '
    , (202) 479·3011, '
    March 12, 2010

    Mr, Paul B., Beach "


    Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi PC
    ,100 West Broadway Suite 1200
    Glendale,CA,91210-1219

    Re: Richard L Fine


    V. Leroy D. Be.ca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California, eta!.
    ,Application No. 09A82'7 ' ,',
    , . ,

    Dear .Mr, Beach:

    The application for a stay in the above·entitled case has been


    presented
    . to Justice Kennedy, Who on ,March 12, 2010,
    . denied the, . '

    application.
    , . '. " . '. ,'. . ... , '" ...
    ,"" .' ',,' ". ,

    This letter has been sent to those designated on the attached


    notific.ationlist, ' "

    ,Sincerely, '
    , .' '

    'VVilliamK Suter, Clerk

    'by

    Danny Bickell
    Staff Attorney, '

    EXHIBIT 2
    ..
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Office of the Clerk
    Washington; DG20543-0001
    . WillilUll K. S';ter
    Clerk of the Court
    (202).479-3011
    March 12, 2010

    Mr. Richard 1. Fine'


    Prisoner ID 1824367
    Men's Central Jail
    441 Bauchet Street
    Los Angeles, CA 90012

    Re: Richard 1. Firie "...


    v. Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, Lo&Angeles County, California, et al. .
    Application: No. 09A827 " . .

    Dear Mr. Fine: . , . .

    Theapplicati~n (or astaym the ~bove-entitledcase ·has been


    presented to Justice Kemiedy, who on March 12, 2010, denied the
    application. . .
    . '. ' . .

    This letter has been sent to those designated on the attached


    . notification list. .. .

    . Sincerely,

    . William It. Suter, Clerk

    by

    Danny Bickell .
    . Staff Attorney

    . :'.

    '". ".

    EXHIBIT 3
    , -
    . . .

    Supreme Court of the United States

    No.. 09A827

    Richard 1. Fine,

    .'
    Applicant
    . I .

    v.

    Leroy D. Baca,' Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California, et al. ".

    ON CONSIDERATIONofthB application for stay addressed


    . to Justice
    .
    Ginsburg and referred to the Court,
    . '.

    ..

    IT IS ORDERED by this Court


    , . .
    thatthe saidapplication is denied..
    . .

    April 26, 2010

    A true copy WILLIAM K. SUTER .


    . Th~ '. . . . . '. .
    Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States
    By --...,..__
    Deputy

    .. ',': . · EXHIBIT 4
    Re: need your contact information
    From: Guy Babineau <guy_babineau@yahoo.com> @.
    Add to Contacts
    To: George McDermott <secretjusticepr@yahoo.com>
    -------------,--_.._-------
    Sorry George, I was planning to leave you some of my business card on Jvlonday but
    that Supreme Court stuff got me detracted. My contact info is Guy Babineau, 45
    Southampton Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M[K 4V6. Tel: 4[6·264·5819 email
    gUV babineau(J\yahoo.com

    Thank again to both ofyou for all your kindness during my stay in Washington.

    Working on a number of projects. Will keep you informed. Do you have unlimitted time
    on your cell. I have a 24/7 telephone plan that covers both the U.S. and Canada. If you
    want to reach me by phone you can leave me a message and will return your calL The
    same could apply when I am in my office and receive you call. 1 could call you back.

    Guy

    ... On Wed, 7/28/10, George McDermott <,secretjusticep1@j-'uhoo.com>wrote:

    EXHIBIT 5

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi