Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
arthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2010.12.02
23:28:32 +02'00'

Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the

Courts in the United States
Joseph Zernik, PhD *,** ,∗∗∗
Abstract
Integrity, security, and validity of electronic administration systems (PACER and CM/ECF),
implemented in the US courts in recent decades, were analyzed thorough case studies pertaining
to Habeas Corpus and the right for property. The cases originated in the Los Angeles County,
California Court, and progressed through the US District Court, Central District of California,
and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The cases document a pervasive pattern of judicial conduct: Judges and magistrates presiding
with no valid assignment/referral orders, failing to issue judicial records, or issuing deliberately
invalid judicial records: orders and judgments, which are not certified by the judges and/or not
authenticated/attested by clerks of the courts. The practice is described as pretense judicial
review.
Electronic administration systems of the US courts are found to be central to such practice, by
leaving the public unable to discern between valid and void judicial records, by undermining the
accountability of the clerks for integrity of electronic judicial records, and by enabling the denial
of public access to judicial records.
Corrective measures are proposed: a) Restoration of provisions of the Salary Act of 1919, which
placed the clerks under the authority of the US Attorney General, and b) Enactment of federal
rules of electronic administration of the courts, including, but not limited to, requirements for
publicly and legally accountable validation (i.e., certified and functional logic verification) of the
systems and enumeration in natural language of all rules inherent in them. Such measures should
restore the clerks’ accountability, the integrity of electronic court records, and public access to
judicial records. Regardless, the public at large and computing professionals in particular should
recognize their ongoing civic duty to monitor the integrity of such systems.
Similar concerns may arise in any nation where the courts are in transition to electronic
administration. Conditions that prevail at the US courts today have undermined Habeas Corpus
and the Bill of Rights, recognized as central to the joint inheritance of the English-speaking
world to freedom and the rights of man.
Key Words
Case Management Systems, Online Public Access Systems, PACER, CM/ECF, Human Rights,
Functional Logic Verification, Habeas Corpus, Right for Possession, Banking Regulation

*
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 by Professors of Computer
Science for their advice, and language editing by a British graduate student.
∗∗∗
The report presents small part of the evidence, which was submitted to the United Nations Human Rights
Council, as part of the first ever 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Right in the United States, and which
was consequently incorporated in the Human Rights Council staff report, with reference to ‘corruption of the courts
and the legal profession’ in California.

1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Solitary Confinement of former US Prosecutor Richard Fine
3. Taking of the Home of Dr Joseph Zernik
4. Electronic Administration Systems of the Los Angeles Superior Court and Sheriff’s
Department
5. Electronic Administration Systems of the US District Courts and Courts of Appeals
6. Electronic Administration Systems of the Supreme Court of the United States
7. The Courts and the Legal Profession in the United States
8. Desired Corrective Actions
9. Conclusions
10. Tables
11. Figures
12. Endnotes

1. Introduction TOC

The Administrative Office of the US Courts has completed a decade-long project of

implementing electronic administration systems at the US courts – National Courts for Protection
of Rights. Such systems were implemented with no public oversight, and public access is denied
to major parts of the systems. Therefore, studying the systems and their effects on the US justice
system is of particular interest.
The current report is primarily based on records derived from two series of cases, which
originated in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and proceeded to the US
District Court, Central District of California, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and the
Supreme Court of the United States. [ i ]
2. Solitary confinement of former US Prosecutor Richard Fine. [ ii , iii ] TOC

Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US Prosecutor, an accomplished and distinguished attorney
[ iv ], had exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking, of ‘not permitted’ payments by all judges
of Los Angeles County, California (called ‘bribes’ by media). On February 20, 2009, the
Governor of California signed ‘retroactive immunities’ (‘pardons’) for all judges in Los Angeles
County. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 the arrest of Richard Fine for contempt in
open court at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was reported. He was
later held for 18 months in solitary confinement by the Sheriff of Los Angeles County.
a) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles – Ancillary Proceedings on Contempt in a real estate litigation
Marina v LA County was initiated as a Petition for Injunction against Los Angeles County,
pertaining to permits given to large construction companies to develop open space near Marina
Del Rey on the Los Angeles Pacific coast. Richard Fine represented Petitioner, the Marina
Strand Colony II Homeowners Association. During the litigation, Richard Fine repeatedly
sought the disqualification of Judge David Yaffe, since Judge Yaffe was one of the recipients of
secret ‘not permitted’ payments from the Respondent – County of Los Angeles.
As part of the Ancillary Proceedings on Contempt, the media reported that Richard Fine was

2
sentenced on March 4, 2009 for ‘continuous confinement’. However, the March 4, 2009
sentencing hearing failed to appear in the litigation chronology, published online by the Court,
while public access to the true Calendars of the Superior Court is denied.
Moreover, the March 4, 2009 Judgment record [ v ] was stamped on its face ‘FILED, March 4,
2009’, but was certified on its last page by Judge David Yaffe with the date of March 24, 2009.
The March 4, 2009 Judgment record was also never authenticated/attested by the Clerk of the
Court, and was never entered, as required by California Code to render it ‘effectual for any
purpose’. [ vi ] Therefore, the March 4, 2009 Judgment should be deemed a void, false, and a
deliberately misleading judicial record.
b) Richard I Fine (#1824367) – Men’s Central Jail, Sheriff’s Department, County of
Los Angeles - Arrest and Booking
Richard Fine was arrested on March 4, 2009, by the Sheriff’s Warrant Detail at the Superior
Court in the City of Los Angeles, albeit, with no warrant. The Sheriff of Los Angeles County
held him under arrest and with the booking records published at the Sheriff’s online Inmate
Information Center. These records state that Richard Fine was arrested and booked on location
and by authority of the ‘Municipal Court of San Pedro’, which does not exist. (Figure 1) [ vii ]
Such records should be deemed a void, false, and deliberately misleading arrest and booking
records.
The true Los Angeles County Booking Records are maintained in the Sheriff’s case management
system. However, the Sheriff to this date continues to deny public access to the true arrest and
booking records of Richard Fine – public records pursuant to California Public Records Act.
[ viii , ix ]
c) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - US District Court, Central District of California –
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
On March 20, 2009, former US Prosecutor Richard Fine filed his Habeas Corpus Petition at the
US District Court, Central District of California, naming Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles
County as Respondent. [ x ]
i. March 20, 2009 – Summons and Civil Cover Sheet
Neither Summons, nor Civil Cover Sheet, which is required for opening a civil docket were
found in the docket. [ xi , xii , xiii ]
ii. March 20, 2009 – Reference to Magistrate Carla Woehrle
The March 20, 2009 Notice of Reference To A US Magistrate Judge (Dkt #2), did not identify
by name the individual who issued the record, and was signed by typing ‘CSAWYER’ – an
invalid signature. [ xiv ]
Access to the attestation/authentication record (NEF) of the Notice of Reference is denied,
regardless of repeated requests.
Therefore, it is believed that upon investigation it would be discovered that no valid attestation
was entered for Magistrate Carla Woehrle in Fine v Sheriff, as was the case in Zernik v Connor et
al (see below).
iii. March 20 – April 10, 2009 – Assignment to US Judge John Walter

3
The case changed hands following its filing – from US Judge Dean D Pregerson (Dkt #2)
through Judge George H Wu (Dkt #4) to Judge John F Walter (Dkt #8).
The April 10, 2009 Notice to Counsel from Clerk (Dkt #8), states: [ xv ]
NOTICE TO COUNSEL FROM CLERK
This case has been reassigned to Judge John F. Walter.

However, the name and authority of the person who issued the records were left unidentified,
and the record was unsigned.
Access to the respective attestation record (NEF) was repeatedly requested, but continues to be
denied. However, the record of the April 10, 2009 shows that the record was generated as an
Adobe Acrobat © document, and it cane be determined with high level of certainty that no
‘electronic document stamp’ was ever applied to it, even absent access to the NEF. [ xvi ]
Therefore, Judge John Walter was acting in the case with no valid Assignment, thus with no
authority.
iv. April 2009 – Refusal of Respondent Sheriff Lee Baca to Respond
Duly named as Respondent in the Petition, the Sheriff refused to respond (Dkt #6). Nevertheless,
US Magistrate Carla Woehrle refused to order the immediate release of Richard Fine (Dkt #7,9).
On April 21, 2009 Attorney Aaron Fontana (Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC) made his first
appearance, with the filing of Certificate of Parties (Dkt #11). [ xvii ] However, Attorney Fontana
failed to certify his authority as Attorney of Record in the Certificate of Parties, as required by
the General Order 09-07 [ xviii ] of the US District Court, Central District of California.
Moreover, the records were filed and entered with unsigned Proof of Service.
Regardless, the Sheriff continued to refuse to respond to the Petition.
Instead, on April 21, 2009, attorneys filed on behalf of the Sheriff Motion to Dismiss (Dkt #12).
[ xix ] The Motion to Dismiss failed to include the Arrest and Booking Records, that would have
established the legal foundation of the arrest and imprisonment of Richard Fine. It was again
filed and entered with an unsigned Proof of Service.
In the pertinent part, the Declaration of Attorney Paul Beach states:
…while we understand that Sheriff Baca is necessarily named as Respondent in the Petition, Sheriff Baca is
simply not in a position to substantively respond to Petitioner's Petition.

v. May 1, 2009 - Response by the California Superior Court

Instead, the Superior Court, never named as a Respondent in the Petition, was eventually
permitted to respond in lieu of the Sheriff.
Consequently, Attorney Kevin McCormick filed the May 1, 2009 Answer to Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Dkt #15), on behalf of the Superior Court. [ xx ]
However, Attorney McCormick failed altogether to file the required Certificate of Parties with
his certification as Attorney of Record for the Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe.
As it later turned out, Attorney McCormick was in fact engaged not by the Superior Court itself,
but by the California Judicial Council, under a false and deliberately misleading caption –

4
‘Richard Fine v Sheriff of the Court’ (instead of ‘Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County’).
[ xxi ]
Attorney McCormick appeared nevertheless in Fine v Sheriff on behalf of the Superior Court,
with no authority, and filed a false declaration (Dkt #16) (while not a competent fact witness)
and false records – to affect the continued imprisonment of Richard Fine. [ xxii ]
The records produced by Attorney McCormick as the foundation for the imprisonment
contradicted the records published online by the Sheriff. The Sheriff himself never filed any
declaration to clarify which, if any, of the contradictory records was deemed by him to be valid.
Neither did Judge Yaffe – the alternate Respondent. None of the records, which were produced
by Attorney McCormick were authenticated or certified by the Clerk of the Superior Court of
California. Additionally, the foundation record – the Register of Actions in (California civil
docket) Marina v LA County was never produced.
vi. June 2009 – Magistrate Woehrle’s Report and Recommendation and Judge Walter’s
Judgment
Apparently, none of these serious defects in the proceedings and key evidence were ever noticed
by the US District Court. On June 12, 2009 Magistrate Carla Woehrle issued a lengthy Report
and Recommendation (Dkt #26). [ xxiii ] The Report never mentioned the caption of the case
Marina v LA County, in which former US Prosecutor Richard Fine had been reported to be
imprisoned. Access to the authentication record of the June 12, 2009 Report and
Recommendation continues to be denied, and therefore, there is no way to ascertain whether it
was in fact deemed a valid or void court record by the US Court and US Magistrate Carla
Woehrle herself.
On June 29, 2009 US Judge John Walter issued Judgment (Dkt #31), [ xxiv ] adopting the Report
and denying the Habeas Corpus Petition with prejudice. However, as it much later turned out,
the Judgment was never authenticated/ attested by the Clerk of the US District Court as required
by the US District Court General Order 08-02 (See below, re: NEFs, under 5. Electronic
Systems…). Therefore, the Judgment record should be deemed a void, false, and deliberately
misleading judicial record.
vii. February 2010 - Mandate of the US Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit
The February 18, 2010 Mandate (Dkt #59) by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, was likewise
unauthenticated. (Figure 2, Table 1), and was falsely docketed as pertaining to ‘Petition for
Certificate of Appealability’.
No public access is permitted to the Calendar of the case at the US District Court, and court
records fail to include either summons or a Civil Cover Sheet, which is required by the US courts
for establishing a civil docket. [ xxv ] The Clerk of the US District Court continues to deny
requests to certify the docket of Fine v Sheriff - the Habeas Corpus petition.
Therefore, the litigation as a whole is marked by invalidity of key records, and most likely was
never deemed by the US Court itself as a valid litigation, only a pretense.
Denial of public access to the NEFs of the Assignment Order of Judge John Walter and the
Referral Order of Magistrate Carla Woehrle, should be deemed as a violation of the First
Amendment and Due Process rights.
d) Fine v Sheriff (09-79612) - US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Emergency Petition

5
The Petition to the Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, originated in refusal of Magistrate Carla
Woehrle at the US District Court to order the release of Richard Fine after the Sheriff had
refused to respond to the Petition.
On June 30, 2009 Order (Figure 3) was issued in the names of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and
Circuit Judges Richard Tallman and Richard Paez denying Richard Fine’s petition. [ xxvi ] In
pertinent part the June 30, 2009 Order states:
Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means
of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

However, the Order, was not signed by any of the Circuit Judges, in whose names it was issued,
and it was served with no authentication record by the Clerk of the Court. Therefore, the Order
should be deemed a void, false, and deliberately misleading judicial record.
The widespread practice of the US Court of Appeals, of issuing and publishing unsigned orders
and mandates in PACER dockets, should be deemed a violation of Due Process rights.
e) Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) - US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Appeal
Richard Fine filed an Appeal from the June 29, 2009 Judgment by US Judge John Walter,
denying his Habeas Corpus Petition. A group of Circuit Judges conducted the Appeal.
On December 16, 2009 Memorandum (Figure 4) was issued in the names of ‘REINHARDT,
TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges’, affirming the June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John
Walter of the US District Court, Central District of California.
The Memorandum states:
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2).

On February 18, 2010 Mandate (Figure 4) was issued by the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals,
9th Circuit, referring to the December 16, 2009 Memorandum as ‘Judgment’. The Mandate was
unsigned.
Papers, which were issued unsigned by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, as part of the
Appeal should be deemed as void, false, and deliberately misleading judicial records.
Moreover, the February 18, 2010 Mandate was filed at the US District Court, Central District of
California, (Figure 2) with no valid authentication by the Clerk of the Court, under a false
docketing text – as ‘Petition for Certificate of Appealability’.
A reasonable person would conclude that the Mandate, in particular, and the Appeal as a whole,
were never considered by either the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, or the US District Court as
valid judicial review, only a pretense.
The widespread practice of the US Supreme Court of keeping no valid judicial records in the
paper court files, publishing no valid judicial records online, and denying access to its electronic
records should be deemed a violation of Due Process and First Amendment rights.
f) Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) - Supreme Court of the United States – Application for Stay
of Execution (of solitary confinement).
Richard Fine filed an Application for his release with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, while
waiting for the review of his Petition by the US Supreme Court (see below). According to the

6
online Docket (Figure 5), published by the Supreme Court, the Application was denied by Justice
Kennedy on March 12, 2010.
However, no valid judicial record was discovered in the paper court file as evidence of judicial
review of the Application by Associate Justice Kennedy. Only an unsigned March 12, 2010
letter (Figure 6) by ‘Staff Attorney’ Danny Bickel, not an authorized Deputy Clerk, was found in
the file. The letter was not stamped ‘FILED’. Such a letter should be deemed a void, false, and
deliberately misleading court record.
Consequently, Richard Fine re-filed his Application with Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
who in turn referred the Application to the Conference of the Court. The online Docket (Figure
5), the Conference of the US Supreme Court denied the Application on April 26, 2010.
However, review of the paper file of the Supreme Court in the case revealed no evidence of
judicial review of the Application by the Conference.
The Supreme Court most likely maintains electronic records in a case management system.
Access to the case management system’s records pertaining to the March 12, 2010 and April 26,
2010 denials of the Application was requested. Access was denied.
Therefore, there is no valid judicial record, evidencing that the Supreme Court ever reviewed the
Application.
g) Fine v Sheriff (09-1250) - Supreme Court of the United States – Petition in re: Writ
of Habeas Corpus
The Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States originated in denial of the Appeal at the
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. According to the Supreme Court’s online Docket (Figure 7)
the Petition was denied on July 26, 2010.
However, review of the paper file of the US Supreme Court in the case revealed no evidence of
judicial review of the Petition. Only a July 26, 2010 paper (Figure 8) by an unnamed Deputy
Clerk on behalf of William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court, was discovered in the file. The
paper was unsigned, and was not stamped ‘FILED’.
Such paper should be deemed a void, false, and deliberately misleading court record.
Request to access the records in the case management system pertaining to the July 26, 2010
denial of the Petition was denied.
Therefore, there is no valid judicial record, evidencing that the Supreme Court ever reviewed the
Petition.
h) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles – Release of Richard Fine
The September 16, 2010 Minutes, issued by the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, on behalf of Judge David Yaffe, states that Richard Fine would not be released, and
that the matter would not be reviewed again during the following six months.
The September 17, 2010 Minutes, [ xxvii ] issued by the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, on behalf of Judge David Yaffe, states that Richard Fine would be promptly
released:
For reasons known only to himself, Fine is attempting to obtain his release…

7
 It is becoming increasingly clear that Fine’s conduct is irrational…
[He] portrays himself as a lone hero who is being incarcerated because he has exposed a vast conspiracy of
over 400 judges of this court who are dishonestly collecting money to which they are not entitled…
His conduct is bizarre, and that fact alone must be considered by this court in performing its continuing duty
to determine whether Fine’s continued confinement serves any useful purpose.
The Sheriff is ordered to discontinue the incarceration of Fine…

On the evening of September 17, 2010, Richard Fine was indeed released by the Sheriff of Los
Angeles County. However, to this date, no valid order was ever discovered to provide the legal
foundation for the release.
The circumstances of both arrest and release of former US Prosecutor Richard Fine demonstrate
the arbitrary and capricious conduct of the Superior Court and the Sheriff Department of Los
Angeles County regarding Liberty itself.
i) Conclusion
Richard Fine was arrested and confined with no valid records to provide the legal foundation for
his imprisonment. Richard Fine attempted to have his Habeas Corpus petitions 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 fair hearing and valid judicial review. Instead, Richard Fine was
subjected only to pretense judicial review, while judicial records were either non-existent, never
certified by a judge, and/or not authenticated by an authorized clerk.
Richard Fine was likewise freed with no valid order to provide the legal foundation for his
release.
In contrast, the California Code of Regulations, Title 15: Crime Prevention and Corrections,
§3273, Acceptance and Surrender of Custody, provides:
Wardens and superintendents must not accept or surrender custody of any prisoner under any
circumstances, except by valid court order or other due process of law.

In Fay v Noia 372 US 391 (1963), the late Justice William Brennan Jr, writing for the majority of
the Supreme Court of the United States, states:
The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a civilized society, government must always
be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform
with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release.

In the course of review by the most senior judicial authorities of the United States, the invalid
nature of the records of the Superior Court and the Sheriff’s Department was apparently never
noticed.
The case of Richard Fine is somewhat unusual, given the circumstances and his station in life.
However, large-scale false imprisonment of blacks and latinos in Los Angeles County has been
documented for over a decade (see below).
3. Taking of the home of Dr Joseph Zernik [ xxviii ] TOC

From 2005 to 2010, Judge Jacqueline Connor, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, and others at
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, subjected Dr Joseph Zernik to real
estate litigation at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, where he was named
the Defendant. The case culminated in the taking of Dr Zernik’s home for private use, under the
threat of force.

8
 a) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
– Real Estate Litigation
In October 2005 Plaintiff Nivie Samaan filed the Complaint under the cause of action of Specific
Performance or Damages, originating in a dispute regarding real estate purchase agreement for
Dr Zernik’s Beverly Hills residence, which had been cancelled following Ms Samaan’s failure to
obtain mortgage loans within the time stipulated in the agreement.
At the Superior Court Plaintiff Ms Samaan failed to pay the Filing Fees for the Complaint.
Nevertheless, the Clerk of the Superior Court refused to dismiss the Complaint, as required by
law.
All court fees in the case were listed by the court as a ‘Journal Entry’, whereas in other cases
such fees were listed as a ‘Filing Fee’, ‘Motion Fees’, ‘Stipulation Fee’, etc. The Clerk of the
Court and Presiding Judge refused to disclose the ultimate designation of the funds.
Accountancy textbooks consider misuse of ‘Journal Entry’ as a cardinal sign of high-level
financial management fraud. [ xxix ]
A group of judges acted as presiding judges in the case, albeit – none with a lawful Assignment
Order. Unsigned minutes were routinely issued and incorporated into the paper court file, while
notice and service of minutes, orders, and judgments was noted as ‘waived’. Access to both
paper and electronic court records in the case was denied, in apparent violation of the First
Amendment right to access court records to inspect and to copy. [ xxx , xxxi ] Under such conditions,
minutes were routinely inserted in the court file with no authentication by the Clerk of the Court,
and Judge Jacqueline Connor inserted in the court file at least twice minutes for fictitious
proceedings, which never took place in reality. [ xxxii ]
Countrywide Financial Corporation and later Bank of America Corporation appeared for two
years in the case and filed papers under the false party designations of ‘Non Party’. The court
interchangeably designated the two financial institutions ‘Plaintiff’, ‘Defendant’, ‘Cross
Defendant’, ‘Real Party in Interest’, ‘Intervenor’, and more – all with no legal foundation.
Senior officers of both corporations were directly involved in the matter. [ xxxiii ]
California Judge Terry Friedman held the court file for over two years, and acted as a Presiding
Judge in court proceedings in the matter. Requests were repeatedly filed for Judge Friedman to
produce a lawful Assignment Order, and also to file a statement on the record, pursuant to the
California Code of Judicial Conduct – regarding conflicts, if any, and financial benefits, if any,
to him or his family from Countrywide and/or Bank of America. [ xxxiv ] Judge Friedman refused
to respond to any of the requests. Nevertheless, he continued to act as Presiding Judge in the
case.
The Clerk of the Court refused to certify minutes, orders, judgments in the case, and also refused
to certify the case as a matter that was litigated by the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles. [ xxxv ]
The outcome of the conduct of the Court was the taking under threat of force of Dr Zernik’s
residence. Grand Deed, which were filed on behalf of the Court, was opined as ‘fraud being
committed’ [ xxxvi ] by Fraud Expert James Wedick, an FBI veteran, who had been decorated by
US Congress, by US Attorney General, and by FBI Director.
b) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01914) – US District Court, Central District of
California - Complaint pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law

9
On March 5, 2008, Dr Zernik filed complaint at the US District Court under cause of action of
Deprivation of Rights, naming judges of the Superior Court of California Defendants.
Countrywide Financial Corporation and its senior officers were named as Defendants as well.
[ xxxvii ]
i. March 5, 2008 - Summons
The Clerk of the US District Court refused to sign valid summons presented to him with the
filing of the Complaint. Instead, the Clerk generated and signed false and deliberately misleading
Summons (Dkt #1), [ xxxviii ] in apparent violation of Local Rules. [ xxxix ]
ii. March 7, 2008 – Assignment to Judge Virginia Phillips
A series of recusals followed: by Magistrate Margaret A Nagle, Judges Gary A Feess, Margaret
M Morrow, Valerie Baker Fairbank, and J Spencer Letts, before it ended up with Judge Virginia
Phillips and Magistrate Carla Woehrle.
The March 7, 2008 Order Returning Case For Reassignment (Dkt #9) (Figure 9), states: [ xl ]
Notice To Counsel From Clerk:
This case has been reassigned to Judge Virginia A. Phillips for all further proceedings.

However, the March 7, 2008 Notice itself is unsigned. As turned out much later, upon discovery of
the NEFs in the case, the Notice was issued with an invalid attestation/authentication record as well.
The NEF is missing the ‘electronic document stamp’, required pursuant to General Order 08-02 of the
Court for validating the authentication by the Clerk. [xli ]
Therefore, the March 7, 2008 Notice to Counsel from Clerk should be deemed a false and
deliberately misleading court record. All later conduct of Judge Virginia Phillips in the case
should be deemed with no authority.
iii. March 13, 2008 – Assignment to Magistrate Carla Woehrle
The March 7, 2008 Order Returning Case For Reassignment (Dkt #10) (Figure 10), states: [ xlii ]
Notice To Counsel From Clerk:
This case has been randomly referred to Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle.

However, the March 13, 2008 Notice itself is unsigned. As turned out much later, upon discovery of
the NEFs in the case, the Notice was issued with an invalid attestation/authentication record as well.
The NEF is missing the ‘electronic document stamp’, required pursuant to General Order 08-02 of the
Court for validating the authentication by the Clerk. [xliii ]
Therefore, the March 13, 2008 Notice to Counsel from Clerk should be deemed a false and
deliberately misleading court record. Moreover, all later conduct of Magistrate Carla Woehrle in
the case should be deemed with no authority.
iv. Counsel appearances by unauthorized counsel
Brian Cave, LLP, appeared in the case on behalf of Countrywide Financial Corporation, and later
on behalf of Bank of America Corporation, while not authorized as counsel of record. Brian
Cave, LLP also failed to file the required certification of its authority as counsel of record, and
also failed to file the required Corporate Disclosure.
Attorney Sarah Overton (Cummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates) appeared in the case
on behalf of the Superior Court of California and its judges. Following the discovery of false
appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick on behalf of the Superior Court of California,

10
County of Los Angeles in Fine v Sheriff at the same Court (see above), requests were filed with
the California Judicial Council to confirm that the engagement of Attorney Overton was lawfully
executed under a true and valid case caption. The California Judicial Council refuses to respond
to this date. [ xliv ]
Attorney Overton filed in the US Court false and deliberately misleading records on behalf of the
California Court. In response, the Plaintiff, Dr Zernik, filed Motion for an Order to Show Cause
re: Contempt against Attorney Overton and the Defendants, Judges of the Superior Court.
However, US Magistrate Carla Woehrle refused to rule on the Plaintiff’s Motion, even after
being pressed to do so.
v. Invalid judicial records issued by unauthorized court personnel with invalid authentication
records.
US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and US District Judge Virginia Phillips issued minutes, orders, and
a judgment – all with invalid authentication records, relative to requirements defined in the
Court’s General Order 08-02. [ xlv , xlvi , xlvii ]
Both Magistrate Carla Woehrle and US District Judge Virginia Phillips were requested to file
statements on the record regarding conflicts of interests, if any, and financial benefits, if any,
from Countrywide and/or Bank of America. Both refused to file such statements, and both
refused to remove themselves from the case.
vi. Invalid Judgment record issued with invalid authentication record
The April 24, 2009 Judgment (Dkt #107) by Judge Virginia Phillips dismissed the case, stating:
IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s damages claims under federal
law and without prejudice as to his state law damages claims and his claims for equitable relief.

However, the Judgment was issued with an invalid attestation/authentication record – the NEF
bears no ‘electronic document stamp’. [ xlviii ]
Moreover, the Related Transactions Report lists the Judgment as unrelated to the Complaint, and
the Complaint as an event that was never terminated. [ xlix ]
Such judgment should be deemed a false and deliberately misleading judicial record.
vii. Docket was constructed, which the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify
The Clerk of the US District Court continues to deny requests to certify the Docket of Zernik v
Connor et al. Therefore, it is likely that all judicial records issued in the case, as well as the
litigation as a whole, were never deemed by the US Court itself as a valid litigation. Instead,
most likely the litigation was deemed by the Court only as a pretense.
c) Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) - US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Emergency
Petition
Following refusal of the Clerk of the US District Court to issue valid summons, Plaintiff filed an
Emergency Petition with the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – to enforce federal Due Process
rights.
The Petition was denied through the June 25, 2008 Order (Figure 11) in the names of Circuit
Judges Stephen R Reinhardt, Marsha S Berzon, and Milan D Smith.
In pertinent part, the Order states:

11
 Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the
extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

However, the June 25, 2008 Order was never signed by any of the Circuit Judges in whose
names it was issues, and it was served with no NDA – therefore , with no form of
attestation/authentication by the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals.
The June 25, 2008 Order should be deemed a void, false, and deliberately misleading court
record.
d) Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) – Supreme Court of the United States - Motion to Intervene
Dr Zernik tried to protect his rights once more through filing the April 21, 2010 Motion to
Intervene under the caption of Fine v Sheriff at the US Supreme Court. [ l ] The Motion described
the similarities between the two cases – in conduct of invalid court proceedings and publication
of invalid judicial records at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, US
District Court, Central District of California, and US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The Motion
to Intervene also described the failure to discover evidence of judicial review for the March 12,
2010 denial of Richard Fine’s Application in the Supreme Court by Justice Kennedy, and the
invalid April 12, 2010 letter issued with no authority by Staff Attorney Danny Bickell.
The Motion to Intervene was filed in a timely manner at the Supreme Court of the United States.
However, it failed to be docketed and was never duly reviewed. Instead, on April 29, 2010, a
letter (Figure 10) was issued by ‘Danny Bickell’ (with no title or authority listed), stating that
the papers were ‘returned’ [ li ]
e) Conclusion
Dr Joseph Zernik’s home was taken for private use under the threat of force, with no Due
Process of law.
In contrast, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution declares:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.

Dr Zernik’s efforts to protect his rights through the US courts were frustrated through what
should be deemed denial of access to the courts and the conduct of pretense reviews.
Dr Zernik’s case was not unique. Other cases of similar conduct by the Los Angeles Superior
Court were identified. The outcome is the taking of the homeowner’s equity, while incurring
steep legal expenses through years of protracted litigations. [ lii ]
Of note, already in the early 2000s, FBI reports distinguished Los Angeles County as ‘the
epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud’.
4. Electronic Administration Systems of the Superior Court and the
Sheriff’s Department of the County of Los Angeles TOC

Although not detailed above, the design and operation of Sustain – the case management of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and E-Court - the Court’s online public
access system, are deemed essential for the conduct of pretense court proceedings in both
Marina v LA County and Samaan v Zernik. Unpublished reports, analyzing Sustain data, were

12
reviewed by Prof Eliyahu Shamir, an internationally renowned computer science scholar, who
has made seminal contributions in that field [ liii ]
Prof Shamir’s opinion regarding Sustain, the case management system of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles states:
Dr. Joseph Zernik produces credible documentary evidence and raises serious allegations concerning
existing, rather old computerized systems in the Los Angeles courts, both civil and criminal divisions:
Material deficiencies in safety against possible fraudulent actions on records, documents, and data by the
court staff.
Such allegations deserve thorough and objective investigation.
We know for fact that the USA has excellent experts able to design, check and verify the integrity of such
systems.
Integrity and public trust of such computer systems are essential for preserving justice, human rights, and a
law abiding community.

Denial of public access to electronic records is essential to the conditions at the Los Angeles
Superior Court. For example, the Court continues to deny public access to the Register of
Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County. Therefore, the apparent review of
Habeas Corpus for the former US Prosecutor Richard Fine at the US District Court, the US Court
of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States were all conducted without
the existence of a foundation record.
Failure and refusal to publish valid Local Rules of Court and the publication of false and
deliberately misleading rules pertaining to procedures for entry of judgment under electronic
management of the Court were central in undermining integrity of the Court. [ liv , lv ]
The online Inmate Information Center of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department coupled
with the denial of access to the true Los Angeles County Booking records were, likewise,
essential for the alleged false imprisonment of former US Prosecutor Richard Fine. [ lvi ]
The invalidity of the Los Angeles County online Inmate Information Center was detailed in a
report, published in an international, scholarly, peer-reviewed computer science journal. [ lvii ] The
report opined that such system enables false imprisonment under the pretense of lawfulness.
The denial of access to valid records of the Superior Court, combined with the denial of access to
valid arrest and booking records by the Sheriff, effectively amount to suspension of Habeas
Corpus rights.
5. Electronic Administration Systems of the US District Courts and
Courts of Appeals [ lviii ] TOC

The following were considered central to Due Process and the safeguarding of the integrity of
the courts under paper-based administration:
a) Published rules of court
The Rulemaking Enabling Act (1934) authorizes the US Supreme Court, and to lesser degree
other US courts, to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure - similar to
the authority delegated to various other agencies. [ lix ] Pursuant to the Act, the US courts are
permitted to publish Local Rules, subject to review by US Congress and the public-at-large.
b) Authority and duties of the clerk

13
The Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 established the positions of US court clerks. The clerks
are charged with maintaining the records of the courts, issuing writs and summons, and
‘faithfully and impartially discharg[ing] and perform[ing] all of the duties of [their] office’. In
pertinent parts, the Act also stipulates that clerks of US courts must take Oaths of Office, and
that they are required to record all decrees, judgments and determinations of the court. [ lx ]
In the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79 further defines the basic duties and authorities
of the clerk, including but not limited to, the construction and maintenance of court dockets.
(Table 2) [ lxi ] Attestation/authentication of judicial records, entered in the dockets, are among
the key duties and responsibilities of clerks in US courts. [ lxii ] Attestation by the clerk certifies
that a record is in due form of law, and that the person who certified it is the officer appointed by
law to do so. Authentication is understood to mean an act by a clerk with a view of causing the
minutes, orders, and judgments of the court to be known and identified. These two functions,
attestation and authentication, were combined in the Certificates of Service (Table 3), which
were an integral part of paper notices, mailed by the clerk to all parties in any given case. The
Certificates of Service were also considered an integral part of the respective judicial records,
and were entered by the clerks in the paper court files and dockets.
c) Access to court records – to inspect and to copy.
The common law right of the public to access judicial records to inspect and to copy has been
recognized in English-speaking courts for centuries. In Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc
(1978) the Supreme Court of the United States re-affirmed such a right as inherent to the First,
Sixth, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Paper-based administration of the US courts, was profoundly changed with the implementation
by the Administrative Office of the US Courts of electronic systems: PACER (Public Access to
Court Electronic Records) and CM/ECF (Case Management and Electronic Court Filing):
a) Published rules of courts
A review of the Local Rules of Court of the US District Court, Central District of California, the
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States revealed no direct
reference to their electronic administration systems, or new procedures for certification and
attestation/authentication, notice and service, and public access to court records. (Table 4)
Upon inquiry, the Office of the Clerk, US District Court, Central District of California, claimed
that the new rules were established in the General Order 08-02. [ lxiii ] (Table 5) In pertinent parts,
the General Order 08-02 prohibits external hyperlinks in any court records, declares that the
acceptance of electronic filing through the issuance of a NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing – see
further discussion, below) constitutes the entry of a record in the case docket, and establishes the
‘electronic document stamp’ (which may appear in the NEF) as validating the NEF and
authenticating the judicial records. The order also established that pro se litigants, in contrast
with authorized counsel, would be denied access to CM/ECF – the Courts’ case management and
electronic case filing system.
However, General Order 08-02 leaves many of the new electronic procedures vague and
ambiguous. Furthermore, the General Order 08-02 was published by the Court as an unsigned
order. Neither the name nor the authority of its author appear in the Order. The Clerk of the
Court, likewise, denied repeated requests to access General Order 08-02 or to copy the record

14
with its due judicial certification. More importantly, general orders are not the vehicle provided
by law for the courts to establish new rules.
The Unofficial Anderson Manual of the US District Court, Central District of California, [ lxiv ]
provides additional details regarding the new electronic filing procedures of the Court. However,
as a third party, ‘unofficial’ publication, is not considered a legitimate vehicle for establishing
rules of court.
The US Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit - also failed to publish local rules pertaining to its new
electronic administrative procedures, adopted as part of the implementation of PACER and
CM/ECF. The CM/ECF Users’ Manual of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, includes
description the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity) as the authentication records of the Court.
The US Congress to this date has failed to enact federal rules pertaining to the electronic
administration of the courts, notwithstanding repeated requests. [ lxv ]
Upon review of numerous courts across the United States one can conclude that the courts in the
United States uniformly avoided publishing any valid rules pertaining to the operation of their
electronic administration systems. Moreover, had the rules, as practiced today, been published, it
is unlikely that they would have survived scrutiny by the public and US Congress.
b) Authority and duties of the clerk [ lxvi ]
PACER and CM/ECF affected major changes in conduct of the offices of the US clerks:
i. Court dockets are constructed by unauthorized court personnel
Nowhere in the inspected online PACER dockets of all US district courts and courts of appeals
is there any statement invoking the authority of the clerk in construction of the online PACER
dockets, ergo the dockets were seemingly produced without the legal authority of a clerk of the
court.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that such dockets were routinely constructed by unauthorized
court personnel. Some 15 key records in the PACER docket of Fine v Sheriff at the US District
Court were found to have been ‘entered’ by a Court employee, Ms Donna Thomas, who was not
authorized as a Deputy Clerk. (Table 6) Key entries were likewise executed by the same person
in the PACER docket of Zernik v Connor et al, [xlv] and others were ‘entered’ by Ms Marva
Dillard, a Courtroom Deputy. However, the public and pro se litigants had no way to discern
such facts, since nowhere in the PACER dockets did the full names and respective authorities
appear of those who had constructed the dockets. [ lxvii ]
Consequently, repeated requests were addressed to Clerk of the US District Court Terry Nafisi to
certify the dockets of the two cases. [ lxviii ] To this date the Clerk of the Court has refused to
respond to such requests. Likewise, after it was discovered that records were ‘entered’ in the
dockets with invalid authentication records, requests were filed with the Court’s Chief Judge
Audrey Collins to initiate corrective actions, pursuant to the Code of Conduct of US Judges. [ lxix ]
Chief Judge Collins to this date has refused to initiate such actions.

At the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, the dockets of the two Petitions and the Appeal held
only records never certified by the Circuit Judges on whose behalf they were issued, and which
were served on Petitioners and the Appellant with no NDAs. [ lxx ] (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 11)

15
The dockets of US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, were further
compromised, since records filed by the Petitioners and the Appellant were selectively excluded
from the dockets, with no Due Process.
iii. CM/ECF enables dishonest conduct by counsel
In all the investigated US district courts counsel were permitted to ‘enter’ papers in the PACER
dockets of the courts with no prior inspection and approval by the clerks of the courts. The
practice opens the way for unchecked conduct by counsel. Under such conditions, counsel, who
are not counsel of records, are able to appear and ‘enter’ papers in PACER dockets of the US
district courts on behalf of parties, with no authority. Such practice was typically found in the
conduct of unauthorized counsel on behalf of government officers, government agencies, or large
financial institutions. The scheme was detailed and rebuked in the March 5, 2008 Memorandum
Opinion by US Judge Jeff Bohm in the Case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) at the US
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas. [ lxxi ] The Memorandum detailed appearances of
counsel on behalf of Countrywide Financial Corporation, with no authorization as Counsel of
Record, and with a ‘no communications with client’ clause. Such unauthorized counsel
consequently filed false and misleading records in court. Of note, neither counsel nor client in
the Case of Borrower Parsley, were ever sanctioned.
Under the caption of Fine v Sheriff at the US District Court (the Habeas Corpus petition),
Attorney Kevin McCormick (Orr Duval, and Buckingham, LLP) appeared on behalf of
respondents California Judge David Yaffe and the Superior Court of California with no
authority. The evidence documented that he was in fact retained by the California Judicial
Council, chaired by the California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George, under a false
and deliberately misleading caption. [ lxxii ] In such unauthorized appearances Attorney
McCormick affected continued deprivation of liberty of the former US Prosecutor Richard Fine.
Attorney McCormick was likewise falsely listed as Counsel and appeared on behalf of Judge
David Yaffe and the Superior Court of California in the Appeal under Fine v Sheriff at the US
Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
Under the caption of Zernik v Connor et al at the US District Court, it is alleged that Attorney
Sarah L Overton (Cummings, McClorey, Davis, Acho, and Associates) appeared with no
authority on behalf of the ten (10) judges of the Superior Court of California, who were all
named as Defendants. Following the discovery of the false engagement of Attorney McCormick
under Fine v Sheriff, the California Judicial Council refused to answer any further questions on
the matter. [ lxxiii ]
Under the caption of Zernik v Connor et al at the US District Court, and also at the California
courts, Brian Cave, LLP, a large international law-firm, falsely appeared and filed false and
deliberately misleading papers on behalf of Countrywide Financial Corporation and its senior
officers, while never authorized as counsel of record.
v. Attestation/Authentication Records – NEFs and NDAs – are concealed from the public, and
enable the issuance of pretense judicial records
A key feature of the systems is the implementation of novel attestation/authentication records:
The NEFs of the US district courts, and the NDAs of the US courts of appeals. The NEFs (Table
3, Figure 2) [ lxxiv ] and NDAs (Figure 4) replaced the paper-based Certificates of Service by the
clerks.

16
However, the NEFs and NDAs are excluded today from the PACER dockets, and instead are
only included in the CM/ECF dockets, where public and pro se filer access is denied. Therefore,
the public and pro se parties are unable to discern which of the judicial records published online
in PACER dockets are valid and effectual court records.
The outcomes of such conditions shown in the cases above, can be amply demonstrated in the
fact that the Plaintiff in Zernik v Connor et al was denied, for many months after the dismissal of
the complaint, access to the NEFs of critical records – the Assignment to Judge Virginia Phillips
and the Referral to Magistrate Carla Woehrle. These eventually were shown to be false and
deliberately misleading court records. Access to the NEFs of the Assignment to Judge John
Walter and Magistrate Carla Woehrle in Fine v Sheriff continues to be denied to this date.
Under the caption of Zernik v Connor et al all judicial record, without exception – minutes,
orders, and judgment – were issued with invalid NEFs – missing the ‘electronic document
stamp’, which is required by the Court for validating the attestation/authentication of judicial
records, pursuant to General Order 08-02. [ lxxv ]
Under the caption of Fine v Sheriff the court denied repeated requests to access the NEFs. Only
partial access was eventually gained, which documented that the June 29, 2009 Judgment and the
February 18, 2010 Mandate were ‘entered’ in the PACER docket with invalid NEFs. (Figure 2)
[ lxxvi ] However, such facts were unknown to the pro se Plaintiffs during the conduct of the
litigations.
Consequently, the Petitions and Appeal at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, , were
underscored by the fact that all Orders were unsigned and were served on the Petitioners and the
Appellant with no NDAs. (Figure 3, Figures 4, Figure 11)
vi. The NEFs and NDAs are invalid as to form
The text of the NEF (Figure 2) [ lxxvii ] and NDA (Figure 4) forms, were compared to the older,
paper-based Certificate of Service, (Table 3) with respect to four basic traits: i) Title, ii)
Certification statements, iii) Relationship to the certified records, and iv) Signatures/authorities.
In the Certificates the title included the word ‘Certificate’ or ‘Certification’, while the NEFs and
NDAs fail to include such words in their titles. The Certificates included the key statement ‘I
certify…’, while the NEFs and NDAs fail to include such statements. The Certificates were
directly, physically attached to the certified records, whereas the NEFs and NDAs are detached
from the certified instruments, and are instead hyperlinked, a practice which was explicitly
prohibited by the US District Court, Central District of California, in General Order 08-02. The
Certificates included a ‘wet’ graphical signature in a traditional signature box, including the
typed name and authority of the individual below the signature line. The NEFs and NDAs, in
contrast, fail to include the full name or authority of the person issuing the records. No personal
signature, either graphic or electronic, affixed by an individual as a symbol of intent to take
responsibility, is included in the NEFs and NDAs. Instead, the ‘electronic document stamp’ is
included. However, the ‘electronic document stamp’ is an encrypted, machine generated
‘checksum’ [ lxxviii ] string, which is invalid as a symbol of intent to take responsibility. Therefore,
the NEF and NAD forms, are opined as inherently void as authentication records.
It is unlikely that such a cluster of defects in the critical authentication forms of all US district
courts and courts of appeals were the outcome of inadvertent errors. It is similarly unlikely that
judges and clerks of the United States courts are unaware of such facts.

17
Based on the evidence, one is likely to conclude that in implementing PACER and CM/ECF
accountability of the clerks for the integrity of electronic court records was deliberately
undermined. In particular, a digital docketing system, such as CM/ECF, which enables the entry
into the PACER dockets of both electronically stamped and unstamped records by both
authorized and unauthorized court personnel and enables the issuance of minutes, orders, and
judgments by both assigned and unassigned judges, while disguising that fact from the public
and pro se filers, displays typical elements of shell-game fraud. [ lxxix ]
It is opined that an electronic administration systems, based on valid design and implementation,
could easily make any of these integrity breaches difficult or next to impossible. Therefore, it is
opined that PACER and CM/ECF were designed and implemented by the Administrative Office
of the US Courts in a manner that is inconsistent with honest administration of the US courts.
It is further opined that it is next to impossible that US judges or magistrates, all bound by the
Code of Conduct of US Judges, who daily operate the system, are unaware of these integrity
flaws in the systems.
c) Access to court records – to inspect and to copy
In Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), the US Supreme Court established that public
access to judicial records was required, to enable the public to ‘keep a watchful eye on
government’:
i. Denial of public access to NEFs and NDAs
Both the US District Court, Central District of California, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit, repeatedly denied access to the NEFs and NDAs in various cases. [ lxxx ] No reason was
ever provided for the denial of public access. Limited access was eventually gained in these two
courts after repeated personal appearances in the offices of the clerks, when written requests
were presented. In other cases access continues to be denied.
Denial of access to the CM/ECF records at the US District Court, Central District of California,
is universally applied to pro se litigants. The vast majority of Habeas Corpus petitioners are
therefore denied access to court records in their own petitions. Effectively, the setup in PACER
and CM/ECF segregates litigants into two separate and unequal classes relative to access to the
courts, where access of pro se litigants and the public at large is restricted to the PACER records,
while the courts and counsel who are authorized in a given caption are permitted access to both
PACER and CM/ECF. Through such differential access, combined with the exclusion of the
attestation/authentication records (the NEFs) from PACER, pro se litigants and the public-at-
large are effectively denied the ability to distinguish between valid and void court records.
ii. Denial of public access to other administrative records of the courts [ lxxxi ]
All US district courts and US courts of appeals, which were inspected, [ lxxxii ] implemented
similar systems, based on the PACER and CM/ECF platforms. However, material differences
were found among the systems of the various courts. The systems, as implemented at the US
District Court, Central District of California, are among the more restrictive in public access to
court records. [ lxxxiii ]
iii. Denial of public access to papers filed by parties
The US district courts across the United States routinely engage in selective denial of public
access to arbitrarily selected papers in various PACER dockets, even when the papers titles are

18
listed in the online PACER dockets, while no sealing orders or any other lawful explanation is
provided for the denial.
Some of the US courts of appeals deny online public access to all of their papers in their PACER
dockets, with no explanation.
At the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, public access was selectively denied under the caption
of Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) - Appeal from the Habeas Corpus Petition – to papers under Dkt
#28, 32, 36, and 56, with no sealing order. These records were mostly related to the response on
the Appeal by the Appellees - Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and Judge
David Yaffe. Such selective denial of public access to court records must be deemed of
particular concern, especially since Appellant Richard objected to some of the response papers,
claiming that they were inadmissible as evidence in an appeal. Therefore, for all the reasons
listed above, PACER and CM/ECF are assessed as invalid as a whole.
6. Electronic Administration Systems of the Supreme Court of the
United States TOC

a) Failure to publish Rules of Court

As is the case in all US district courts and courts of appeals, which were inspected, the Supreme Court
failed to publish rules of courts pertaining to the operation of its online public access and case
management systems. (Table 4)
b) Authority and duties of the clerk
i. Construction and maintenance of invalid court dockets
As best documented in the Application Fine v Baca (09-A827) (Figure 7) and the Petition Fine v
Baca (09-1250) (Figure 11) the Dockets, which were published online by the Supreme Court,
had no legal foundation. Orders of denial by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy and by the
Conference of the Supreme Court were noted in the dockets, while no valid orders to that effect
were found in the court files. [ lxxxiv ] Combined with the Order Lists and Journals, [ lxxxv ] the
records which were published online by the Supreme Court, were invalid, internally inconsistent,
and lacked foundation in records in the paper court files.
iv. Appearances of unauthorized counsel at the Supreme Court of the United States
Even at the Supreme Court of the United States, in Fine v Baca (09-A827), counsel was listed
for Respondent Sheriff Lee Baca, who was not counsel of record. [ lxxxvi ]
v. Notice and service – attestation/authentication of judicial records
Most troubling in conduct of the Supreme Court of the United States, were pretense notices
(Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 12, Figure 13), which were issued by Staff Attorney Danny Bickell.
Such notices of denial were issued with no authority: Court Counsel Danny Bickell was not a
Deputy Clerk. Moreover, some of the notices were either unsigned, or signed in an invalid
manner. None of the notices were stamped ‘FILED’, and none of them came with a copy of a
valid order, certified by a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Regarding the Motion to Intervene by Dr Zernik in the Application of Fine v Sheriff, Staff
Attorney Danny Bickell held the papers, which had been duly filed with the Clerk of the Court
(and which included, but were not limited to documentation of Staff Attorney Bickell’s own

19
conduct relative to issuance of the false notices), and denied their docketing and due review.
Staff Attorney Bickell later issued an unauthorized notice (Figure 12) that the papers were
‘returned’, with no Due Process.
In the case of Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56), Application for Stay of Execution (of serious
sanctions), a false on its face notice of denial was issued by Court Counsel Bickell in collusion
with Clerk of the Court William Suter, bearing an invalid signature box. (Figure 13) Access to
the Supreme Court paper file in Taitz v MacDonald was denied, and motion by Applicant
Attorney Taitz for service of an order, duly certified by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, was
likewise left unanswered.
c) Access to court records – to inspect and to copy.
In the case of Taitz v McDonald, alleged as pretense review by the US Supreme Court, access to the
paper court file was denied when attempt was made to ascertain that a valid order of denial was indeed
entered in the case by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Most likely, the Supreme Court operates its own case management system, and access to records in
the putative system was therefore requested. However, no access was permitted to this date.
Overall, conditions that emerge in review of the records of the Supreme Court were even worse than
those at the US district courts and courts of appeals. Neither the online public access system nor the
paper court files provide access to any valid judicial records, and to the degree that any valid judicial
records exist in the case management system of the Supreme Court – public access is denied.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court established a practice of not serving valid judicial records even on
Petitioners and Applicants in their own cases.
The evidence is sufficient to conclude that the Supreme Court operates today an online public
access system that is invalid, false, and misleading. Moreover, the four letters included in the
current report (Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 12, Figure 13) must raise serious concerns regarding
integrity of Supreme Court Clerk William Suter.
The nature of the findings regarding practices of the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court,
including widespread apparent violations of First Amendment and Due Process rights, are such
that it is practically impossible that the Justices of the Supreme Court are unaware of conduct of
the Office of the Clerk.
7. The Courts and the Legal Profession in the United States TOC

The reported cases document a cascade of reactions, where the State of California courts
engaged in pretense litigations. Also, the US review courts, in response to attempts to protect
rights, engaged in pretense review of complaints, petitions, and appeals.
a) Conditions at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Conditions at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, described above, should
be deemed as widespread public corruption.
i. Widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Widespread corruption of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the largest county court in the United
States, serving over 10 million residents of the County, has been documented for over a decade.
The seminal event in this respect was the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000). [ lxxxvii ]

20
Based on evidence discovered in this investigation, an independent report (2001) by Prof Erwin
Chemerinsky, Dean of Irvine Law School, stated:
This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share
lxxxviii
responsibility when innocent people are convicted. [ ]

A similar report (2001) by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, also
stated:
...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit. [ lxxxix ]

Following a series of investigative commissions, the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
stated:
Innocent people remain in prison…
...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel
Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any
response that we know of... [ xc ]

ii. Refusal of the US government to provide Equal Protection in Los Angeles County, California
FBI policy, as stated in 2008, was:
[The] FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are
among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society… […]

However, regardless of voluminous evidence, outlined above in précis, of widespread corruption

of the judges of the Superior Court of California, the County of Los Angeles, the FBI and the US
Department of Justice refuse to enforce the law. [ xci ]
iii. Conditions of state courts across the United States
Conditions of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, have been shown here to be
extreme. However, similar conditions prevail today throughout the United States: Keynote
address (2010), by Harvard Law School Prof Laurence Tribe, appearing in his capacity as Senior
Counsel of the US Department of Justice (Access to Justice Imitative) before the annual
conference of Chief Justices of the Supreme Courts of the several states compared the courts in
the United States to those in 'third world nations'. [ xcii ]
b) Conditions at US courts
Conditions in US courts must raise serious concerns particularly given the nature of the matters
in which these cases originated.
i. Failure of US judges to abide by the Code of Conduct of US Judges
The Code of Conduct of US Judges, Canon 3B(3) states:
A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the
likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a judge or lawyer.

All US judges involved in the matters described above – up to and including the Supreme Court
of the United States - were reliably informed of ‘unprofessional conduct’ by judges and
attorneys. Regardless, all US judges involved failed to comply with Canon 3B(3). Instead, they
engaged in pretense review of the respective complaints and petitions, effectively patronizing the
conduct of the lower US courts and the State of California judges. Moreover, in all US courts
exemplified above, a practice has been documented of excluding from court dockets, without
Due Process, any papers which reliably informed judges of ‘unprofessional conduct by a judge
or lawyer’.

21
The Code of Conduct of US Judge, Canon 3 states:
A judge should perform the duties of the office impartially and diligently.

Canon 3A(2) also states:

A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified...

In contrast, in the cases described here, US judges – up to and including the Supreme Court of
the United States – failed to discharge their judicial responsibilities and did not rule on matters
pending before them, instead preferring to issue void records, if.

ii. False imprisonments

The scope and nature of imprisonments remain the most notable anomalies of the justice system
of Los Angeles County, California, in particular, and the United States, in general:
The US government continues to refuse to address Human Rights abuses of historic proportions
that are inherent in the ongoing holding of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned
Persons) – victims of court corruption, exposed in the Los Angeles Rampart scandal
investigation a decade ago. In the still evolving 'Kids for Cash' scandal in Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania, judges are being prosecuted for racketeering related to taking of at least $2.6
millions in bribes from privatized, “for-profit” prisons and falsely imprisoning at least 3,600
juveniles. [ xciii ]
Imprisonment of former US Prosecutor for Los Angeles Richard Fine and, the imprisonment of
Los Angeles Attorney Steven Yagman before him,[ xciv ] are largely perceived as retaliation
against attorneys, who were vocal in protesting against court corruption. Moreover, such
imprisonments amounted to intimidation of the legal profession against taking stands in such
matters.
iii. Dispossession of homeowners
The case, pertaining to dispossession of a homeowner, which was opined as ‘fraud being
committed’, is not unique, either. Other similar cases have been identified at the Superior Court
of California – pretense litigations and dispossession of individuals. [ xcv ]

Moreover, in recent years, and under the ongoing financial crisis, judges across the United States
have been involved in large-scale dispossession of homeowners based on false and deliberately
misleading records filed by financial institutions as part of foreclosure procedures. Following
public outcry, such conduct was recently brought to a halt, not by the courts, but by financial
institutions, who declared a ‘moratorium’ on such conduct, but only after markets were glutted
with foreclosed properties. [ xcvi ]
iv. Judges/Magistrates presiding with no valid Assignment/Referral Orders
Conditions at the US District Court, Central District of California, where judges/magistrates
presided with no authority are not unique: In 2006 US Congress initiated impeachment
proceedings against US Judge Manuel Real, of the same Court, after ‘Real seized control of a
bankruptcy [case] from another judge’. [ xcvii ]
The cases, described in the current report and the 2006 case of Judge Manuel Real could not
possibly take place absent collusion by Clerk of the Court Terry Nafisi and the leadership of the
Court. Such collusion was more directly documented in the cases in the current report – through

22
the docketing of false and deliberately misleading Assignment/Referral Orders, through
construction of invalid dockets, through refusal to certify the dockets, and with it – also refusal to
initiate corrective actions.
It should be noted that such conduct is not unique to California courts. Judge Jed Rakoff, at the
US District Court, Southern District of New York, was engaged in similar conduct in one of the
highest visibility cases in recent years – SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1-09-cv-06829).
[ xcviii ]
Such conduct also documents the lack of autonomy and authority of the clerks of the US courts
to perform their lawful duties. In an extreme case, Judge Manuel Real ordered in 1987 the Clerk
of the US District Court, Central District of California, to defy the US Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit, which ordered Judge Real to remove himself from a case in which he was presiding.
[ xcix ]
v. Court appearances by unauthorized attorneys
The cases in the current report and also the 2008 Memorandum Opinion of Judge Jeff Bohm in
the Case of Borrower Parsley, [ c ] documented conduct of law-firms, large and small, which
undermines the judicial process in the United States. A recent United Nations Human Rights
Council staff report, referred to ‘corruption of the courts and the legal profession in California’.
[ ci ] It is claimed that it is improbable that any competent attorney could participate in court
proceedings, such as described above, and not realize the alleged perversion of justice that was
enacted in the courts.
vi. A code of silence among legal professionals
It is claimed that it is practically impossible that any attorney, who routinely appears at the US
courts, is unfamiliar with at least some of the defects described in the current report. Regardless,
it is practically impossible to find any published reports on the matter. Therefore, it is assessed
that through self-interest and/or intimidation, legal professionals have adopted what amounts to a
Code of Silence regarding conditions at the US courts.
vii. Conduct of the US courts relative to ‘unprofessional’ judicial conduct.
Moreover, the current report also documented the conduct of the US courts, when confronted
with ‘unprofessional conduct’ at the California state courts:
At the US District Court, Central District of California, Judge Virginia Phillips and Magistrate
Carla Woehrle issued a pretense Judgment – in Zernik v Connor et al - prohibiting the plaintiff
from access to the US Courts. [ cii , ciii ] Moreover, the plaintiff’s papers, which provided evidence
of ‘unprofessional conduct’ of the California courts, were removed from the docket. [ civ ] Similar
conduct was documented in Fine v Sheriff in the same court. [ cv ]
The US Appeals, 9th Circuit, engaged in similar conduct under Zernik v USDC-CAC: papers,
providing evidence of the denial of the right to file papers at the US District Court, Central
District of California, and which documented ‘unprofessional conduct’ of the Los Angeles
Superior Court, were eliminated from the docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. [ cvi ]
Similar conduct was documented in the Supreme Court of the United States, under Fine v
Sheriff (09-A827): Dr Zernik’s April 20, 2010 Motion to Intervene, which was duly filed [ cvii ] in
the Supreme Court of the United States, and which documented ‘unprofessional conduct’ in the
lower US courts, was ‘returned’. (Figure 12) [ cviii ]

23
viii. Current conditions at the US courts in historic perspective
There is no doubt that the integrity of US courts has precipitously deteriorated in recent decades.
It is difficult to assess the current level of corruption at US courts vis-à-vis historically, as there
is a lack of reliable historic data. However, corruption in US courts today is believed to be
similar or greater than that which was seen during the notorious Robber Baron Era, a century
ago. Conduct of the clerks of the US courts during the Robber Baron Era was described as ‘a
sham and a burlesque’. [ cix ] The clerks are also assessed as central to the conditions that prevail
in the courts today, through abdication of their duties and responsibilities relative to the integrity
of electronic court records.
The Salary Act of 1919 was credited as a key measure in reforming US courts in the early 20th
century, by placing the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US Attorney General,
not under the judiciary. However, in the mid-20th century, authority over clerks was again
yielded to the judiciary.
The current report also links conditions at US courts with the introduction of electronic
administration systems by the Administrative Office of the US Courts – this undermined
fundamental court procedures and suggests that such systems played a central role in the
undermining of the integrity of the offices of the clerks and the courts as a whole.
8. Desired Corrective Actions TOC

Deficiencies in PACER and CM/ECF and likewise – the online public access and case
management systems of the Supreme Court are not inherent to electronic systems, on the
contrary, electronic systems could have enhanced the integrity of the courts and transparency of
court procedures, court records, and court proceedings.
Therefore, the following corrective measures are called for:
a) Restoring provision of the Salary Act of 1919 - placing the clerks under the
authority of the US Attorney General.
The Salary Act of 1919 was credited as a key measure in restoring the integrity of the US courts a
century ago. It placed the clerks under authority of the US Attorney General. Conditions in the courts
today indicate that reform is in order – through placing the clerks under authority of the US Attorney
General again. [cx ]
b) Enacting federal rules for the electronic administration of the courts.
Implementation of electronic case management and online public access systems amounted to a
sea-change in court procedures. Regardless, both the courts and the US Congress have so far
failed to establish design and operation of the systems under statute.
Combined, the two measures above should address the following issues:
a) Restoring accountability of the clerks for the integrity of electronic court records
The evidence demonstrates that clerks today hold themselves unaccountable for the validity and
integrity of electronic court records, in particular – online public access systems.
b) Establishing valid digital signatures on all applicable court records by judges, clerks,
and counsel.

24
The evidence shows that courts established as acceptable, various methods which do not meet
minimal requirements for valid digital signatures for judges, clerks, and counsel.
c) Establishing valid procedures for the clerks’ electronic attestation/authentication
records
The evidence shows that the NEFs and NDAs, which were established by the US courts as electronic
clerks’ attestation/authentication records are invalid and void.
d) Establishing valid procedures for certifying counsel’s authorization as counsel of record
Certification of counsel’s authority as counsel of record was left vague and ambiguous, permitting
unauthorized appearances in the courts.
e) Validation of electronic administrative systems of the courts
Validation of such systems must be undertaken prior to their installation, in a manner that is
legally and publicly accountable – e.g. through agencies that are accountable to the legislative
branch. Such validation should be based on certified, functional logic verification [ cxi ] in all
stages of from development, through implementation, to any modifications and ongoing security.
[ cxii ]
Inherent in the validation of the system is also the requirement that all unpublished Local Rules
of Court, which are today embedded in specification and implementation of the systems, be
explicitly pre-published in natural language for public comment and challenge, as required by the
Rulemaking Enabling Act. [ cxiii ]
It should be noted that similar problems were previously identified in the implementation of
electronic voting machines, and that the US government is yet to adequately address the issue,
regardless of ongoing protests. [ cxiv , cxv ]
f) Establishing an enhanced level of transparency in the electronic administrative
systems of the courts.
Enhanced transparency is required to allow ongoing effective public monitoring of the systems,
as well as a widely distributed, zero-knowledge approach to system security.
g) Prohibiting the exclusion of records filed in courts, unless through Due Process
The evidence shows that the US courts, from the district courts, through the courts of appeals, to
the Supreme Court, established a policy of excluding with no Due Process any evidence, which
was duly filed in court, regarding corruption of either state or US judges. Exclusion of such
papers is contrary to Due Process, and undermines the Code of Conduct of US Judges.

The proposed corrective measures may be insufficient under conditions that now prevail in the
US justice system. Additional measures are likely to be required:
a) Ongoing monitoring by the computing professionals and the public at large
None of the proposed corrective measures can replace the vigilance of the public in monitoring
the integrity of the courts. Computer science professionals should hold unique significance in
monitoring the validity of electronic systems of the justice system.

25
 b) Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Only upon restoration of public access to electronic records of US courts will the full scope of
alleged misconduct by judges, clerks, and other court personnel be exposed. At that time, it will
become practically impossible to prosecute all the perpetrators. Therefore, relative to the
majority of the alleged offenders, it would be reasonable and necessary to establish by law a
Truth and Reconciliation Commission, following example of such commissions, which were
employed by other nations, and also in the United States. [ cxvi , cxvii ] Already in 2009 Senator
Leahy, Chair of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary proposed the establishment of a Truth
and Reconciliation Commission relative to conduct of the US Department of Justice. [ cxviii ]
c) Cooperation with international monitoring of Human Rights
Conditions of the courts in the United States are alleged as violations of Human Rights of the
people of the United States by the US government. Under such circumstances the United States
could benefit from international Human Rights monitoring. However, the United States has
effectively excluded itself from binding Human Rights adjudication bodies.
Pursuant to 2006 decision of the United Nations General Assembly, the United States was
subjected in 2010 for the first time ever to Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights
by the Human Rights Council (HRC). [ cxix , cxx , cxxi ] HRC staff report was later issued, [ cxxii ]
which referred to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession in California”. In November
2010 a draft 2010 UPR of the United States was issued by the HRC Working Group, now
pending its March 2011 approval by the HRC. [ cxxiii ] The report calls upon the United States to
ratify various Human Rights treaties and conventions, and to cooperate with monitors and
rapporteurs.
9. Conclusions TOC

Evidence has been produced of widespread dysfunction of the courts in the United States:
a) A unique role was documented for invalid online public access and case management
systems in the courts; these were established by the Administrative Office of the US
Courts to be undermining the autonomy and accountability of the clerks of the courts.
b) Conditions that today prevail in the US courts enabling the conduct of pretense court
proceedings under the guise of lawfulness.
c) Cascade reactions described, where the review courts’ conduct of pretense reviews
following from pretense litigations of the lower courts.
d) The disintegration of the courts was linked to corruption in the legal profession, failure of
banking regulation, and false imprisonments.
e) Corrective actions were proposed, including acts by US Congress to place the clerks
under the authority of the US Attorney General and to establish federal rules for the
electronic administrative systems in the courts.
f) Additionally, ongoing monitoring is required by the public at large, by computing
professionals, and by the international community.
g) A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is likely to be required.

26
The findings of the current report should raise concerns regarding any digital system that may be
implemented in the courts of other nations as well. Conditions that prevail at the US courts
today, amount to undermining of Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights – the joint inheritance of
the English-speaking world to freedom and the rights of man.

27
10. Tables TOC

Table 1: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - at the US District Court, Central District of California
– PACER docket text pertaining to two Court records, Dkt #1 and Dkt #58, whose
NEFs are shown in Figure 2.
Table 2: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79: Records Kept by the Clerk
Table 3: Text of paper-based Certificate of Service by the Clerk, US District Court, Northern
District of California
Table 4: Published rules of court pertaining to electronic filing procedures, or lack thereof
Table 5: General Order 08-02, US District Court, Central District of California – electronic
filing procedures.
Table 6: Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - at the US District
Court, Central District of California – Fifteen (15) records ‘entered’ by Ms Donna
Thomas, Court staff, who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk.

28
Table 1: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - at the US District Court, Central District of California
– PACER Docket text pertaining to two Court records, whose NEFs are shown in Figure 2:
a) Dkt #1: Writ of Habeas Corpus of Richard Fine, and
b) Dkt #59: Mandate of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
The PACER Docket texts for the two court papers, whose NEFs were reproduced in Figure 1,
above, would not allow the PACER user to distinguish the fact that the former record was
authenticated, while the latter was not. TOC

Dkt Docket Text

#
1. 03/20/2009 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas CorpusHabeas Corpus by a Person
In State Custody (28:2254)
Case assigned to Judge Dean D. Pregerson and referred to Magistrate Judge
Carla Woehrle. (Filing fee $ 5: FEE PAID.), filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine.
(Attachments: # 1 Part 1 of Petitioner, # 2 Part 2 of Petitioner, # 3 Part 3 of
Petitioner)(ghap) Modified on 3/24/2009 (ghap). (Additional attachment(s)
added on 3/24/2009: # 1 Part 2 of Petition, # 2 Part 3 of Petition, # 3 Part 4 of
Petition) (ghap). (Entered: 03/24/2009)
59 02/18/2010 59 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Petition for Certificate of
Appealability 34 , CCA# 09−56073. The Decision of the District Court is
AFFIRMED. Mandate received in this district on 2/18/2010. (lr) (Entered:
02/23/2010)

29
Table 2: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79: Records Kept by the Clerk TOC

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 79. Records Kept by the Clerk
(a) Civil Docket.
(1) In General.
The clerk must keep a record known as the ‘civil docket’ in the form and manner prescribed
by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of
the Judicial Conference of the United States. The clerk must enter each civil action in the
docket. Actions must be assigned consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the
docket where the first entry of the action is made.
(2) Items to be Entered.
The following items must be marked with the file number and entered chronologically in the
docket:
(A) papers filed with the clerk;
(B) process issued, and proofs of service or other returns showing execution; and
(C) appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments.
(3) Contents of Entries; Jury Trial Demanded.
Each entry must briefly show the nature of the paper filed or writ issued, the substance of
each proof of service or other return, and the substance and date of entry of each order and
judgment. When a jury trial has been properly demanded or ordered, the clerk must enter
the word ‘jury’ in the docket.
(b) Civil Judgments and Orders.
The clerk must keep a copy of every final judgment and appealable order; of every order
affecting title to or a lien on real or personal property; and of any other order that the court
directs to be kept. The clerk must keep these in the form and manner prescribed by the
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the
Judicial Conference of the United States.
(c) Indexes; Calendars.
Under the court's direction, the clerk must:
(1) keep indexes of the docket and of the judgments and orders described in Rule 79(b); and
(2) prepare calendars of all actions ready for trial, distinguishing jury trials from nonjury
trials.
(d) Other Records.
The clerk must keep any other records required by the Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

30
Table 3: Paper-based Certificate of Service by the Clerk, US District Court, Northern District of
California TOC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

<name1>, Case Number: <number>

Plaintiff,
v.
<name 2>, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Defendant.

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the

Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.
That on <date>, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing
said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's
office.

<service list>

Dated: <date>
<name of individual>, Clerk
<wet graphic signature>
_________________________
By: <name of individual>, Deputy Clerk

31
Table 4: Published rules of court pertaining to electronic filing procedures at the US courts, or
lack thereof.
A summary of information regarding procedures pertaining to electronic filing (when applicable)
and online public access systems, is summarized for: a) US District Court, Central District of
California, b) US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and c) Supreme Court of the United States. None
of the inspected US courts and US courts of appeals published local rules to duly establish their
electronic filing procedures and online public access systems. TOC

Court Rules of General Orders Users’ Manuals

Court
Central District of None General Order Detailed Description of electronic
California 08-02 filing practices in an ‘unofficial’
manual
Court of Appeals, 9th None None Detailed Description of electronic
Circuit filing practices.
Supreme Court of the None N/A N/A
United States

32
Table 5: General Order 08-02 - US District Court, Central District of California - Electronic
filing procedures. TOC
It should be noted that General Order 08-02 was published online with no name of its author,
with no verification by a Judge, and with no authentication by the Clerk of the Court. The record
is deemed vague and ambiguous, and also as invalid and lacking in authority. Regardless, it is
unique among records of all inspected US courts in describing the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) as replacing the authentication records by the clerk, and the encrypted ‘electronic
document stamp’ as replacing the wet/graphic signature by the clerk. It should also be noted that
hyperlinks, except for internal links in the same record are explicitly prohibited, while the
relationship between the NEFs and their respective court records is today defined through
external hyperlinks.

33
II Electronic Filing
A. Generally. In all cases subject to electronic filing, all documents required to be
filed with the Clerk shall be filed electronically in the CM/ECF system.
...
I. Hyperlinks. Documents filed electronically may only contain hyperlinks to
sections of the same document. Hyperlinks to other documents, websites, source
documents, or citations are not permitted.
...
K. Notice of Discrepancies For Electronically Filed Documents. The Clerk’s
Office may notify CM/ECF Users of discrepancies found in electronically filed
documents by a discrepancy notice. In response to this notice, the assigned judge
may order: (1) an amended or corrected document to be filed, (2) the document
stricken, or (3) other action as the assigned judge deems appropriate.
...
N. Docket. Except as otherwise provided in this General Order, the acceptance by
the Clerk of a document electronically filed shall constitute entry of that pleading
or other paper on the docket maintained by the Clerk under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 58, 77 and 79 and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 55.
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described
herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of
Court.
The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the
United States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An
encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of
the NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of
confirming the authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with
the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed
into CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept
in the custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the
associated document(s) is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the
court.
V. Exclusions From Electronic Filing.
...
B. Pro Se Litigants. Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to be filed
and served in the traditional manner and will be scanned by the Clerk’s Office
into the CM/ECF system.

34
Table 6: Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - at the US District
Court, Central District of California – Fifteen (15) records ‘entered’ by Ms Donna Thomas,
Court staff, who upon information was not authorized as Deputy Clerk. Terri Nafisi, Clerk of
the Court, to this date refuses to state whether Donna Thomas was authorized to enter such
records in the PACER docket, and also refuses to certify the PACER Docket. Chief Judge
Audrey Collins refuses to respond on requests to initiate corrective action in the matter, pursuant
to the Code of Conduct of US Judge. TOC
Of note: Dkt #37 as it appeared in the March 25, 2010 Docket, is copied in the table above.
However, the July 11, 2009 Docket, Dkt #37 states as follows:
EX PARTE APPLICATION Under FRCP Rule 60(b)(6) to Release Petitioner From Jail Pending
Decision From Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine.(pcl) (Entered:
07/10/2009)

# Record
1. 04/07/2009 Dkt #6 ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER/RETURN TO PETITION.
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle that Respondent Sheriff of Los Angeles County file answer to
the petition not later than 4/21/2009. Motions to Dismiss shall be filed by 4/21/2009. **SEE ORDER FOR
FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
2. 04/09/2009 Dkt #7 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle. On April 9, 2009, the court received a copy of Petitioner's ex parte application
for immediate release filed today. It is ORDERED as follows: The clerk shall serve copies of the ex parte
application and this minute order on Respondent. On or before April 17, 2009, Respondent shall serve and
file a response to the ex parte application. **SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered:
04/09/2009)
3. 04/23/2009 Dkt #13 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 20, 2009, naming
the Sheriff as Respondent, and filed an ex parte application for immediate release on April 9, 2009. Sheriff
Baca's motion to dismiss was filed April 21, 2009, and noticed for hearing on May 19, 2009. IT IS
ORDERED: 1) The noticed hearing date if VACATED; 2) Plaintiff's opposition, or notice of non-
opposition,to the motion shall be served and filed on or before May 1, 2009. **SEE ORDER FOR
FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
4. 04/24/2009 Dkt #14 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition For
Writ Of Habeas Corpus Or, In The Alternative, Request That This Court Direct The
Real Parties In Interest To Respond To Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Petition. 12 filed by
Petitioner Richard I. Fine. (dt) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
5. 05/05/2009 Dkt #17 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle. Woehrle, ORDERING Supplement to Opposition to Motion and Supplement to
Opposition Dismissal submitted by Petitioner Richard I. Fine received on April 28, 2009 is not to be filed
but instead rejected. Denial based on: Documents were not signed by attorney of record or pro se litigant as
required by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 11(a); see also Local Rule 11-1, 83-2.10.2, and 83-2.10.3. (dt) (Entered:
05/06/2009)
6. 05/05/2009 Dkt #18 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle. **SEE ATTACHMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS** (dt) (Entered:
05/06/2009)
7. 05/05/2009 Dkt #19 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle. A response to the petition on behalf of Superior Court of CA, LA County, and
the Hon. David P. Yaffe, Judge of the Superior Court was filed onMay 1, 2009, along with the Declaration
of Kevin M.McCormack. Petitioner's reply shall, if any, be served and filed on or before May 22, 2009.
Unless otherwise ordered, this matter will then be taken under submission, without oral argument, and the
parties will be notified of all furthe proceedings. **SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS** (dt)

35
 (Entered: 05/06/2009)
8. 05/05/2009 Dkt #20 ORDER STRIKING by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle.
STRIKING Response in Opposition to Motion, 14 . **SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS**
(dt) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
9. 06/12/2009 Dkt #25 NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. Objections to R&R due by 7/6/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Report
and Recommendation) (dt) Modified on 6/12/2009 (dt). (Entered: 06/12/2009)
10. 06/12/2009 Dkt #26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle. Re MOTION to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus 12
Objections to R&R due by 7/6/2009. *SEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER
DETAILS** (dt) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
11. 06/12/2009 Dkt #27 AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle.
12. 06/26/2009 Dkt #32 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate
Judge Carla Woehrle. Objections to R&R due by 7/6/2009 (dt) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
13. 07/09/2009 Dkt #37 STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD − EX PARTE
APPLICATION. Under FRCP Rule 60(b)(6) to Release Petitioner From Jail Pending
Decision From Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed by petitioner Richard I. Fine.(pcl)
Modified on 7/21/2009 (dt). (Entered: 07/10/2009)
14. 07/21/2009 Dkt #46 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle: the documents listed
below were improperly filed for the following reasons: Application does not state claim
amounting to claim for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P, Rul 60(b)(6).
Petitioner could move for release under Fed.R.App.P.Rule 23(b), in either district
court or appeals court, but has not stated claim under Rule 23(b) so as to justify
construing this application as a Rule 23(b) motion.; therefore, the following
document(s) shall be stricken from the record and shall not be considered by the
Court: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for to Release Petition From Jail
Pending Discion From 9CCA 37 . (dt) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
15. 07/21/2009 Dkt #47 (DUPLICATE) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle:
striking 37 Ex Parte Application for Order (dt) (Entered: 07/21/2009)

36
11. Figures TOC

Figure 1: Inmate Richard Fine (1824367) – at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department –
Arrest and Booking Records, published online by the Sheriff’s Department.
Figure 2: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - at the US District Court, Central District of California
- Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus: NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) pertaining to two
Court records – i. Dkt #1: Petition, and ii. Dkt #59: Mandate.
Figure 3: Fine v Sheriff (09-79612) - at the US Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit – Emergency
Petition in re Habeas Corpus: June 30, 2009 Order denying the Petition.
Figure 4: Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Appeal:
i. Dkt #59: December 16, 2009 Memorandum, ii. Dkt #69: February 18, 2010 Mandate, and iii.
NDA of the February 18, 2010 Mandate.
Figure 5: Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States – Application for
Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): Online Docket.
Figure 6: Fine v Baca (09-A827) – at the Supreme Court of the United States - Application for
Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): March 12, 2010 letter, noticing denial of the
Application.
Figure 7: Fine v Baca (09-1250) at the Supreme Court of the United States – Petition in re:
Habeas Corpus: Online Docket
Figure 8: Fine v Baca (09-1250) - at the Supreme Court of the United States – Petition in re:
Habeas Corpus: - July 26, 2010 court file paper pertaining to denial of the Petition.
Figure 9: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) – at the US District Court, Central District of
California – Complaint pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law, Dkt #009: i.
March 7, 2008 Assignment Order to Judge Virginia A Phillips, and ii. Respective NEF.
Figure 10: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) – at the US District Court, Central District of
California – Complaint pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law, Dkt #010: i.
March 12, 2008 Notice of Reassignment to US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, and ii. Respective
NEF.
Figure 11: Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) at the US Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit – Emergency
Petition for Enforcement of Federal Due Process: June 25, 2008 Order denying the Petition.
Figure 12: Fine v Baca (09-A827) - at the Supreme Court of the United States - Application for
Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): April 29, 2010 letter noticing the ‘return’ of Motion
to Intervene.
Figure 13: Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56) at the Supreme Court of the United States – Application
for Stay of Execution (of serious sanctions): July 15, 2010 letter noticing denial of the
Application, as received by the filer.

37
Figure 1: Inmate Richard Fine (1824367) – at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department –
Arrest and Booking Records, published online by the Sheriff’s Department, and as provided in
response to inquiry by Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich. TOC

The online records indicate that Richard Fine was arrested and booked on location and by
authority of the Municipal Court of San Pedro, which has not existed for almost a decade.
However, the records published online are not valid booking records. In parallel, the Sheriff’s
Bureau denies access to the true and correct Los Angeles County Booking Records of Richard
Fine – public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act. In response to inquiries the
Sheriff has repeatedly produced copies of the online records, but not copies of the Los Angeles
County Booking Records. [ cxxiv ] The Sheriff’s Department also refuses to certify the produced
records, and also refuses to correct the records, even after their falsehood was repeatedly pointed
out. A report, previously published in a peer-reviewed, international computer science journal,
opined invalidity of the online public access and case management systems of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department, which enable large-scale false imprisonments under the pretense
of lawfulness. [ cxxv ]

38
39
Figure 2: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - at the US District Court, Central District of California
- Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus: NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) pertaining to two
Court records – i. Dkt #1: Petition, and ii. Dkt #59: Mandate. TOC

40
i. Dkt #1: NEF of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (commencing record), includes the
‘electronic document Stamp’ - as an encrypted alphanumeric ‘checksum’ string, required
pursuant to General Order 08-02 of the Court for valid authentication/certification of court
records by the Clerk of the Court. TOC

41
ii. Dkt #59: NEF of the February 18, 2010 Mandate of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
The NEF is missing the ‘electronic document stamp’. Moreover, the docketing text falsely lists
the Mandate on the Appeal as pertaining to ‘Petition for Certificate of Appealability’. TOC

42
Figure 3: Fine v Sheriff (09-79612) – at the US Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit – Emergency
Petition in re Habeas Corpus: June 30, 2009 Order denying the Petition. TOC

The Order was issued and served unsigned and unauthenticated on behalf of ‘KOZINSKI, Chief
Judge, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges’.

43
44
45
Figure 4: Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – Appeal:
i. Dkt #59: December 16, 2009 Memorandum, ii. Dkt #69: February 18, 2010 Mandate, and iii.
NDA of the February 18, 2010 Mandate. TOC

46
i. Dkt #59: December 16, 2009 Memorandum.
The Memorandum was issued in the names of ‘REINHARDT, TROTT and WARDLAW,
Circuit Judges’, affirming the June 29, 2009 Judgment by the US District Court, which denied
the Habeas Corpus Petition of Richard Fine. The Memorandum was not signed. TOC

47
48
49
 ii. Dkt #69: February 18, 2010 Mandate. TOC
The Mandate was issued by the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, on the December
16, 2009 Memorandum of the Court, here referred to as ‘Judgment’ of Court. The Mandate was
not signed by the Deputy Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and was later falsely
docketed at the US District Court, Central District of California, as a Mandate pertaining to
‘Petition for Certificate of Appealability’, with an invalid NEF. (see Figure 2)

50
 iii.
i. Dkt #69: NDA of the February 18, 2010 Mandate. TOC

The NDA fails to include the name or authority of the person who issued the NDA. Attorneys
are listed, but neither the names, nor the party designations of those, whom they represented, are
listed in the NDA. Moreover, Appellant Richard Fine is explicitly excluded from the service list
of the NDA.

51
52
Figure 5: Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States – Application for
Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): Online Docket. TOC

The docket lists: i. March 12, 2010 denial of the petition by Justice Kennedy, and April 26, 2010
denial upon rehearing by the Conference of the court.

53
Figure 6: Fine v Baca (09-A827) – at the Supreme Court of the United States - Application for
Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): March 12, 2010 letter noticing denial of the
Application, as discovered in the paper court file. TOC

The letter was unsigned, naming ‘Staff Attorney’ Danny Bickell, who was not authorized as a
Deputy Clerk, as the issuer. Moreover, the letter was never stamped ‘FILED’. No evidence was
found in the paper court file of valid judicial review, as the lawful foundation for such notice of
denial.
No record was found in the paper court file pertaining to the April 26, 2009 denial by the
Conference, noted in the Supreme Court docket.

54
55
Figure 7: Fine v Baca (09-1250) at the Supreme Court of the United States – Petition in re
Habeas Corpus: Online Docket. TOC

The Docket lists a July 26, 2010 denial of the Petition by the Court.

56
57
Figure 8: Fine v Baca (09-1250) - at the Supreme Court of the United States – Petition in re
Habeas Corpus: July 26, 2010 court file paper pertaining to a July 26, 2009 denial of the Petition.
TOC

The letter is unsigned, fails to list the name of its issuer, and is not stamped FILED.

58
Figure 9: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) – at the US District Court, Central District of
California – Complaint pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law, Dkt #009: i.
March 7, 2008 Assignment Order to Judge Virginia A Phillips, and ii. Respective NEF. TOC

59
i. March 7, 2008 Assignment Order to Judge Virginia A Phillips.
The Notice to Counsel from Clerk is unsigned, and the respective NEF is invalid. Therefore,
Judge Virginia Phillips appeared in the case with no authority.

60
ii. March 7, 2008 NEF of the Assignment Order to Judge Virginia A Phillips.
The NEF of the Notice to Counsel from Clerk in re: Assignment to Judge Virginia Phillips is
invalid – missing the ‘electronic document stamp’, required pursuant to General Order 08-02,
and the Notice to Counsel from Clerk regarding reassignment to Judge Virginia Phillips is
unsigned. Therefore, Judge Virginia Phillips appeared in the case with no authority.
In litigation, commenced on March 4, 2008, access to the NEF was first permitted only on
December 29, 2009. Previous attempts to access the NEF were denied.

61
Figure 10: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) – at the US District Court, Central District of
California – Complaint pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law, Dkt #010: i.
March 12, 2008 Notice of Reassignment to US Magistrate Carla Woehrle, and ii. Respective
NEF. TOC

62
i. March 12, 2008 Reassignment of US Magistrate Carla Woehrle.
The Notice to Counsel from Clerk is unsigned and the respective NEF is invalid – missing the
‘electronic document stamp’. Therefore, US Magistrate Carla Woehrle appeared in the case no
authority.

63
ii. NEF of the March 12, 2008 Notice to Counsel from Clerk.
The NEF is invalid – missing the ‘electronic document stamp’ and the respective Notice to
Counsel from Clerk is unsigned. Therefore, US Magistrate Carla Woehrle appeared in the case
no authority.
In litigation, commenced on March 4, 2008, access to the NEF was first permitted only on
December 29, 2009. Previous attempts to access the records were denied.

64
Figure 11: Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) at the US Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit – Emergency
Petition (for enforcement of federal due process): June 25, 2008 Order denying the Petition. TOC
A June 25, 2008 Order on behalf of ‘REINHARDT, BERZON AND M SMITH, Circuit Judges’.
The Order was served unsigned and unauthenticated on Petitioner, and was similarly docketed
unsigned and unauthenticated by the US District Court, Central District of California.
The Petition for Enforcement of Federal Due Process was filed after the US District Court,
Central District of California, refused to issue valid summons upon filing of the complaint, and
engaged in dishonest docketing of papers, duly filed by Plaintiff Zernik – concealing evidence of
‘unprofessional conduct’ by Defendants - the Superior Court judges.
The Circuit Justices of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, pretended to rule:
Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by
means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus…

65
66
67
Figure 12: Fine v Baca (09-A827) - at the Supreme Court of the United States - Application for
Stay of Execution (of solitary confinement): April 29, 2010 letter noticing the ‘return’ of Motion
to Intervene. TOC

The letter was issued and signed by ‘Danny Bickell’ – with no title or authority stated. No
evidence was found in the paper court file of either judicial or clerical review to provide the
lawful foundation for such notice of ‘return’ of the Motion, which was duly filed in the Court.

68
Figure 13: Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56) – at the Supreme Court of the United States -
Application for Stay of Execution (of serious sanctions): July 15, 2010 letter noticing denial of
the Application, as received by the Applicant. TOC

The letter bears an invalid signature box: Signature of William Suter appeared where signature of
Danny Bickell should have appeared. Moreover, ‘Staff Attorney’ Danny Bickell was
unauthorized to issue such letter. The Applicant’s efforts to gain access to evidence of valid
judicial review of the Application were denied.

69
70
12. Endnotes TOC

i
Both cases were also part of media, expert, and official reports, which were submitted to the Human Rights Council
(HRC) of the United Nations, and were consequently incorporated into the HRC staff report with reference to
‘corruption of the courts and the legal profession’ in California.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
ii
List of cases:
a) Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn. vs County of Los Angeles (BS109420) – Ancillary
Proceedings for Contempt in a real estate litigation – petition for injunction at the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles;
b) Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) – Habeas Corpus Petition at the US District
Court, Central District of California;
c) Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-79612) – Petition for Due Process at the US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit;
d) Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-56073) – Appeal at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit;
e) Richard Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) – Application for Stay of Execution (of solitary
confinement) at the Supreme Court of the United States;
f) Richard Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-1250) - Petition at the Supreme Court of the
United States.
iii
Additional Records pertaining to the arrest and imprisonment of Richard Fine, and review of the Habeas Corpus at
the various courts, see also:
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) April 20, 2010, Motion to Intervene by Joseph Zernik
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/
iv
Richard Fine holds a JD degree from the University of Chicago Law School, a PhD in International Law from the
London School of Economics and Political Science. His served as US Prosecutor in the Antitrust Division of the US
Department of Justice. See also:
10-12-02 Biography of Richard I Fine
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44500463/
v
Regarding Richard Fine’s arrest and booking records, as filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick on behalf of the Los
Angeles Superior Court, see:
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #16-2: May 1, 2009 Superior Court of California Response, Judgment Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26609353/
vi
Regarding the requirement to enter Judgments in a Judgment Book:
California Government Code § 69844.7 states:
Nothing contained herein shall eliminate the requirement for a judgment book where judgments and decrees
are required to be entered.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 664 says:
... If the trial has been had by the court, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to the decision
of the court, immediately upon the filing of such decision. In no case is a judgment effectual for any purpose
until entered."
California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.5 says:
664.5. (a) In any contested action or special proceeding other than a small claims action or an action or
proceeding in which a prevailing party is not represented by counsel, the party submitting an order or
judgment for entry shall prepare and mail a copy of the notice of entry of judgment to all parties who have
appeared in the action or proceeding and shall file with the court the original notice of entry of judgment
together with the proof of service by mail.
vii
Regarding design and operation of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department online ‘Inmate Information
Center’ see:
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/
viii
Intake procedures, and sample booking forms are provided under: California Public Records Act: California
Government Code §6254(f)

71
ix
10-01-08 Response by Sheriff Lee Baca to Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, in re: Dr Joseph
Zernik’s request for arrest and booking records of Inmate Richard Fine (1824367)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/
x
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) – PACER Docket:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32567529/
xi
Regarding Summon in commencement of civil litigation:
L.R. 3-2 Filing of Initiating Documents. Complaints (including third-party complaints, counter-claims, and
cross-claims) and other initiating documents in civil cases shall be filed, in duplicate, fees paid, and
summons issued and served in the traditional manner on paper rather than electronically.
…
L.R. 4-1 Summons - Presentation for Issuance. The summons shall be prepared by the attorney upon
forms supplied by the Clerk.
10-03-24 Local Rules, Chapters 1-4, US District Court, Central District of California:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28862438/
xii
Regarding requirement for Civil Cover Sheet:
L.R. 3-1 Civil Cover Sheet. All civil actions presented to the Clerk for filing shall be accompanied by a Civil
Cover Sheet, in duplicate, completed and signed by the attorney or party presenting the matter.
10-03-24 Local Rules, Chapters 1-4, US District Court, Central District of California:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28862438/
xiii
Regarding the requirement for filing Civil Cover Sheet for opening a civil docket, and other rules pertaining to
the conduct of valid civil litigation, see:
Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second Edition, Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on
Court Administration and Case Management (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43498081/
xiv
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #2: April 20, 2009 Notice of Referral to Magistrate Carla Woehrle
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44203247/
xv
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #8: April 10, 2009 Notice to Counsel from Clerk, in re: Assignment to Judge
John Walter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44204381/
xvi
April 10, 2009 Notice, as downloaded from the PACER records, included Acrobat © object, which were still
editable. Therefore, the document could not possible have been subjected to any ‘checksum’ or valid digital
signature.
xvii
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #11: April 21, 2009 Sheriff Lee Baca’s Certificate of Parties
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44296867/
xviii
General Order No. 99-07, Amendments to Local Civil Rule 4.6, Certification as to Interested Parties, in
pertinent part, states [underline added –jz]:
The Notice shall include the following certification:
“The undersigned, counsel of record for __________, certifies that the following listed party (or parties)
has (have) a direct, pecuniary interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made to
enable the Court to evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.
(Here list the names of all such parties and identify their connection and
interest.)
Signature, Attorney of Record for:”
In November 2010 the Intake Unit, Office of the Clerk, confirmed that General Order 99-07 was still in full force
and effect.
General Order No 99-07, Amendments to Local Civil Rule 4.6, Certification as to Interested Parties
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44306319/
xix
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #12: April 21, 2009 Sheriff Lee Baca’s Motion to Dismiss
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44297293/
xx
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #15: May 1, 2009 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Answer on Petition
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44297959/
xxi
10-03-19 Richard Fine: Dr Zernik’s correspondence with Mr Phillip Carrizosa of the California Judicial Council
in re: Case Caption in engagement of Attorney McCormick to appear in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28645522/
xxii
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #16: May 1, 2009 Declaration of Attorney Kevin McCormick and Exhibits,
on behalf of Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44302111/
xxiii
09-06-12 Dkt #26 Report and Recommendation by US Magistrate Carla Woehrle in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-
01914)

72
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43992187/
xxiv
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #31: June 29, 2009 Judgment by US Judge John Walter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44302663/
xxv
See also:
Zernik, J: Calendars and Clerks of the US Courts – pending
xxvi
09-06-30 Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) Unsigned unauthenticated order (Dkt #4) issued in the names of Circuit
Judges Kozinski, Paez, and Tallman denying the Emergency Petition of Richard Fine
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27626788/
xxvii
See also:
a) 10-09-18 Richard Fine Released with no Due Process - Additional Evidence of False Imprisonment:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37721741/
b) 10-09-20 Marina v LA County (BS109420) Failing to issue and enter an order for the September 17, 2010
Release of Richard Fine.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37800280/
xxviii
List of related cases:
a) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – real estate litigation for ‘Specific Performance’ at the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles;
b) Zernik v Melson et al (1:2009cv00805) – Petition to Compel US Officer to Perform His Duties at the US
District Court, Washington DC;
g) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) – Complaint under Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law at
the US District Court, County of Los Angeles;
h) Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) - Petition for enforcement of Federal Due Process at the US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit;
i) Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) – Motion to Intervene at the Supreme Court of the United States.
xxix
See:
a) 10-10-13 Evidence of high-level financial management fraud at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Sheriff's
Department
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39218147/
b) 99-04-11 LA Superior Court Judges 'Slush' Fund - Is Justice for Sale in L.A.? Washington DC Insight
Magazine, April 11, 1999
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39177872/
xxx
10-10-21 Ongoing denial of First Amendment/Common Law rights to access court records – to inspect and to
copy, and Due Process/Fair Hearings rights - for notice and service – in Los Angeles County, California, are keys to
the alleged racketeering at the Courts.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39897414/
xxxi
07-08-31 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Ex
Parte Appearance before Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG, and declaration regarding physical
harassment at the proceedings
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39887992/
xxxii
10-08-09 Complaint for Public Corruption and racketeering against Judge Jacqueline Connor and Others at
both the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35592511/
xxxiii
10-06-11 Dr Zernik's Complaints Filed with Office of Comptroller of the Currency and SEC against
Countrywide, Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), and its President Brian Moynihan
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32907453/
xxxiv
California Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3E(1) and (2):
E. Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.
(2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose 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 actual basis for disqualification
xxxv
10-01-19 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court,
Central District of California - Clerk Terry Nafisi is Still Researching - whether the dockets of the court were
honest, valid, and effectual
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25442978/
xxxvi
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) December 17, 2007 Attorney David Pasternak’s Grant Deeds in re: 320 South
Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, opinion of Mr James Wedick
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24991238/
xxxvii
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) – PACER Docket
73
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42544116/
xxxviii
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Dkt #001: March 5, 2008 Summons as issued by clerk
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24749825/
xxxix
See [x], above.
xl
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Dkt #009: March 7, 2008 Reassignment to Judge Virginia a Phillips and
Respective NEF
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44197658/
xli
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Dkt #009: March 7, 2008 Reassignment to Judge Virginia a Phillips and
Respective NEF
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44197658/
xlii
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Dkt #010: March 12, 2008 Referral to Magistrate Carla Woehrle and
Respective NEF:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44198344/
xliii
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Dkt #010: March 12, 2008 Referral to Magistrate Carla Woehrle and
Respective NEF:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44198344/
xliv
See also:
a) 10-04-14 Mr Carrizosa and California Judicial Council refuse to respond regarding engagement of Attorney
Sarah Overton by the Council under Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29956509/
b) 10-04-20 California Judicial Council Letter to Zernik Re Request to Access Records and for Corrective
Actions by Chief Justice Ronald George
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31305381/
xlv
The March 21, 2008 Minutes were issued in the name of US Judge Virginia Phillips by unauthorized court
personnel, Marva Dillard, listed as ‘Court Deputy’. The Minutes were signed in an invalid manner ‘__mc__, and
the NEF, once discovered, was found missing the ‘electronic document stamp’.
In pertinent parts, Judge Virginia Phillips pretended to deny Plaintiff’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order
against California Judge Terry Friedman, who had been acting as Presiding Judge under Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) with no Assignment Order:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order…
Judge Virginia Phillips also pretended to find:
On August 9, 2007, the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles awarded summary
judgment in favor of Samaan and against Zernik, granting specific performance, i.e., the sale of the real
property in dispute, to Samaan.’ [underlines added – jz].
The conduct of the Superior Court in the matter was later opined as ‘fraud being committed’ by Fraud Expert James
Wedick, and FBI-veteran, who had been decorated by US Congress, US Attorney General, and FBI Director. The
Superior Court in fact issued, but never entered any judgment in the matter, nevertheless enforced its execution.
Motion was consequently filed with Judge Phillips, to re-issue the minutes stating that the Superior Court ‘entered
summary judgment’ – instead of the ‘awarded summary judgment’.
The motion was denied.
US Judge Virginia Phillips also pretended to rule that Plaintiff in a Complaint pursuant to Deprivation of Rights
Under the Color of Law was required to exhaust the State of California Courts:
If Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the outcome of proceedings in the Superior Court, his proper remedy is to pursue his remedies
through the California Appellate Courts. As he has not exhausted his remedies in the state court, Plaintiff has not shown
extraordinary circumstances justifying federal intervention.
See also the original records at:
08-03-21 Zernik v Connor et al (08:2-cv-01550) at the US District Court Central District of California: Dkt #014 -
Minutes Issued on Behalf of US Judge Virginia Phillips
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44505367/
xlvi
The June 6, 2008 Minutes were issued in the name of Magistrate Carla Woehrle by unauthorized court personnel,
Donna Thomas, falsely listed as ‘Deputy Clerk’. The Minutes were not signed, and the NEF, once discovered, was
found missing the ‘electronic document stamp’.
In pertinent parts, Magistrate Woehrle pretended to establish false docketing rules – that unrelated records may be
docketed jointly, under unrelated docketing text:
6. Multiple documents filed together on the same day may appear under the same docket number as
attachments. So long as the text of the attachments can be accessed electronically from the docket, this is
not a problem: the documents in question are in the record, are accessible electronically, and will be given
all due consideration by the court.
7. The court has located several filed documents which do not appear to have been scanned. They will be
scanned and docketed as soon as staff is available to do so.

74
The practice was used by the US District Court to conceal records, which provided evidence of alleged public
corruption of the Defendants – Judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and was
protested by the Plaintiff.
Moreover, Magistrate Woehrle attempted to compel the Plaintiff, Dr Zernik, to execute service of false and
deliberately misleading Summons, while the Clerk of the Court refused to issue valid and effectual Summons,
claiming to do so under instructions by Magistrate Woehrle herself:
9. Plaintiff is reminded that he must comply with requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4' as to service of
summons and complaint. On or before June 26, 2008, plaintiff shall file any proofs of service as to
defendants who have been served but have not yet appeared.
See also the original records at:
08-06-06 Zernik v Connor et al (08:2-cv-01550) at the US District Court Central District of California: Minutes
Issued on Behalf of Magistrate Carla Woehrle
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44502942/
xlvii
See:
a) 10-01-01 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - CM/ECF - Table Summary of NEFs based on copies provided
by Clerk’s Office on December 29, 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681397/
b) 09-12-29 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - CM/ECF - Request and Response in attempt to gain access to
records of US District Court, Los Angeles
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681508/
c) 09-12-29 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in Re Visit to United States District Court, Central District of
California, and discovery of records in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-
01914)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24747753/
xlviii
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-1550) Dkt #107: April 24, 2009 Judgment, respective NEF, and Related
Transactions Report:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44189542/
xlix
See [iii], above.
l
See [iii], above.
li
Regarding conduct of Court Counsel Danny Bickell, see also:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
lii
10-07-18 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) Complaint for Public Corruption against John Segal – Judge, John A
Clarke – Clerk, Attorney David Pasternak and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, RE: Conduct of pretense
litigations by the Court.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/
liii
Prof Eliyahu Shamir, Hebrew University Department of Computer Science, is a leading Computer Science
scholar, who has made seminal contributions in the field, including, but not limited to the development of
fundamental tools in language analysis, e.g., as co-author of the Pumping Lemma for regular languages: Y. Bar-
Hillel, M. A. Perles, E. Shamir, “On formal properties of simple phrase structure grammars”, Zeitschrift für
Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung14:143 (1961).
See also:
09-04-20 Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, directory information
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30454039/
liv
10-07-18 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) Complaint for Public Corruption against John Segal – Judge, John A
Clarke – Clerk, Attorney David Pasternak and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, RE: Conduct of pretense
litigation by the Court.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/
lv
California Codes, Local Rules of Los Angeles County, and practice of the Court:
a) See [v], above, regarding California Codes pertaining to the requirement for the Court to maintain a Judgment
Book and enter all Judgments and Decrees in the Judgment Book to make them ‘effectual for any purpose’.
b) The Local Rules of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, state:
Rule 3.0 says:
3.0 JUDGMENTS (See Also LASCR, rule 8.96)
a) Original and Copy.
Whenever a proposed judgment is submitted to the court, the original shall be accompanied by
a complete, legible copy.
And the same section continue (underline added):
(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees.
Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court, which are required by law to be entered,

75
 shall be entered by the clerk in judgment books kept by him/her either in the Public Services
Division, of the Central District, or the clerk’s office in each of the several districts. The
judgment, order or decree shall be entered in the judgment books in the district wherein the
same was rendered and no other entry thereof shall be required.
Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court. Rule 1.4(e)16(e) states:
1.4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
…
(e) Powers and Duties. Pursuant to Section 69898 of the Government Code and Rule 10.610 Superior
Court of California County of Los Angeles Ch. 1 Pg. 5 of the California Rules of Court, the court
declares that, under the direction of the Presiding Judge, the powers and duties of the Executive Officer
shall include:
…
(16) To exercise and perform all of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the County Clerk and Clerk
of the Superior Court required or permitted by this Court to be exercised or performed by the Executive
Officer in connection with judicial actions, proceedings and records under subdivision (d) of Section
69898 of the Government Code. Such powers, duties and responsibilities include:
…
e) To enter orders, findings, judgments and decrees; to accept confessions of judgment for filing; to
authenticate records; to certify abstracts of judgment; to keep a judgment book or its equivalent.
c) The Office of the Clerk stated that it maintains no Judgment Books in the ‘Clerk’s Offices in each of the
several districts’, and Court Counsel Frederick Bennett confirmed that fact, stating that since 1974 no such
Judgment Books have been maintained. Regardless of repeated requests, the Presiding Judge and Clerk of the
Court refused to disclose the valid and effectual procedures deemed valid today for entry of judgments, to
make them ‘valid and effectual for any purpose’.
lvi
Regarding true and valid booking procedures, and sample booking forms, see:
California Code of Regulations, Title 15: Crime Prevention and Corrections §3075. Initial Intake, et seq
lvii
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)
lviii
Regarding PACER and CM/ECF, see also:
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://inproperinla.com/10-08-18-sonet2010-zernik-2-courts-pending-publication-s.pdf
lix
It should be noted that after the Supreme Court issued around 1970 the Federal Rules of Evidence, the US
Congress exercised its power to suspend implementation of the Rules as issued by the Court, and finally enacted the
Federal Rules of Evidence, instead.
lx
See also:
Zernik, J: The Calendars and Clerks of the US Courts – pending
lxi
Regarding duties and responsibilities of the Clerks of the US Courts, see also:
a) Zernik, J: The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts - pending
b) Zernik, J: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and Pretense
Banking Regulation in the United States - pending
lxii
See further discussion under:
Zernik, J: The Calendars and Clerks of the US Courts – pending
lxiii
General Order 08-02, US District Court, Central District of California
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27632471/
lxiv
Most courts, which were examined, provided partial information regarding rules embedded in PACER and
CM/ECF in Users Manuals. The US District Court, Central District of California was unique in explicitly defining
the records ‘Unofficial Users Manual’
lxv
10-07-31 Human Rights Alert's repeat request for the Judiciary Committees to establish case management and
online public access system of the US courts by law
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35149271/
lxvi
See also:
Zernik, J: The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts - pending
lxvii
See also:
Zernik, J: The Calendars and Clerks of the US Courts – pending.
lxviii
10-07-25 Fine v Baca (09-A827) and Taitz v MacDonald (10-A56) Request for Certification of Dockets by
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States William Suter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34835965/
lxix
10-03-25 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Notice filed with Chief
Judge Audrey Collins, and request for corrective actions
76
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28938859/
lxx
List of orders and mandates of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, which were never certified by Circuit Judges
in the cases: See [iii], above.
lxxi
08-03-05 Memorandum Opinion by the Hon Jeff Bohm in the Case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) - at the US
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/
lxxii
10-03-19b Richard Fine: Dr Zernik’s correspondence with Mr Phillip Carrizosa of the California Judicial
Council in re: Case Caption in engagement of Attorney McCormick to appear in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28645522/
lxxiii
10-04-14 Mr Carrizosa and California Judicial Council refuse to respond regarding engagement of Attorney
Sarah Overton by the Council under Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29956509/
lxxiv
See also NEFs in Zernik v Connor et al under links provided at [xliv, xlv], above.
lxxv
See also: NEFs in Zernik v Connor et al as produced by the court, see under Motion to Intervene, [iv], above.
lxxvi
Regarding invalid NEFs in Fine v Sheriff, see also: Motion to Intervene and Appendix [iv], above.
lxxvii
See also NEFs in Zernik v Connor et al under links provided at [xliv, xlv], above.
lxxviii
Checksum: A checksum or hash sum is a fixed-size data computed from an arbitrary block of digital data for
the purpose of detecting accidental errors that may have been introduced during its transmission or storage. The
integrity of the data can be checked at any later time by recomputing the checksum and comparing it with the stored
one. If the checksums match, the data was almost certainly not altered (either intentionally or unintentionally).
lxxix
Shell-game Fraud - The shell game (also known as Thimblerig, Three shells and a pea, the old army game) is
portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is a confidence trick used to
perpetrate fraud. In confidence trick slang, this famous swindle is referred to as a short-con because it is quick and
easy to pull off.
lxxx
Regarding denial of access to court records, see also:
a) 09-12-29 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in Re Visit to United States District Court, Central District of
California, and discovery of records in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-
01914):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24747753/
b) 09-12-29 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - CM/ECF - Request and Response in attempt to gain access to
records of US District Court, Los Angeles
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681508/
lxxxi
Regarding denial of access to court records under PACER and CM/ECF, see also:
Zernik, J: The Calendars and Clerks of the US Courts - pending
lxxxii
10-08-18 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/
lxxxiii
For comparison of public access to judicial records in various US district courts, see:
Zernik, J: The Calendars and Clerks of the US Courts – pending.
lxxxiv
10-07-28 Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States - Declaration of George McDermott
Re: Unsigned Letter dated April 26, 2010, by Supreme unnamed Deputy Clerk re: Denial of the Application
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/
lxxxv
10-08-13 Fine v Baca (09-1250) at the Supreme Court of the United States, online Order Lists pertaining to
denial of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36483347/
10-08-13 RE: Fine v Baca (09-A827), Fine v Baca (09-1250), and Fine v Baca (10-A24) at the Supreme Court of
the United States - October 2009 Term Journal - validity, or lack thereof
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36476926/
lxxxvi
Attorney Paul B Beach (Lawrence, Beach, Allen, and Choi, PC) was listed as Counsel for Respondent Sheriff
Baca at the Supreme Court of the United States, under caption of Fine v Baca (09-A827). However, the Legal
Department of the Sheriff had no knowledge of such representation, and provided the name of an altogether
different law-firm as its counsel in such matter. The office of Attorney Beach refused to answer on inquiries in the
matter.
lxxxvii
Rampart False Imprisonments, in: Frontline series: LAPD Blues, Public Broadcasting Service (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24901612/
lxxxviii
Chemerinsky, E: The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County. Guild
Practitioner, 57:121 (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339

77
lxxxix
Burcham, DW and Fisk, CL: Policing the Justice System, in: Symposium, The Rampart Scandal: Policing the
Criminal Justice System, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review34:537 (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
xc
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
xci
Today, State of Pennsylvania judges are prosecuted for racketeering, US judges in El Paso, Texas, are prosecuted
for corruption, a large-scale investigation is underway regarding corruption of the courts in the State of Florida.
State of California judges in San Diego were previously prosecuted for racketeering, as were Cook County
(Chicago) State of Illinois judges. The Human Rights Alert 2010 UPR submission to the HRC of the United
Nations stated: ‘Judges in the United States are prone to racketeering.’
xcii
10-07-26 Keynote address of Prof Laurence Tribe at the Annual Conference of Chief Justices of State Courts:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35916291/
xciii
Ex-Judge to Plead Guilty in Kids-for-Cash Scandal; Is He ‘Singing Like Bird’?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30840581/
xciv
07-11-28 Attorney Steven Yagman Sentenced to Federal Prison Term After Initiation of Impeachment
Hearings Against US Judge Manuel Real
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38347298/
xcv
Regarding dispossession of individuals through pretense court proceedings at the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, see also:
a) 10-07-18 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) Complaint for Public Corruption against John Segal – Judge, John
A Clarke – Clerk, Attorney David Pasternak and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, RE: Conduct of
pretense litigation by the Court.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/
b) 10-08-13 RE: Karimi v Mithaiwala (BD518503) - Complaint against Attorney David Pasternak and the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and racketeering in pretense
receiverships at the Court.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35828312/
xcvi
10-10-08 Bank of America Issues Nationwide Moratorium on Foreclosures; 10-10-11 CNBC Foreclosure Primer
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40470701/
xcvii
Regulation of US Judicial Ethics and the Case of Judge Manuel Real:
a) Hellman, Arthur D: The Regulation of Judicial Ethics in the Federal System: A Peek Behind Closed Doors,
University of Pittsburgh Law Review 69:189 (2007)
b) Revenge, Norms: House leader wants investigation into Calif. Judge (Judge Manuel Real, 1966 LBJ
appointee) Bakersfield Californian, July 18 2006
c) Kendall, John: Court Asked to Find Judge in Contempt, Los Angeles Times, January 15, 1987
d) Murphy, Kim: Judge Real Orders Clerk to Defy Appeals Court Over Assignment, Los Angeles Times, May
01, 1987
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44210446/
xcviii
Zernik, Joseph: Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Pretense Litigation and
Pretense Banking Regulation in the United States - pending
xcix
10-11-28 Regulation of US Judicial Ethics and the Case of Judge Manuel Real
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44210446/
c
March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion by the Hon Jeff Bohm in the Case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) - at
the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/
ci
UPR Staff Report: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, United Nations
Human Rights Council (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
cii
09-04-24 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #106
Judge Virginia Phillips’ Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE,
denying Plaintiff access to US Courts in the matter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39775020/
Please note: The above record of the US District Court, Central District of California, was issued with no
‘Document Stamp’ in the respective NEF, which is required pursuant to the Court’s General Order 08-02 as
authentication/certification by the Clerk, a fact that could not be discerned in the PACER docket of the US District
Court.
ciii
For full documentation, see Motion to Intervene, [iv], above.

78
civ
09-04-09 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-1550) Dkt #105: April 9, 2009 Perverted Discrepancy Notices, filed by
Plaintiff Joseph Zernik
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34173011/
cv
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) striking of Fine’s papers: See Docket [ix], Dkt #20, Dkt #47, above.
cvi
08-06-24 Zernik v USDC (08-72714) at the US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39524541/
cvii
Re: Conduct of Staff Attorney Danny Bickell, see also:
a) 10-04-20 Fine v Baca (09 A827) Motion to Intervene and related papers: See [iii], above
b) 10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and
Deprivation of Rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/
c) 10-07-25 Fine v Baca (09 A827) in the US Supreme Court:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/
d) 10-07-28 Fine v Baca (09-A827) in the US Supreme Court - denial of the Application in Conference of the
Court:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/
cviii
Re: Conduct of Staff Attorney Danny Bickell, see also:
a) 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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31430464/
b) 10-08-01 Fine v Baca (09-A827) in the US Supreme Court April 29, 2010 Letter by Court Counsel Bickell
Indicating ‘Return’ of Motion to Intervene and Related Papers:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35193676/
cix
Messinger, I Scott: Order in The Court - History of Clerks of United States Courts, Federal Judicial Center
(2002)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34819774/
cx
See also:
Zernik, J: Calendars and the Clerks of the US Courts - pending
cxi
Coenen, F: Verification and Validation Issues in Expert and Database Systems: The Expert Systems
Perspective, dexa, pp.16, 9th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'98),
(1998)
cxii
Codd, EF: The relational model for database management: version 2, ACM Classic Books Series, Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Inc (1990)
cxiii
Robling Denning, D E: Cryptography and data security , Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc (1982)
cxiv
Voting Machines Report: Malfunction and Malfeasance, report by Common Cause (undated)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36565560/
cxv
April 19, 2010 letter by Brennan Center for Justice letter in re: Unprecleared voting machines
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36565891
cxvi
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, Chaired by Bishop Desmond Tutu, was established by
the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-y_south-africa-gov_report-of-the-truth-and-reconciliation-commission.pdf
cxvii
May 25, 2006, Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Greensboro, NC:
http://www.greensborotrc.org/exec_summary.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/06-05-26-greensboro-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-web-page.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/06-05-26-greensboro-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-overall_conc.pdf
cxviii
February 9, 2009, Truth and Reconciliation Commission proposed by US Senator Leahy, Wall Street Journal
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-09-sen-leahy-proposes-truth-commission-for-justice-department-wsj.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-09-transcript-of-sen-leahy-call-for-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-in-re-us-
justice-department-s.pdf
cxix
ACLU submission: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, United Nations
Human Rights Council (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36522313/
cxx
Compiled submissions of member organizations of the US Human Rights Network: Universal Periodic Review
(UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, United Nations Human Rights Council (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36564118
cxxi
United States Report to the United Nations: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United
States, United Nations Human Rights Council (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36523304/

79
cxxii
UPR Staff Report: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, United Nations
Human Rights Council (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/
cxxiii
Outcome Document: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, United Nations
Human Rights Council (2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42157366/
cxxiv
10-01-08 Response by Sheriff Lee Baca to Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, in re: Dr
Joseph Zernik’s request for arrest and booking records of Inmate Richard Fine (1824367)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/
cxxv
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/

80