Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd:

10-04-08 Richard Fine: Seeking Counsel for Filing Amicus Brief

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:25:16 -0700

To: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
From: joseph zernik jz12345@earthlink.net

Subject: Richard Fine: Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court - seeking counsel for
filing Amicus Brief. Time is of the essence!

Dear All:

Fine v Baca (09-A827) application by Richard Fine, which was submitted to Justice Anthony Kennedy,
was claimed denied on March 12, 2010. The US Supreme Court docket now shows that the
application was resubmitted by Richard Fine to Justice Ginsburg, and was scheduled for a conference
on April 23, 2010. Fine, as usual, based his arguments on issues of "not permitted" payments,
disqualifications, and judicial authority, or lack thereof.

I have in my possession unique records, which I recently obtained in the case, and which were not
even mentioned in the application by the imprisoned Richard Fine. I do not believe that he had any
knowledge of them. I believe that such records are critical for the review of the case by the US
Supreme Court. Such records provide an entirely alternative approach to the case, following the late
Justice Brennan's writing in Fay v Noia (1963):
"The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a civilized society... if the
imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is
entitled to his immediate release".
The records detailed below demonstrate that there never were any records that conformed with the
fundamental requirements of the law as foundation for the imprisonment of Richard I Fine. Therefore -
he was and is entitled to his immediate release.

The Rules of the US Supreme Court allow the filing of Amicus Brief only by attorneys admitted to that
court. I therefore seek your help in finding an attorney who would be ready, willing, able to immediately
file the records listed above with the US Supreme Court.

Time is of the essence, your help would be appreciated.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

Page 2/3 April 8, 2010

FINE V BACA (09-A827) - RECORDS OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT WERE NEVER PRESENTED AT

THE US SUPREME COURT

Such records show that at every level, the case of Richard Fine was compromised by false and
deliberately misleading records, and that there was and there is no valid record to provide the legal
foundation for his confinement.
The matter has significance far beyond the case of Richard Fine himself. It demonstrates the
fundamental compromised integrity of case management and public access systems in all agencies
involved in the case, denial of the right to Access Court Records - to inspect and to copy, discrimination
against pro se filers - in denial of the right for Notice and Service of NEFs and NDAs, and failure of the
three courts involved to establish their practices related to case management and public access
systems in Local Rules of Courts, in compliance with State of California and US Rule Making Enabling
Acts.

RECORDS:

a) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - Civil litigation on real estate matter at the Los Angeles Superior
Court: Review of the records in the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly
arrested, demonstrates false and deliberately misleading records for the purported judgment and
sentencing of Richard Fine, which were never entered as required by California law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24738673/09-10-13-Richard-Fine-Petition-filed-with-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-of-
Los-Angeles-County-to-free-Richard-Fine

b) Marina v LA County (BS109420): Correspondence with the Los Angeles Superior Court, which to
this date denies access to the Register of Actions (California Docket) in Marina v LA County
(BS109420) the case in ancillary proceeding of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested, and the
related case of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - a request for injunction against the "not permitted"
payments by LA County to the judges. Therefore, the habeas corpus and the appeal were both
incredibly reviewed with no access to the record that would have provided the foundation for any other
record in the case of Richard Fine's arrest and imprisonment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29603035/09-07-28-30-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Correspondence-
with-senior-Deputy-Clerk-Gregory-Drepac-denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602633/09-07-28-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-
Bennett-Response-Denial-of-Access-to-Court-Records

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29602878/09-07-29-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-Court-Counsel-
Bennett-Response-No2-Denial-of-Access-to-Records

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340297/09-07-31-Richard-Fine-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Request-
to-Access-Court-Records-s

c) Inmate Richard Fine (1824367): Arrest and Booking Records of the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department - Correspondence between Sheriff Baca to Supervisor Antonovich, in response to inquiry
on my behalf - Why Sheriff Baca would not provide access to the true arrest and booking records, and
why he would not correct false records, posted online, stating that Richard Fine was arrested and
booked by the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro.
In his response, the sheriff's "Risk Reduction Unit" simply repeated the mailing of the false records, and
claimed that California Public Records Act did not require that it produce records which did not exist.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/10-01-08-Supervisor-Antonovich-Los-Angeles-County-repeat-
mailing-of-January-8-2010-response-from-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-in-re-Richard-Fine-papers-inclu

Sample of true Los Angeles County Booking records, and the various manipulations of such records by
the Sheriff's Department:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29383730/10-04-03-Los-Angeles-County-Sheriff-s-Department-Multiplicity-
of-False-and-Deliberately-Misleading-Booking-Records-s

d) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Habeas Corpus Petition at the US District Court, Los Angeles -

Page 3/3 April 8, 2010

Correspondence with the California Judicial Council, documenting false and deliberately practices in
retaining of counsel - Kevin McCormick, and refusal of the Council to review the alleged fraud in
appearance and papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28787678/10-03-22-Richard-Fine-Final-Response-by-Mr-Carrizosa-
California-Judicial-Council-Re-Case-Caption-s

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28821400/10-03-23-Richard-Fine-Request-Chief-Justice-Ronald-George-
Investigation-Corrective-Actions-in-Conduct-of-Attorney-Kevin-McCormick-on-Behalf-of-the-Ca

e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): False declaration and records filed by Attorney McCormick, falsely
appearing, in response to the habeas corpus petition
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26609353/09-03-04-Fine-v-Sheriff-2-09-cv-01914-False-Fine-Judgment-
Records-filed-May-1-2009-by-LA-Superior-Court-as-purported-response-in-US-District-Court

e) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) from US District Court, showing
the invalidity of the June 29, 2009 Judgment of the US District Court and the February 12, 2010
Mandate of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525744/10-03-25-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-CM-ECF-case-
management-system-of-the-US-Dist-Court-Los-Angeles-s

f) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914): Correspondence with the Clerk of the US District Court, LA - Terry
Nafisi, who refused to state that the docket was honest, valid and effectual, or to explain why a person
who was not a Deputy Clerk constructed such docket.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340585/09-08-01-Complaint-and-Request-for-Investigation-Filed-with-
Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-Court-Regarding-Dishonest-Manipulation-of-Records-of-the-Hab

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24776792/10-01-04-Request-Clarifications-by-US-District-Court-LA-Clerk-
Terry-Nafisi-in-re-PACER-CM-ECF-and-denial-of-access-to-records-s

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25329054/10-01-17-Req-Responses-by-Clerk-of-Us-Court-Terry-Nafisi-Re-
Integrity-of-Dockets-in-Zernik-v-Connor-and-Fine-v-Sheriff-s

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25442978/10-01-19-Office-of-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-US-Court-still-
researching-whether-the-dockets-of-the-court-were-honest-valid-and-effectual-s

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28342152/10-03-14-Richard-Fine-Repeat-Complaint-Filed-With-Terry-
Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-US-Court-Los-Angeles-re-Alleged-Fraud-and-Abuse-in-Records-of-Fine-v-S

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28866417/10-03-16-Clerk-Terry-Nafisi-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-
Response-to-Zernik-s-Request-for-Clarifications-re-NEFs-and-Complaints-re-Tampering-wit

g) Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) - Appeal at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - unsigned orders and an
invalid NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity) for the February 12, 2010 Mandate from US Court of Appeals,
9th Circuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/10-03-27-Addendum-1-to-Request-for-Opinions-Re-CM-ECF-
case-management-system-of-the-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-as-reviewed-in-orders-in-Fine

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/10-04-05-Addendum-2-to-Request-for-Experts-Opinions-RE-
Case-management-system-NDAs-US-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-s-Us-Court-Appeals-9th-s