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: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-04-22 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), Perversion of Justice, and Barn Raising

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:50:02 -0700

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), Mr Danny Bickell, Perversion of Justice, and Barn Raising

Hi M,

If you carefully read the Motion to Intervene, what may strike you at some point is the number of persons involved in the
efforts to allegedly pervert justice. Partial list below. It is impossible that each and every one of them had direct,
immediate benefit in the matter, or in other similar cases that were investigated and documented. In that respect, I fully
adopt the opinion of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006), pertaining to documented perversion of justice in Los
Angeles County, California, on a scale that was and is orders of magnitude larger - the Rampart FIPs (Falsely
Imprisoned Persons). The Panel, chaired by the Attorney Connie Rice, artfully wrote:
"Facing a choice between containment or catastrophic failure, the operators
of any system-law enforcement, prosecutors and judges-inexorably choose
containment. It is not that individuals or entities conspired to cover up
corruption; it is that when a window on its true extent opened, they simply
closed it."
I would venture one step further. In a communities, such as the California and US justice systems, when one notices a
perversion effort underway, one lends a hand - not in the expectation of an immediate benefit or reward, but out of the
generosity of one's heart. It is a reflection of the community spirit... Like barn raising in colonial times...

Therefore, Human Rights Alert's report to the UN, [2] drew the inevitable conclusion - that there is an urgent need for
international monitoring of the California and US justice systems.

Joseph Zernik

Those involved in alleged perversion in the case of Richard Fine (partial list)
LA Superior Court
1) Judge David Yaffe
2) His clerk
3) Counsel for the two developer - Joshua L Rosen
4) The two large developers
5) Clerk of the Court John A Clarke
6) Presiding Judge Charles McCoy
7) Clerks and presiding judge going back 35 years - who continue to publish false and deliberately misleading Local
Rules of Court on entry of judgment, including Ronald George - Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
8) Daily Journal and its editor Martin Berg - makers of the allegedly fraudulent CMS (case management system)
SUSTAIN.

LA Sheriff Department

Page 2/4 April 22, 2010

1) Lee Baca
2) Sergeant Burson
3) Commander Liang
4) James Lopez, Chief of Staff
5) about 10 members of the Warrant Detail
6) Some Sheriff Deputy(s) in San Pedro.

California Courts of Appeals 1st, 2nd, 4th

In their actions relative to the case of Richard Fine and Sturgeon v LA County, which was likewise alleged target of
perversion, as documented in the Motion to Intervene.

California Judicial Council and Chief Justice Ronald George

In alleged perversion documented in the Motion to intervene relative to retainer of Kevin McCormick

US District Court
1) Magistrate Carla Woehrle
2) Judge John Walter
3) Other judges who recused, but never initiated corrective actions in view of the perversion.
4) Clerk Terry Nafisi
5) Record Supervisor Dawn Bullock
6) Pro SE Clerk Chris Sawyer
7) Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas
8) Chief Judge Audrey Collins - who never initiated corrective actions, even after being reliably informed, and who failed
to establish the practice and procedures of PACER and CM/ECF and NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) in Local Rules
of Court.
9) Aaron Fontana - false counsel for sheriff and his law firm partners
10) Kevin McCormick - false counsel for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior court, and his law firm partners.

US Court of Appeals
1) Chief Judge Alex Kozinski - in issuing the unsigned, falsely noticed denial on the petition and served with no
authenticating NDA (Notice of Docket Activity) at all.
2) Circuit Judge Richard Tallman - ditto on the petition
3) Circuit Judge Richard Paez - ditto on the petition
4) Circuit judge - - ditto re: Mandate on the appeal
5) Circuit judge - - ditto re: Mandate on the appeal
6) Circuit judge - - ditto re: Mandate on the appeal
7) Molly C Dwyer - clerk of the Court - ditto
8) All Judges of the Circuit Court - for failing to establish the practice and procedures of PACER and CM/ECF and NDAs
(Notices of Docket Activity) in the Local Rules of Court.

US Supreme Court
1) Danny Bickell
2) Justice Anthony Kennedy - he noted the denial of Application on a separate piece of paper, not on the Application, as
required by Rules of Court, thereby opening the way for Danny Bickell to complete the alleged perversion in the denial.
3) All justices of the Supreme Court - in allowing the conduct of the court as seen in actions of Danny Bickell in various
cases.
4) Paul Beach and his law firm partners - false counsel for Sheriff

Administrative Office of the US Courts

For development and concerted implementation of allegedly fraudulent OPASs (online public access systems) - PACER
of the US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals, and CMSs (case management systems) - CM/ECF of the US
District Courts and US Courts of Appeals.

All US Judges
Who never said a word in view of the large scale alleged fraud in the OPASs and CMSs of the courts introduced in the
past 1-2 decades.

At 11:50 AM 4/22/2010, M wrote:


Page 3/4 April 22, 2010

Joseph,

Have you Googled "Danny Bickell" yet? He was also involved in manipulating cases last
year that concerned Obama's birth certificate, etc.

At 2:40 PM (GMT-7) 4/22/2010, Dr Joseph Zernik wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Apr 22, 2010 2:40 pm
Subject: Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Mr Danny Bickell - and alleged efforts to pervert justice
in the case.

Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) Mr Danny Bickell and filing at the US Supreme Court

1) Around April 12, 2010, I, Joseph Zernik, first spoke with Mr Danny Bickell, staff
member of the US Supreme Court Clerk's Office. At that time I informed him that I
intended to file a Motion to Intervene in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), which was scheduled
for conference on April 23, 2010. His response was that filing papers in the case was
timely as long as the Application was pending before the court. He added that unless a
Motion to Intervene provided a "compelling justification" for the intervention, it was likely
to be denied by the court.

2) I informed Mr Bickell that I was going to mail it priority mail, and he made no
comment on that.

3) On April 15, 2010, I mailed the papers, priority mail, certified.

4) On April 16, 2010 I called the court and spoke with staff member at the clerk's office,
who identified herself as "Molly", in an effort to ascertain that the papers were received.
Molly informed me that the papers were unlikely to reach the clerk's office by April 23,
2010, because of anthrax checks on all incoming mail.

5) On April 20, 2010, I flew to Washington DC and hand delivered the papers at the
Supreme Court security station, where receipt stickers were issued. I was informed that
the papers would be at the hands of the clerk's office staff by the next morning, or the
latest by the next afternoon.

6) On April 21, 2010 I called and spoke with US Supreme Court clerk's office case analyst
Mr Erik Fossum. He informed me that my papers were indeed received, and that they
were held by Mr Danny Bickell.

7) I was then forwarded to Mr Danny Bickell. He initially tried to tell me that the papers
had not been received by the clerk's office, due to security checks. Only after I informed
him that Mr Fossum had already informed me that Mr Bickell was holding the papers, Mr
Bickell admitted that such was indeed the case.

8) Mr Bickell then proceeded to tell me that he had not yet decided regarding the
disposition of the papers. Mr Bickell never stated any discrepancy in the papers.

9) I asked if he was authorized as a Deputy Clerk. He informed me that he was not.

Regardless, he insisted that he was authorized to either docket the papers, or not docket
the papers without even a discrepancy notation in the docket, indicating that paper were
filed, then rejected.

10) I then asked him for the basis for his March 12, 2010 notice to the parties in Fine v

Page 4/4 April 22, 2010

Sheriff (09-A827) of denial by Justice Kennedy. The Rules of the Supreme Court were
explicit, that the justice would note the denial on the petition. However, a March 22,
2010 copy of the petition from US Supreme Court file had no such notation on it. Neither
was any ruling or order of denial listed in the log of orders of the court on or about March
12, 2010. Mr Bickell responded that he was not required to answer such questions.

11) The papers, which Mr Danny Bickell was holding, provided incontrovertible
documentary evidence, which Richard Fine himself had no access to, which showed that
Richard Fine was held under alleged fraud in records of the Sheriff and the Los Angeles
Superior Court, and that there was never any valid and effectual warrant, judgment,
conviction, or sentencing entered in his case. [1]

12) In short - Mr Bickell was and is denying access to the US Supreme Court, in a
manner that a reasonable person would conclude was likely to pervert justice in the case
at hand.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

LINKS

[1] Zernik's filing in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), documenting alleged fraud by Sheriff of Los Angeles
County and Los Angeles Superior Court relative to warrant judgment and sentencing in the case of
Richard Fine.
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-1-Amended-Motion-to-
Intervene-s
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-2-Amended-Request-for-
Lenience-by-Pro-Se-Filer-s
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-3-Amended-Request-for-
Corrections-in-US-Supreme-Court-Records-s
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-4-Amended-Request-for-
Incorporation-by-Reference-s
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-Appendices-s
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/10-04-18-Fine-v-Sheriff-09-A827-5-Amended-Appendix-IX-b-
Zernik-s-Declaration-in-re-April-16-2010-search-for-records-in-the-Courts-microfilm-judgm
[2] Human Rights Alert Submission for the 2010 UPR of the United States
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Filed-UPR-Report-with-the-
United-Nations
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/10-04-18-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Submission-to-the-
United-Nations-for-the-2010-Universal-Periodic-Review-of-the-US-s
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/10-04-19-Human-Rights-Alert-Final-Appendix-for-
Submission-to-the-United-Nations-for-the-2010-UPR-of-the-United-States-s