Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@
earthlink.net,
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.07.01
13:21:42 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
10-07-01 Complaint against Danny Bickell – US Supreme Court Counsel - for Public Corruption
and Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law
The complaint alleges that Mr Bickell denied Mr Fine Fair Hearing and Due Process of the Law at the US
Supreme Court, and is likely to have affected ongoing false imprisonment of Mr Fine.
2. Attorney Representation
Dr Zernik is not an attorney, neither is he or Human Rights Alert (NGO) represented by counsel in the matters
that are subject of instant complaint. Dr Zernik is unqualified to expound on legal theories. Therefore, no
section of the code was cited. The US Attorney is requested to review the facts in the matter and apply
the appropriate sections of the code. In cases where legal claims were made in error, the US Attorney is
requested to ignore such claims and review to the facts alone.
4. General Allegations
Conduct of Mr Danny Bickell under caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court in March-
April 2010 is alleged as violations of the law including, but not limited to:
a) Public Corruption,
b) Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law,
Page 2/5 July 1, 2010
7. Remedies Requested:
Request is herein filed by Dr Zernik with Office of the US Attorney, District of Columbia, for the following
remedies:
a) Equal protection for Richard Fine under US law and under ratified international law.
b) Investigation of the facts alleged in the complaint, and prosecution of Mr Bickell, if necessary, to the full
extent of the law.
c) Public scrutiny of security and integrity of the US Supreme Court computers (case management system)
to prevent conduct such as described in the complaint, where unauthorized persons affected construction
of a invalid, false and deliberately misleading online dockets.
March 4, 2009, Mr Fine was arrested, with no warrant, in open court by the Los Angeles Sheriff. Mr Fine is
held ever since by the Sheriff with no judgment, conviction, or sentencing ever entered in his case.
All Mr Fine’s consequent efforts to restore his liberty were undermined through conduct at the various courts,
of the kind that is the subject of instant complaint against Mr Bickell. As a result, Mr Fine remains in solitary
confinement to this date.
9. Brief Chronology:
a) Relative to purported March 12, 2010 Denial of Mr Fine’s Application by Justice Anthony
Kennedy
It is alleged that conduct of Mr Bickell affected the insertion of such false and
deliberately misleading statement in the US Supreme Court docket.
iii. Review of the US Supreme Court records ii in the caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-
A827) revealed no written order by Justice Kennedy denying Mr Fine’s Application.
Neither was denial by Justice Kennedy inscribed on the face of the application, as
permitted by the Local Rules of the US Supreme Court.
iv. Review of the US Supreme Court records in the caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827)
iii
revealed a March 12, 2010 letter issued by Mr Bickell, falsely noticing denial of
the application by Justice Kennedy. However, Mr Bickell’s notice was unsigned.
Furthermore, Mr Bickell was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk; therefore, the letter
was issued with no authority at all.
b) Relative to the April 23, 2010 Supreme Court conference re: Application of Mr Fine
i. On March 30, 2010, following the purported denial by Justice Kennedy, Mr Fine re-
filed the application with Associate Justice Ginsburg, according the US Supreme
Court docket. iv
ii. On April 12, 2010 Dr Zernik called the US Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk to
notify his intent to file Motion to Intervene in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827). Dr Zernik
was referred to Mr Bickell. Mr Bickell informed Dr Zernik that such filing would
be timely as long as the application was pending before the court. However, Mr
Bickell informed Dr Zernik that unless there was a “compelling justification”, the
Motion to Intervene, it would most likely be denied by the Court.
iii. On April 20, 2010 Dr Zernik filed at the US Supreme Court Motion to Intervene and
related papers:
- 1 Amended Motion to Intervene v
vi
- 2 Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer
vii
- 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records
viii
- 4-Amended-Request-for-Incorporation-by-Reference-s
ix
- 5 Amended Appendices
iv. On April 20, 2010 Dr Zernik received from the US Supreme Court staff receipts
confirming the filing of the papers listed above. x
v. On April 21, 2010 Dr Zernik called the Office of the Clerk, US Supreme Court, and
spoke with a staff member at the Office of the Clerk. The staff member informed Dr
Page 4/5 July 1, 2010
Zernik that the papers were indeed received by the Office of the Clerk, but were held
by Mr Bickell. xi
vi. On April 21, 2010 Dr Zernik further spoke by phone with Mr Bickell. Mr Bickell
initially denied that he was holding Dr Zernik’s papers. However, after Dr Zernik
informed him that a staff member had already told him that the papers were in Mr
Bickell’s hands, Mr Bickell admitted that fact. Mr Bickell then stated that he had not
made up his mind yet, what to do with the papers. Dr Zernik asked Mr Bickell if Mr
Bickell was authorized as Deputy Clerk. Mr Bickell stated that he was not.
Regardless, Mr Bickell stated that he would be the one to decide, whether the papers
would or would not be entered in the docket of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827).
vii. The April 23, 2010 docket of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) showed that Dr Zernik’s
papers were never entered in the docket. Neither was any discrepancy or any other
notation entered to explain the disposition of the papers.
viii. Denial by Mr Bickell of the right to file papers at the US Supreme Court is alleged
as obstruction of justice.
ix. It should be noted that one of the papers - the Request to Correct US Supreme Court
Records – explicitly described the conduct of Mr Bickell relative to the March 12,
2010 purported denial of Fine’s application by Associate Justice Kennedy. It is
therefore alleged that through eliminating the Dr Zernik’s papers from the docket,
Mr Bickell effectively covered up his own wrongful conduct in March 2010.
x. It should be further noted that other papers included with Dr Zernik’s Motion to
Intervene documented a series of events pertaining to Mr Fine, where three (4) lower
courts engaged in conduct that was similar or identical to that of Mr Bickell:
- Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
- US District Court, Central District of California
- US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
In all these courts clerks, or staff which was not authorized at all, participated in the
issuance of false and deliberately misleading records – all aimed to enforce alleged
false imprisonment of Mr Fine. In all these courts false and deliberately misleading
manipulation of online public access systems and/or public dockets was involved.
Each of the cases alone could have possibly been seen as an inadvertent error.
However, a reasonable person, upon review of the facts and the records that were
included in Dr Zernik’s Motion to Intervene, would almost certainly conclude that
wrongdoing was involved. Moreover, each and every one of these courts was
approached by Dr Zernik with a request to initiate corrective actions relative to such
conduct. All without exception failed to do so.
Therefore, it is alleged that through eliminating the Dr Zernik’s papers from the
docket, Mr Bickell effectively covered up wrongful conduct by staff of the lower
courts in the case of Mr Fine.
Respectfully,
Dated: July 1, 2010
Joseph Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
i
US Supreme Court Docket in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), as downloaded on April 23, 2010.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-a-supreme-ct-fine-v-sheriff-09-a827_10-04-23-10-00-pm-online-docket.pdf
ii
US Supreme Court records in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) – see Zernik’s Amended Request for Correction of US Supreme
Court Records:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/
iii
See ii, above.
iv
See i, above.
v
1-Dr Zernik’s Amended Motion to Intervene
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/
vi
2-Dr Zernik’s Amended Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/
vii
3-Dr Zernik’s Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/
viii
4-Dr Zernik’s Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/
ix
5-Dr Zernik’s Amended-Appendices
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33771759/
x
Face pages obtained by Dr Zernik on April 20, 2010 confirming receipt of his papers filed that date:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772062/
xi
April 21, 2010 – Declaration of Dr Zernik regarding filing Motion to Intervene and related papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-
A827).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31430464/