Digitally signed by

Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
arthlink.net, c=US
Location: La
Verne, California
Date: 2009.10.13
11:11:36 -07'00'

Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net
09-10-12 An appeal to Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca – to use his due authority
and properly address the legal, civil and human rights of an American, inmate
Richard Fine (1824367), and with it - mark a new beginning for the Los Angeles
County justice system…

Sheriff Lee Baca

4700 Ramona Blvd
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2169
Tel: (323) 526-5000
Fax: (323) 267-6600

Timely response requested by Monday, October 19, 2009

Dear Sheriff Baca:

My name is JOSEPH ZERNIK, and I am of the people of the United States, and of the people of
Los Angeles County, California. I am not a lawyer, not even by a long shot. Therefore,
Downtown skyline please accept this letter as the writing of layperson, applying only commonsense... I recently
took the time to review the proceedings and the records related to the ongoing jailing of
RICHARD FINE, (CJ inmate #1824367). Here, I am appealing to you as a resident of Los
Angeles County, with inherent interest in integrity of the justice system, and also as one who

Executive Summary:
This appeal is filed with the Los Angeles County Sheriff – LEE BACA, – to use his due authority and properly address the
legal, civil and human rights of an American, inmate RICHARD FINE (1824367).
Reconstructed Chronology: Prior to the March 4, 2009 proceeding a request was forwarded to the Sheriff Department
to have the Warrant Detail present in the proceeding, with the understanding that the proceeding would end with the
sentencing and jailing of Atty Fine for contempt. Indeed, Judge DAVID YAFFE pronounced such sentence in open court, as
evidenced in court reporter’s transcript – the first record of the proceeding. Through such oral directives, Judge Yaffe
mislead the Sheriff’s Warrant Detail to arrest Atty Fine at 11:05 am. However, Judge Yaffe then left them with no
record as an adequate legal foundation for such action. Instead, Judge Yaffe proceeded to create a second, contradictory
record in court file – which did not reflect any sentencing or jailing at all. In fact – the March 4, 2009 proceeding was
entirely eliminated from the record! The consequent Sheriff’s Warrant Detail record of booking in San Pedro at 12:32
pm was likely insufficient, and is the main subject of this appeal. By 4:31 pm, papers were received by the Sheriff’s
Department through an anonymous fax transmission from “Judicial Services”. Such papers reflected yet a third, again
misleading record for the litigation, including invalid records: The March 4, 2009 Remand Order and the March 4, 2009
Judgment for contempt. On such background it was understandable why Sheriff Baca refused to respond to Atty
Richard Fine’s habeas corpus petition. The LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe eventually responded, through papers
filed on May 1, 2009 by Atty KEVIN MCCORMICK. Such Response failed to include a declaration under penalty of perjury
by Judge Yaffe – the competent fact witness, it also failed to produce the quintessential litigation records – the Register of
Actions (docket), and any evidence of entry of judgment. It relied upon records from the Sheriff Department and the Court
Reporter’s transcript – records which absent, at variance, and/or contradictory of the records in court file. Key records
were filed as evidence with no authentication. Finally, there is no reason to believe that Judge Yaffe ever saw such
pleading before or after it was filed on his behalf in court. It is inconceivable for the court to engage in such litigation
practices to affect false imprisonment of an individual. Request was therefore filed directly with Judge Yaffe, to confirm
that such records were filed with his knowledge and on his behalf. However, it remained unanswered.
Pleading: We pray Sheriff Lee Baca review the arrest, booking, and permanent housing assignment records, and if any is
found inadvertently insufficient - take corrective actions and immediately release Atty Fine. With it, the Sheriff may mark
a new beginning for the Los Angeles County justice system, with dignity of the legal, civil, and human rights of all.

This appeal can also be viewed at http://inproperinla.com/09-10-13-appeal-to-sheriff-lee-baca-s.pdf or at blog <http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/>, with

easy links to reference records. This appeal, like previous letters in the matter, was widely distributed to law school faculty, U.S. Congress, and
international Human Rights organizations.
 z Page 2/14 October 13, 2009

believes that he has evidence of inadvertent false jailing at the Sheriff’s CJ facility.

I appeal to you because I believe that you have the duty and the authority to review the
procedures executed in arrest, booking, and jailing of Richard Fine, and also the authority to
take appropriate action as you may deem fit, following such review. Beyond that, I appeal to
you because I read your online statement and your biography, and I believe that you have a
clear vision of your position within the government system of Los Angeles County, and what
you stand for as a man. You advocated that vision in your welcome message on the Sheriff’s
web page:1
By example, I teach my people to create ideas, celebrate diverse people, and
establish religious harmony throughout the County. Our specific action-oriented
achievements include but are not limited to the following:
• Our first order of business was to develop core values that
prescriptively require all of us to address properly the legal,
civil and human rights of all Americans.
Our Core Values:
As a leader in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, I commit myself
to honorably perform my duties with respect for the dignity of all people,
integrity to do right and fight wrongs, wisdom to apply common sense and
fairness in all I do…

Finally, I appeal to you because you may be able to implement a solution for an intractable
situation, which I believe is a disgrace for our courts and our government.
My Colors - Los Angeles

1. Personal review Question2

The question that I tried to answer for myself, in looking at the records could be stated in
layperson’s language as follows:

Did staff of the Sheriff Department have, at the time of the arrest, the booking, and the
permanent housing assignment, the basic papers, which would demonstrate that in holding
RICHARD FINE (CJ Inmate #1824367) and in depriving him of liberty, the Department
conformed with the fundamentals of the law?

If not – RICHARD FINE was entitled to his immediate release!

2. Available Records

The records that were available to me were such that were found online among records of
the LA superior court3 and the U.S. District Court LA4 in the respective proceedings, and I
provided links at the endnotes of this appeal to all such records.

In addition, a key records which were not used in any proceeding were RICHARD FINE’s Inmate
information provided online by the Sheriff’s department, which was a critical resource.5 It was
also compared and contrasted with the comparable record of another inmate, also an
attorney, of similar age, arrested last week. 6 I also relied on various other online materials
provided by your department in attempt to quickly understand the general workings of such
complex operation, which I had no familiarity with. The materials provided online left me with
the impression of a progressive Sheriff’s department, which cares for the health, safety and
welfare of those under its custody, and also is concerned with integrity of its operations,
z Page 3/14 October 13, 2009

compliance with the law, and respect for Human Rights, as a key participant in the LA County
justice system.7

Of particular significance were news reports, which served in an attempt to comprehend what
in fact took place in the courtroom – in view of conflicting and contradictory records produced
by the court itself. In particular – I benefited from the reporting of STEVEN ELLIS, Metropolitan
News,8 and LESLIE DUTTON – Full Disclosure Network.9

3. Absent the Register of Actions (Docket) not even the most brilliant jurist could
answer that question…

In trying to answer the question outline above for myself, I faced a fundamental problem that
could not be resolved: I early on realized that the Register of Actions was missing from the
litigation records, which were filed by the parties. However, the office of the Clerk of LA
Superior Court, Mr JOHN A CLARKE, refused to allow me access to inspect and to copy the
Register of Actions (equivalent of Docket in the U.S. Courts) of the case10.

Frankly, I did not know that there was any possible way that the most brilliant jurist could ever
answer the question regarding compliance with the law absent the Register of Actions. In
fact, the Register of Actions was even more restrictive than the typical docket. In such
record, each judicial action had to be recorded, with its respective adjudication, in a manner
that such record alone could substitute for the whole court file. The Register of Actions was
the only way to know precisely which papers were, and which were not filed and entered, as
effectual court papers in this case. Similarly, the Register of Actions was the only way to
determine which rulings, orders, and judgments were in fact rendered by Judge Yaffe. The
reliance on transcript instead, was seen as an inexplicable roundabout way to address the
issue, and an invalid one, while the court held the true record of the litigation. Court rulings,
orders, and judgments were all based on writings, for generations… not on oral
transmission…

There are numerous examples where judges act differently in writing their actions, than in
pronouncing them orally in court. And in a court system, like the LA Superior Court, where
the Registers of Actions were kept secret from the public and litigants, the differences were
astonishing… 11

But beyond it all, there was the simple question:

Why would an honest court ever defy the law and hide its Registers of
Actions from the public, moreover - from parties in litigation?

I don’t believe that anybody could provide an answer to this question, not Judge DAVID YAFFE,
not Clerk JOHN A CLARKE, not Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE, not U.S. Judge JOHN WALTER, not
U.S. Circuit Justices RICHARD PAEZ and RICHARD TALLMAN, and not even Chief Justice ALEX
12
KOZINSKI. Who all appeared to have given a nod of approval for such practice.

I have no doubt, that upon review by a Human Rights Court, based on ratified International
Law, such practice would be ruled as a severe abuse of Human Rights of the 10 million
people who reside in Los Angeles County. Yet – the U.S. Courts – guardians of Civil Rights,
allowed it to become a well established practice – for a quarter century!
 z Page 4/14 October 13, 2009

4. Regardless of such limitation, attempt was made to establish a chronology.

I was therefore left with (a) litigation records that were filed by the parties,13 (b) with the
reporter’s transcript, 14 (c) with the list of records that are represented as “Available Images” –
presumably reflecting the papers that the court considered the valid court papers in this
case.15 (d) I also had to try to use the online “Case Summary” – published by the LA Superior
Court, 16 albeit, with a Declaimer – that it should not be relied upon – and justly so. 17 (e) I
also relied on evidence from news reports regarding what took place in the courtroom.

5. Chronology according to the online “Case History” – published by the Court – with
a disclaimer – that it should not be relied upon.

Given that the LA Superior Court has denied public access to the Registers of Actions for the
past quarter-century (both civil and criminal), it was inevitable that the public relied on the
Case Summaries, regardless of the Disclaimer. There simply was no other comparable
resource for following the litigation, regardless of the obvious deficiencies in the online
records.

The chronology of the litigation at the LA Superior Court, in Judge DAVID YAFFE’s court, which
resulted in the current indefinite jailing of Att RICHARD FINE, appeared as follows:

a) March 4th , 2009 Proceeding - The March 4, 2009 proceeding, which was witnessed by
media, and where Att RICHARD FINE was arrested, simply did not exist. It was not registered at
all!

b) March 4th Judgment and Order of Contempt in re: Richard I Fine 18- Among the listing of
paper filed in the online “Case Summary”, there was a line item - that on March 4, 2009 a
Judgment and Order for contempt was filed by the Clerk. However, that was insufficient to
make a judgment valid and effectual:

(i) The judgment had to be served and noticed in order to be entered and become
effectual. There was no notation to that effect in the online Case Summary in re: the
The Hollywood Sign
March 4, 2009 Judgment,

(ii) Moreover, typically, in the register of actions, there would be a unique line item -
an Order for Entry of Judgment. There was none of that in the online Case Summary.

(iii) Furthermore, in the Register of Actions each line item would be associated with a
clerk’s user login and password, as well as login time and date. Therefore – in fact –
digital signatures. In contrast – the “Case Summary” does not even record the initials of
the clerks who entered the data, and therefore, the writing would be inherently invalid.

(iv) Finally, according to California law, and also according to the local Rules of Court
of LA County, 19 the judgment had to be signed by the judge in two copies, one should
have been entered in the court file, according to procedures for entry of papers, and the
other had to be entered in the Book of Judgment, and special laws governed the entry
and notice of entry of judgment. The California law was and is explicit – that if the
judgment was not entered as required, it was not effectual for any purpose at all!
 z Page 5/14 October 13, 2009

Here –again I faced an intractable problem. The office of the Clerk of the Court, JOHN A
CLARKE - I requested numerous time to inspect the Book of Judgments, and I was
repeatedly told that there was no such thing in Los Angeles County for the past 25 years!
However, the Local Rules of Court stated the opposite. In any event – there was no way that
I could figure out what the true and correct procedure would be today, in LA County, for the
entry of judgment, if there were no Book of Judgments. 20

I believe that such conditions, in themselves were so vague and ambiguous, that even if all
other defects were cured, and even if we were permitted to sneak a peak at the Register of
Actions, and found that the Judgment was registered with an Order of Entry of Judgment, not
even the most brilliant jurist could figure out for a given Judgment record, whether it was
entered as an effectual Judgment or not, in the absence of Book of Judgments, and when
California law and the Local Rules of Court prescribe an entry in the Book of Judgments as
prerequisite for entering a judgment and making it an effectual judgment.

The questions that immediately come to mind are obvious:

Why would an honest court defy the law on such a central issue as
making its judgments vague and ambiguous?

Why would an honest court operate for a quarter-century without

Freeway Downtown
updating its Rules of Court on a central issue such as entry of
judgment?

The answer is rather clear – the evidence indicated that judges of the LA Superior Court
engaged in real estate fraud, founded on the ambiguity in entry of judgments. 21 Moreover,
such fraud as in the referenced opinion letter was committed by an attorney who purportedly
as a “Receiver”, under direct supervision of Judge David Yaffe – who is in charge of
Receivers and Writs. In that respect one should also note that a recent news report tied the
former Presiding Judge of the neighboring San Bernardino County, member of the California
Judicial Council, to numerous cases of real estate fraud in the court.22 One should note, that
Marina v LA County, the case underlying the arrest of Atty Fine, was a real estate litigation as
well.

One must also fault the U.S. Court for allowing such conditions to prevail in Los Angeles
County, relative to the concealed Register of Actions and the hidden or non existent Book of
Judgments. Such conditions opened a huge opening for dishonest manipulations – as in the
case at hand. Moreover, on both the question of the missing Register of Actions, and the
question of the missing record of entry of Judgment in a Book of Judgment - I shall provide
first hand, personal knowledge testimony: Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE’s conduct - in not
noticing those two humongous defects, and others - was no oversight!

Again – there was and there is no doubt that upon review by Human Rights Court, pursuant
to ratified International Law, such practices as related to entry of judgment at the Los Angeles
Superior Court- would be found as severe abuse of Human Rights of the 10 millions who
reside in the County. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was generated
largely through efforts of then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. – Leonor Roosevelt, about half or
more, of the first dozen Human Rights are directly tied to the establishment and safeguard of
honest tribunals by the government of the country. 23

c) March 4, 2009 Remand Order 24 – There is no mention of it at all in the online “Case
Summary”, it simply did not exist according to the Case Summary. Moreover, it also failed to
z Page 6/14 October 13, 2009

appear among the records that have “Available Images”, therefore- it presumably did not
exist in the court file either.

d) March 4, 2009 Minute Order 25– although it was not included in litigation records by any
of the parties, one could find online among the “available images”, a March 4, 2009 Minute
Order. Existence of such minute order could be claimed to contradict the Case History where
no proceeding was listed for March 4, 2009. However, the March 4, 2009 minute order
makes the history if anything more murky:

(i) The March 4, 2009 Minute Order was not served or noticed, or at least – there is no
record of that as is required by law, and therefore it was not a valid court record. Albeit -
it did appear among the “Available Images”. But then again – it was known to be the
practice at the LA Superior Court – the court automatically “waived” the right for service
and notice. And just as was the case with the hidden Registers of Actions and the non-
existing Book of Judgments, such custom opened the way for extreme alleged corruption
of the court – from missing minute orders of “off the record” proceedings, to fictitious
minute orders of proceedings that never took place in reality, and finally – the common
practice of secretly “disposing” of minute orders that reflected pronouncements from the
bench, and which appeared in paper court file as valid minute orders.26, 27

(ii) Any reasonable person who never read the press reports of the proceeding of March 4,
2009, upon reading the March 4, 2009 Minute Order, would be convinced that Judge
DAVID YAFFE never issued a final sentencing on that day! The minute order discusses
the sentencing in some detail, but its language at the bottom line implied that no
sentencing was issued.

In sum: If one based his knowledge of the case on the online “Case History” and “Available
Record Images” alone, there would be no way to conclude that attorney RICHARD FINE was
ever jailed, or for that matter – that Judge DAVID YAFFE ever issued a final sentence, let
alone entered a judgment, in the Bench Trial of the Contempt.

6. Accounting for the records

a) Register of Actions – key record for establishing the validity of the case as a whole, was
not available.

b) Book of Judgments – was not available – does not exists.

c) March 4th , 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt in re: Richard I Fine: I believe that
any reasonable person would conclude that this record was invalid on its face:

i. On its front page it was stamped “FILED” with the date stamp of March 4, 2009.
However, on it last page, it was hand signed by Judge David Yaffe, with the date
hand inscribed as “March 24, 2009”. One may engage in various speculations as
to what was the state of this record when it was faxed over to the Sheriff’s office,
and when exactly that notation of March 24, 2009 was inscribed. But there was no
way that any of the speculative scenarios would provide an option that would allow
to deem this record valid and honest, effectual court record of a judgment.
z Page 7/14 October 13, 2009

Again – the question may arise: How could such a glaring defect escape the Triers
of Facts in this case.

ii. Furthermore, the Judgment record came with no authentication – there was no
proof of service and notice of entry by the clerk, it was simply missing.

Attorney Richard Fine communicated to me that on March 4, 2009, he had in court

in his possession only the unsigned Proposed Judgment, but not the final signed
judgment. There was no evidence from any other source that even suggested that
the judgment was ever served, noticed, and entered.

d) March 4th, 2009 Remand Order- The Remand Order appeared as the incorrect
instrument in this case, and it also appeared incorrectly completed as for its details – but
such issue was way above my understanding, and I would leave it for the Sheriff
Department to answer these questions.
However, even for a layperson, the Remand Order appeared defective on other counts:
(i) There was no mention of it in the Case History,
(ii) There was no image of it among the “Available Images”, indicating that it was not
found in court file either, and
(iii) It was never served on Att Richard Fine either.

7. According to news reports, the court reporter’s transcript, Inmate Information, and
“fill in” of the missing details, the following script was generated.

The March 4, 2009 hearing probably started around 9:00 am. A large group of sheriff
deputies were present in the courtroom throughout (about 10 according to news report),
which were described in the booking record as the “LASD-WARRANT DETAIL”.
Fill-in needed:
i. Who gave the Sheriff the advance notice that an arrest was anticipated?
ii. The name of the unit implied that a warrant had to be somewhere, somehow part of the process. What were the
standard procedures in such circumstances relative to service of judgment and warrant?
iii. Were the standard procedures of the Sheriff Department indeed followed?

a) During the proceedings Judge David Yaffe engaged in reviewing the specifics of the
judgment, and in conclusion, the transcript cites him as verbally sentencing Att Richard
Fine to jail for contempt, until such time when Att Fine would notify the court that he was
ready to accept the authority of Commissioner Murray Gross. News report were
consistent with the Transcript on this issue. The refusal to accept the authority of
Commissioner Murray Gross was the essence of the conviction of contempt. Judge
David Yaffe eliminated any other charge that could possibly be the foundation for the
prolonged jailing. However, as noted before, sentencing and judgment by oral
transmission were never part of either California or the U.S. law… Judgments must be
based in writings, conforming with the fundamentals of the law.

b) Immediately after that, Judge Yaffe left the courtroom, and the Warrant Detail arrested Att
Richard Fine at 11:05 am, He was transferred out of court and to Sheriff facilities.
Fill-in needed:
iv. What was missing in the sequence described above was any process related to service or exchange of papers,
e.g. – the judgment, after the corrections, should have been signed by the judge, and served on all parties, if it
were to be executed instantly.
v. Similarly – some paper of the nature of a warrant should have been issued and served, to authorize the warrant
detail to execute the arrest. None of that was reported.
z Page 8/14 October 13, 2009

c) Richard Fine was taken first to a Reception Facility of the Sheriff’s Department. According
to the booking record – Richard Fine was booked at 12:23pm, at the San Pedro Court,
Municipal Division 86.

Fill-in needed:
vi. Was this standard procedure?
vii. Wasn’t it an unnecessary detour? Judge David Yaffe’s Courtroom was at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse,
YAFFE, DAVID Judge Stanley Mosk Courthouse 86

viii. The MCJ (Men’s Central Jail) was less than 1 mile away, and the San Pedro Sheriff Station was 24
miles away.
ix. Was the San Pedro Station at all equipped for inmate intake?
The Twin Towers Jail included the large professional facility of IRC (Inmate Reception Center), headed by
Captain Gerald K. Cooper. It was listed as holding a staff of 800, some 450 of them deemed professional
staff, capable of administering various screening procedures that were conducted as a routine for all newly
arriving inmates, including medical and mental screening. One must commend the Sheriff’s department for the
emphasis in budget and personnel given to the Imamate Reception Center. It surely reflects an enlightened
approach to correction facility management.
The Custody and Correctional Facilities of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department as listed online, included: 1.
IRC (Inmate Reception Center) at TTCJ, 2. Men's Central Jail, 3. Twin Towers, 4. Century Regional Detention
Facility, 5. Mira Loma Detention Center, 6. Pitchess Detention Center (The Ranch): a. East Facility , b. North
Facility, 7. North County Correctional Facility.
San Pedro Sheriff Station was not listed as one of the Custody and Correctional Facilities. The San Pedro
facility appeared to be a small or more appropriately described as minute station serving the miniscule
courthouse it was housed in. The Courthouse itself was listed by the LA Superior Court as “San Pedro
Annex”, and it was listed as holding the following judges and departments:
1. PAUL, ROY Judge San Pedro Courthouse Annex 88C

x. Did Inmate Richard Fine ever benefit from a reception screening as was accorded to other incoming inmates?
xi. Why wasn’t he booked at the IRC of MCJ itself?
xii. Did Municipal Division 86 exist at all at San Pedro? Or was it a reference to David Yaffe’s Courtroom,
Department 86, albeit – not in San Pedro?
xiii. Was Richard Fine indeed detoured to San Pedro on March 4, 2009?

e) The reception procedure must involve a officer of the Sheriff Department of sufficient rank
to be authorized by Sheriff Lee Baca to make a determination regarding the validity of the
legal foundation of the arrest and jailing, as well as other professional determinations.
Fill-in needed:
xiv. Who was the Sheriff Deputy who signed off on Att Richard Fine’s booking at 12:23 pm in San Pedro?
xv. Did the procedure include any verification of valid papers as foundation for the arrest and jailing?
xvi. Were there any papers in the Sheriff’s Warrant Detail’s possession at that time that could possibly constitute
the foundation for the arrest and the jailing?
xvii. Absent such papers, what would be the Sheriff Department’s procedure to follow under such
circumstances?
xviii. Were such set standard procedures indeed followed?
xix. If not, why?

f) At 4:31 pm, on March 4, 2009, papers that were later filed in court by Att McCormick, as
the foundation for Att Richard Fine’s jailing, were received by fax transmission, The
sender was identified in the fax header imprint as line number (213) 626 795# (the last
digit was illegible). identified as Judicial services. By reverse lookup of the related
numbers and google mapping, it was likely to have originated at the Mosk courthouse.
 z Page 9/14 October 13, 2009

ID: 31
CONTINENT: North America
COUNTRY: US
STATE: CA
LOCATION: Los Angeles (downtown)
LATITUDE: 34.05
LONGITUDE: -118.23
ELEVATION_:269

Fill-in needed:
xx. Was it standard procedure to send and receive anonymous fax transmissions regarding critical legal matters?
xxi. Was the authentication record for this transmission on a separate record?
This fax transmission included critical legal documents, but it appeared as a 15 page fax transmission with no
cover page, and no indication who it was sent by and who was the receiver. Needless to say, one must
wonder about compliance with the evidence code by Att KEVIN MCCORMICK who filed such records as
critical evidence, with anonymous authentication, and also Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE, who seemed to not
notice so many of the inherent defects in Att MCCORMICK’s filing.
xxii. Who was the sender? By what authority was such record issued? By what authority was it faxed?
xxiii. Who was the receiver?
xxiv. Where was Richard Fine physically at that time?
xxv. What was his intake status prior to receipt of the fax?
xxvi. What was his intake status following receipt of the fax?
xxvii. Who signed on the intake relative to these papers?
xxviii. Was that person authorized?
xxix. What was the determination of such Sheriff Deputy relative to validity of such records as the foundation for the
jailing?

g) On or about March 4, 2009, at an unknown time, Richard Fine was transported from
San Pedro (if he indeed was detoured to that station first), to the Twin Tower Jail.
Fill-in needed:
xxx. Wouldn’t such transfer require a real Remand Order or some other record?
xxxi. Who signed it off? At what time and place?
xxxii. Was it done in compliance with Sheriff’s procedures?

h) On or about March 4, 2009, at an unknown time, Richard Fine arrived at Twin

Facade - Twin Tower Jail
Towers, and eventually was housed in the medical facility, according to news
reports, in what may be called solitary confinement. Moreover, according to reports,
he never even left his cell for a walk in the open yard for several months at a time. In
the initial period he was denied access to pen and paper. He was also denied the
right to visit the legal library. His housing was rather isolated, to the degree that it
allowed an LA Times female journalist to sneak in, interview him at a time that such
interview were prohibited, and sneak out, without any authorization by the Sheriff’s
Department.

Housed in such manner, Richard Fine did not participate in prisoner counts during
his confinement at the Twin Tower Jail. All other inmates were counted three times a
day, in a formal procedure, and the count had to be reconciled and cleared, before
the inmates were dismissed from attention at the count routine.
Fill in Needed:
xxxiii. Did Richard Fine ever conclude a Reception procedure at Twin Towers?
xxxiv. If so, who signed it off? Was that person authorized? Was the person compliant with sheriff’s
procedures?
xxxv. Does Richard Fine’s name appear today in the Index of All Inmates of Twin Towers?
 z Page 10/14 October 13, 2009

xxxvi. It appeared logical that the reconciliation would be against an Index of All Inmates, which would be
constructed by adding on to the Index the records of inmates, who completed the reception procedure and
were signed in by authorized sheriff’s deputy, on the one hand, and by eliminating the Index records of
inmates, who were remanded to court, to other facilities, or released.
xxxvii. Was Richard Fine ever enumerated in the months since March 4, 2009 in any count of inmates?
xxxviii. Would it be correct to describe him as an “off the record”, “off the count” inmate?

i) On or about March 19, 2009, at 13:06 RICHARD FINE was Assigned Permanent Housing. He was
permanently house at CJ – the same facility he was already in, and not at the TTCF (Twin
Tower Central Facility). Address: 441 BAUCHET STREET City: LOS ANGELES. At the time of
permanent housing assignment, a Sheriff Deputy had to review the records again, and
Cells at Twin Tower
again - professional determinations had to be made, which were essential in any effort to
Jail address properly the legal, civil and human rights of RICHARD FINE, or any other
inmate for that purpose, American or just plain human.
Fill in Needed:
xxxix. Who was the Sheriff Deputy who signed off on the Permanent Housing assignment?
xl.Was that person authorized? Was the person following sheriff’s procedures?
xli. What was the basis for the unusual housing assignment for Richard Fine?

8. Conclusion

Based on the review above, as well as review of the docket 28 of the litigation of the habeas
corpus petition of Atty RICHARD FINE it was concluded that there was no evidence that Judge
DAVID YAFFE ever saw the filing entered on his behalf by Atty KEVIN MCCORMICK, either
before or after its filing. In fact, it appeared only logical and consistent with all the other
records, that engagement was framed in a manner that Atty McCormick was precluded from
any communications with Judge DAVID YAFFE. Even in an adversarial system it is deemed
inconceivable for the court to engage in such litigation practices in order to affect the false
imprisonment of a person. Therefore, a notice was sent to Judge DAVID YAFFE 29 requesting
that he confirm that such papers as were filed by Att McCormick were indeed filed on his
behalf. No answer was received so far.

9. Appeal:

a) Appeal that the Sheriff review the validity of the records that are the foundation
for the holding of RICHARD FINE, to verify that they conform with the
fundamentals of the law.

Based on the review above, of litigation chronology, appeal is filed with to Los Angeles Sheriff
to review the circumstances and the records pertaining to the arrest, booking and reception
and permanent housing of Inmate RICHARD FINE (CJ inmate #1824367). It appears likely
that some or most of the records may not be valid and effectual records. Specifically – it
appears that at the time of the arrest, at 11:05 am on March 4, 2009, there was no valid
warrant to form the foundation for such action. Similarly, it is greatly doubted, and there
is no evidence that any record existed by 12:32 pm, at the time reported for the booking.

Even at the time of Permanent Housing Assignment, it is alleged that there were no valid
records to substantiate the holding of RICHARD FINE, since both the March 4, 2009
Judgment, and the March 4, 2009 Remand Order, are invalid records.
 z Page 11/14 October 13, 2009

Furthermore, it is argued that even if such records were valid, the fact that the court
created double or triple records that were diametrically opposite, renders all such
records invalid on their face.

The Blue Ribbon

b) In case the records do not conform with the law – appeal for the immediate
Review Panel Report release of RICHARD FINE
(2006)
This appeal is filed with the Los Angeles Sheriff under the belief that it is both his duty and his
authority to engage in such review, and to release RICHARD FINE if he concludes that there is
no records conforming with the law to substantiate the ongoing holding.

c) It is hoped that such action would mark the beginning a new effort to reform the
Los Angeles County justice system, and free the Rampart-FIPs

It is hoped that the Sheriff would establish an anchor of integrity in the justice system of Los
Angeles County, and that the U.S. government will follow through and compel the LA
Superior Court to comply with the law relative to public access to court records such as the
Registers of Actions and the Book of Judgments or equivalent, and minute orders.

Request to that effect was filed over a year ago with the U.S. Department of Justice,
specifically – asking for the appointment of a Special Counsel pursuant to 28 CFR §600 with
the specific short term mandate to investigate and prosecute the denial of public access to
public records in Los Angeles County, California. It was recommended at the time, that in
parallel, there would be a need to establish “Truth and Reconciliation Committees”, since it is
alleged, that the nature of the records that would be found, would amount to catalogues of
criminality of the judiciary, based on records that have been so far reviewed.

Responses provided at that time by KENNETH MELSON-Director, U.S. Department of Justice,

and KENNETH KAISER – Assistant Director, FBI, to inquiries on my behalf by Senator DIANNE
FEINSTEIN and Congresswoman DIANE WATSON, were deemed false and deliberately
misleading.

Events of the year that passed, and not the least the jailing of Att RICHARD FINE, demonstrated
that the claims I made then were true and accurate. In fact, the claims of widespread
corruption of the judiciary in Los Angeles County was confirmed by no other than the
California Judicial Council and the California Governor. In February 2009, the California
Senate passed a bill providing pardon for all Los Angeles County judges for alleged past
criminality, at the urging of the California Judicial Council…30

It is therefore hoped that the new Attorney General – ERIC HOLDER, would indeed appoint
such Special Counsel to ensure public access to public court records, which is an essential
common law and Human Right It is also believed that allowing such access would lead to
speedy release of the Rampart –FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons). 31 They are almost
exclusively black and Hispanic, and their number is unknown, but was estimated at more
than 10,000. Their ongoing imprisonment, a decade after they were shown to have been
falsely convicted and falsely sentenced is a human rights disgrace of historic proportions!

10. Copies of this appeal is widely distributed, as were previous communications on

the matter.
 z Page 12/14 October 13, 2009

This message is copied to most of the Stanford law school faculty, as well as the Harvard
Law school faculty- hoping that somebody who is knowledgeable about the law would speak
up, particularly regarding the denial of a public access to court records.

It is also copied to the staff of the Judiciary Committees of House and Senate, who have
been asked for over a year to run a hearing on the alleged widespread corruption of the
courts in Los Angeles County, California.

This letter is copied to various OIGs and other offices of the DOJ and various law
enforcement agencies.

In addition, this message is copied to the Basel Committee on International banking accords
– since there is no chance of improvement in the U.S. banking regulatory system, as long as
the justice system that it is part of, gains some level of integrity. Furthermore, it was alleged
that the corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County is directly connected to alleged
racketeering by Countrywide Legal Department - now part of the Bank of America General
Counsel office.

This letter is copied to the Chinese embassy, Washington DC – with over $2 trillion reserves
in dollar denominations, they are major stakeholders in our banking system as well. The
issue of integrity of the U.S. banking and regulatory system was reported as central in the
May 2009 visit by Treasury Secretary Geithner, which was described as “difficult”… We are
left to hope that the Chinese Government would make not only the integrity of the Banking
system, but improvement of the of Human Rights record of the U.S. government –key
conditions for any accommodations on currency exchange rates.32

This letter is also copied to the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights.

KENNETH MELSON Respectfully submitted,

Director
US Dept of Justice Dated: October 13, 2009

Los Angeles County, California ________/s/ Joseph H Zernik______

JOSEPH H ZERNIK

1
Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca welcome message:
http://inproperinla.com/09-10-12-sheriff-department-of-los-angeles-county-sheriff-lee-baca-s-message-s.pdf
2
Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
KENNETH KAISER
3
Assistant Director, FBI Marina v LA County (BS109420) at the Los Angeles Superior Court, the jailing of Att Richard Fine
Criminal Investigations purportedly was the outcome of ancillary proceeding on contempt under this caption.
4
Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
5
Inmate Information for Richard fine
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-21-richard-fine-inmate-information-center-%20booking-details.pdf
6
Inmate Information for Ronald Gottschalk
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-banl-persons-goa_09-10-08-booking-record-gottschalck-ronald.pdf
7
Description of the facility, resources, budgets, staff and procedures at the Inmate Reception Center (IRC) at Twin
Towers facility.
z Page 13/14 October 13, 2009

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-
disuea_lasda_lasd_Los%20Angeles%20County%20Sheriff's%20Department%20-
%20Correctional%20Services%20Division%20-%20Inmate%20Reception%20Center.pdf
8
Steven Ellis, Metropolitan News, March 5, 2009 – report of arrest of Richard Fine:
Mr Steven Ellis informed me that he himself was not present in the proceedings, but that he interviewed sources,
who were present at the proceedings, and was confident that his report could be relied upon
http://inproperinla.com/09-03-05-met-news-court-sentences-disbarred-attorney-fine-to-jail-for-contempt.pdf
9
Leslie Dutton, Full Disclosure Network, March 4, 2009 – report of arrest of Richard Fine.
http://inproperinla.com/09-03-04-full-disclosure-network-att-richard-fine-jailed-in-attempt-to-disqualify-la-judge.pdf
10
Marina v LA County (BS109420) at the Los Angeles Superior Court, the jailing of Att Richard Fine
purportedly was the outcome of ancillary proceeding on contempt under this caption.
11
Page 1 of Register of Actions from Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) with false notation: Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc, Real Parties in Interest…
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-register-of-actions-page-1-sustain-s.pdf
12
The names of Justices Kozinski, Tallman, and Paez, were listed on a June 30, 2009 unsigned order issued by
th
the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9 Circuit in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf
13
Papers filed May 1, 2009 by Att Kevin McCormick, as part of the Response to the Atty Richard Fine’s Habeas
Corpus Petition: Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-cv-01914)

a) Response/Answer to the habeas corpus petition - on behalf of Judge David Yaffe - by Atty Kevin McCormick,
failing to include a declaration by Judge Yaffe. (Dkt #15)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-15_reponse-by-judge-yaffe-&-la-sup-ct-
f&e-may-1-2009.pdf

b) Declaration of Att McCormick in support of the Answer (Dkt #16-1)

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-1_declaration-by-counselfor-la-sup-
ct-in-support-of-response-f&e-may-1-2009.pdf

c) Exhibit A to the Declaration – (a) March 4, 2009 Remand Order, and (b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of
Contempt (Dkt #16-2):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-ofcontempt-in-
marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf

d) Exhibit B to the Declaration - March 27, 2008 Order Striking Notice of Disqualification (Dkt #16-3)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-3_exh-b-yaffe-strikingfine-statement-
of-disqualification.pdf

e) Exhibit D to the Declaration - March 4, 2009 Transcript (Dkt #16-5):

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-5_transcript-of-march-4-2009.pdf
14
Transcript of Proceedings of March 4, 2009 that led to the arrest and jailing of Atty Richard Fine.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-5_transcript-of-march-4-2009.pdf
15
List of “Available Record Images” from LA Superior Court Marina v LA County (BS109420)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-a-09-07-17-available-online-records-s.pdf
16
“Case Summary” – published by the court online, with a disclaimer that it should not be relied upon.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-a-09-06-24-case-summary-s.pdf
17
Disclaimer by the LA Superior Court in re: Online Case Summary. Published by the court.
http://inproperinla.com/09-10-12-los-angeles-superior-court-disclaimer-s.pdf
18
March 4, 2009 Remand Order, and (b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt (Dkt #16-2):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-ofcontempt-in-
marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
z Page 14/14 October 13, 2009

19
Local Rules of Court of LA County in re: Entry of Judgment:
Rules pertaining to Judgment – Chapter 3, Rules pertaining to the duty of the Clerk of Court to maintain public Book
of Judgment and public Registers of Actions:
http://inproperinla.com/09-10-12-los-angeles-superior-court-rules-of-court-s.pdf
20
Attempt to review conditions today in LA County relative to entry of judgment:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-conclusions-us-constitution-non-compliance.pdf
21
Opinion letter by highly decorated veteran FBI agent and fraud expert James Wedick:
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opinion-s.pdf
22
Report from San Bernardino County, California – tying the former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court to real
estate fraud cases:
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-11-former-san-bernardino-county-superior-court-presiding-judge-sustpect-of-real-
estate-frauds-san-bernardino-county-sentinel.pdf
23
. Universal Declaration of Human Rights- ratified International Law
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-international-ratified-48-12-10-the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights.pdf
24
March 4, 2009 Remand Order, and (b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt (Dkt #16-2):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-ofcontempt-in-
marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
25
March 4, 2009 – Minute Order of proceedings in Marina v LA County (BS109420)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-minute-order.pdf
26
Evidence for corrupt court records based, among other matters on manipulation of hidden minute orders:
Evidence for alleged fraud in the LA County case management system SUSTAIN
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-computers-&-the-courts-abstract-&-figures.pdf
27
Of note, all three factors listed relative to lack of integrity in operation of the LA Superior Court – namely – hidden
Registers of Actions, hidden Book of Judgment, and “waiver” of service and notice of Minute Orders, are directly
tied to the operation of SUSTAIN – the court’s case management system. Opinion letter relative to operation of
Sustain:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-opinion-letter-09-04-20-eli-shamir-opinion-letter-s.pdf
28
Docket of the petition under Fine v Sheriff Dept of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) :
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-09-06-08-docket.pdf
29
Letter addressed to Judge David Yaffe
http://inproperinla.com/09-10-11-letter-judge-yaffe-confirm-papers-filed-under-his-name.pdf

30
Sbx 2-11 a bill offering the LA Superior Court judges pardon for past criminalities, and offering them indemnity for
future criminalities, signed into law on February 20, 2009.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-02-20-sbx-2-11-budge-bill.pdf
31

a) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-
FIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of
Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from Guild Practitioner
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf

b) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned
by the LAPD itself, led by civil rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf

b) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA
District Attorney office, 15,000 by criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001,
updated 2005)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
32
Report of secretary of the Treasury Geithner May 2009 visit to Beijing.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-china-09-05-30-geithner-trip_npr.pdf