Monday, November 30, 2009

09-11-30 Principled Editorial Policies

Principled- - - - - - - - -- -- editorial policies
Recently I went through some of the very first postings, from late 2007. I find them eerily insightful. It was at times difficult for me to assess what I knew when. But reading back those blog postings, it became clear that I knew even then that the litigation I was trapped at by the LA Superior Court was a hoax by criminal judges. However, I did not have the confidence to state so openly. I posed it as questions, based on statistical improbabilities... such as:

  • What are the odds of a civil unlimited litigation going through 5 judges in two years... (Neidorff, Connor, Goodman, Biderman, of that time)

No doubt it was multi-factorial - I filed routinely disqualifications for a cause, which basically stated that such judges were dishonestly engaged in a real-estate fraud... The clear excetion was Joseph Biderman, who recused within 24 hours from having the file dumped on him, and refused to act in the case in any way shape or form...
He was the only one out of about 12 judges who were directly involved so far in the case who acted that way. Therefore, I considered the statement by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006), that the justice system in LA County had "a subcult of criminality tolerated in the ranks" a vast understatement. Joseph Biderman was possibly the subcult at the LA Superior Court, otherwise - it was "the dominant denomination of criminality from the deck hands to the helm"...

Sometimes in reading these old posts, I feel like editing a word here or there. However, to maintain the authenticity of this blog, let me state a clear and principled editorial policy on this issue:
  1. I would not change a word in the body of any posting older than 60 days.
  2. In cases that are not older than 60 days, I would introduce only the following editing in the body of the postings: (a) complete postings that were left as drafts; (b) Add links in cases where I left links marked, but incomplete.
  3. In cases that were older than 60 days, only the following editing might be introduced: (a) Titles would be made consistent by adding dates, adjusting upper/lower case; (b) Titles would be made more informative, in necessary, but only through additions, in parenthesis, at the end of the old title e.g. BRIEF UPDATE was converted into: 07-10-13 Brief update (false referee - retired judge Gregory O'Brien); (c) No old images would be removed, but if no images were included, images might be added, with date of addition in parenthesis in the caption.
  4. Voice, or music, might be added - again, date of addition would be marked.

09-11-30 Note left on US Congress site - in re: Fraud Enforcement & Recovery Act (2009)

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008) & Fraud Enforcement & Recovery Act (2009) would make no difference whatsoever, as long as FBI, banking regulators, and U.S. courts refuse to enforce the law on major financial institutions. [1]

This note is forwarded from Los Angeles County, California, the "epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud", and home to a justice system, which "tolerated a subcult of criminality in its ranks".[2] In short - we need U.S. Congress to focus its efforts on more oversight, less legislation.

[1] Responses by Kenneth Kaiser (FBI) and Kenneth Melson (USDOJ) to U.S. Congress (2008), deemed fraud and deceit:
[2] Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006);

09-11-30 Site counts - page views exceeded 10,000

- -

The digital counter display, and more so the cluster map, were recent additions. Even the Site Meter, cited below, was not installed for many months.

-- Site Summary ---
Visits Total ........................ 6,220
Average per Day ................. 36
Average Visit Length .......... 4:42
This Week ...................... 251
Page Views Total ....................... 10,573
Average per Day ................. 75
Average per Visit .............. 2.1
This Week ...................... 523
What I considered deficient was readers' responses - but then again - most people, especially lawyers, would never go on the record on the subjects covered in this blog, not even anonymously. Let me encourage any reader, particularly those red dots outside the U.S. to leave their comments.
Locations of visitors to this page
The interest found in this site outside the U.S. is encouraging. It still shows a gap around Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran... to form a nice belt around the globe. Let's hope that some surfers find interest this blog in these countries as well. At least in Iraq - where the U.S. Government is claiming to restore justice and the court system... Buyer beware...

Sunday, November 29, 2009

09-11-29 FBI and U.S. Attorney Office, Los Angeles - MIAs

Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:35:42 -0800
To: "Attention Robert S Mueller III - FBI Director & FBI LA" , FBI Field Offices, and FBI and U.S. Attorney Office, Los Angeles
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Kindly requesting FBI Field Offices to conduct ASAP Peace and Welfare procedures on FBI & U.S. Attorney Office, Los Angeles - are they still alive and well?
Cc: "Several hundred email addresses at US Congress US Department of Justice, US Law Enforcement Agencies, US Secret Service, Law School Faculty, Law Firms, Judicial Accountability Organizations"

graphic banner for FBI  Los Angeles
RE: Kindly requesting FBI Field Offices to conduct ASAP Peace and Welfare procedures on FBI & U.S. Attorney Office, Los Angeles - are they still alive and well?
Dear Director Mueller, FBI Dallas, and FBI Field Offices across the U.S.:-
Thanks to the Dallas and other field offices for the expedient acknowledgments. Acknowledgements are routinely received from FBI Field Offices across the country, with the conspicuous exception of FBI & U.S. Attorney Office, Los Angeles. MIA (Missing In Action) status suspected. Please accept this notice as a kindly request to conduct on FBI & U.S. Attorney Office, Los Angeles, Peace & Welfare procedures ASAP, and let me know:
  • Are FBI and U.S. Attorney Office, Los Angeles, still live and well?
  • Are FBI and U.S. Attorney Office, Los Angeles, still functional?
  • Any chance that FBI would take action on the matters of Jacqueline Connor, David Yaffe and Widespread Judicial Corruption in Los Angeles?
It was a disgrace for the U.S. justice system in general, and FBI in particular... The sight of a judge, doubling as central organized crime figure, presiding in the First Rampart Trial (2000), then deliberately derailing it by reversing jury verdict... Thousands of innocent citizens - the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) - were left imprisoned for a full decade in the aftermath. It was, and it is, a Human Rights disgrace of historic proportions.
  • Please take expedient action to free the thousands RAMPART-FIPs.
What we see in Los Angeles today - the false imprisonment of Richard Fine by corrupt Judge David Yaffe, is the direct extension of the Rampart scandal...
  • Please take expedient action to free RICHARD FINE,


Up is Down

Grass is blue, sky is green, prose can rhyme, &
the justice system is a partner in crime
The justice system in Los Angeles, California - officially recognized as widely corrupt.
Calling upon President Obama - please free the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons) - please free Atty Richard Fine

· UC IRVINE LAW SCHOOL FOUNDING DEAN: Best short review of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) massive probe (2-year, 200 investigators) - How the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - Why the justice system in LA County is fit for "the most repressive dictators and police states" - By renowned constitutional scholar -The Rampart Scandal and the criminal justice system of Los Angeles County (2000) - Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - Guild Practitioner 57:121
· LAPD BLUE RIBBON REVIEW PANEL: 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, Atty Connie Rice - established LA County justice system as corrupt, and called for "External Investigation" - which was never instituted - Rampart reconsidered (2006) - LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report
· PBS FRONTLINE: One reference for the 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 - LAPD Blues -False Imprisonments (2001, updated 2008) - PBS Frontline
· FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine, 70 yo, former U.S. prosecutor, anti-judicial corruption activist, from jail, in Los Angeles Twin Towers - 911 phone call from Atty Richard Fine (2009) - Full Disclosure Network
· WIKIPEDIA: Ongoing False Imprisonment of anti-judicial activist - Richard I Fine (2009) -Wikipedia
· U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE: On partnership in illicit drug imports to LA - CIA Drug Trafficking to LA County (1997) -Special Report of the U.S. Dept of Justice Inspector General

Dr Z
Joseph H Zernik, PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750; E-Mail:; Fax: (801) 998-0917

09-11-29 Real Way to bring justice to judges - Alex Kozinski as best example.

Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:13:23 -0800
To: CTBC Director
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Real Way to bring justice to judges - Alex Kozinski as best example.
Cc: [redacted]
Bcc: [redacted]
RE: Real Way to bring justice to judges - Alex Kozinski as best example.

Dear All:
I fully agreed with the messages below. "The Light of Publicity" and "Voting Them Out" could obviously be parts of the same in many instances. As far as "picking ONE really good example of BAD judicial behavior" - my favorite was Alex Kozinski. As noted in the example from Colorado, it simply did not make sense to deal with small fish. You had to start from the top.
Alex Kozinski provided an example that was second to none, and as close to perfection in "BAD judicial behavior" as you could get:
  • The offending conduct was simple, easy to explain to any person.
  • It did not involve any complicated concepts such as Judicial Activism, Disqualification, Conflicts of Interest, Bias, etc.
  • It could be summed up in a sound-bite of 10-15 seconds in lay parlance: "Alex Kozinski was Chief Judge of a Court that was second only to the U.S. Supreme Court in authority. Alex Kozinski issued a fake order that looked like a true court order. Alex Kozinski did so to keep in jail a 70 yo guy who was fighting against corrupt judges in Los Angeles. The guy was kept in jail with no papers at all - not even a warrant - by now for 7 months."
  • It could be even more simply explained in lay parlance, covering only the implied guarantee of honest services as follows: Let's say you owed a guy $10,000, but you knew he was in jail, and could not do anything about it. So you just sent him a check for $10,000 - unsigned.
  • The visuals are second to none - Twin Towers Jail, etc, we even have videos of various aspects of the case.
  • It involved the deprivation of Liberty itself.
  • The true subject matter was cover-up of Judicial Corruption - it kept the whole matter in focus, by bringing you back to the subject itself.
  • The criminality alleged in the conduct of Alex Kozinski in this case was likely not to be covered by any immunity whatsoever, It was part of extrajudicial conduct that was fraudulently represented as judicial conduct.
  • The evidence consisted of total of one (1) document and two (2) pages (below).
  • The offending fraudulent text was merely 167 words (MS Word 2000) (see below)
  • Almost nothing else was required for evidence (The docket would also be required - a fraud court record in and of itself).
  • Whatever Richard Fine wrote or did not write in his petition did not even matter here.
  • The case in full could be argued in one page, or one paragraph.
I do not think that any PR person or media consultant could ask for any better case than this.

Joseph Zernik
Richard Posner
Richard Posner, Professor
University of Chicago Law School
Law Faculty of various schools
By email and by fax, as a kindly request that Prof Posner initiate corrective actions pursuant to the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges.
Alex Kozinski
Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Alleged criminal conduct from the bench, fraud that was not covered by any immunity whatsoever.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued on June 30, 2009 an unsigned, unauthenticated, false and deliberately misleading, purported Order (Dkt #4) in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) ("Order" -Exh #1). Such alleged fraud in the issuance and misrepresentation of False Court Records was compounded by alleged Mail Fraud. The alleged fraudulent Order was purported to be served through alleged Mail Fraud on Richard Fine in jail, and on Joseph Zernik at his home address.
The alleged fraud in the subject matter of the Order involved the purported denial of the Emergency Petition of Richard Fine to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Emergency Petition originated from a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
In such conduct, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, affected the alleged Denial of Access to the Courts, Denial of Fair and Impartial Hearing, violation of Implied Guarantee of Honest Services, continued False Imprisonment, by now - for over 7 months, with no warrant, no judgment, no sentencing, of anti-judicial corruption activist Atty Richard Fine.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski allegedly denied Richard Fine Liberty itself.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski set an example permitting conduct that was common practice in courts throughout the U.S. today - issuing invalid, ineffectual, unauthenticated, and at times also unsigned, orders and judgments that were contrary to the law in their subject matter, but were deemed inconsequential by the issuers, since they such orders unauthenticated, and/or unsigned. It was alleged that such perversion of justice was the most common, serious abuse of Human Rights in the U.S. today. It was routinely practiced on habeas corpus petitioners, who were unlikely to be able to tell whether court papers were or were not authenticated, valid, and effectual.
Such conduct must not be tolerated. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski must initiate corrective actions in compliance with the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges - by immediately resigning from his position as U.S. Judge.
Richard Fine
Imaged Records - Exh #1

[] _[]

No. 09-71692
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW
Central District of California, Los Angeles


Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The court is in receipt of petitioners original petition for a writ of habeas
corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. An application for a writ of habeas
corpus must be made to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(a); see also 28
U.S.C. 2241(b). Petitioner has an application for a writ of habeas corpus pending
in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No.
To the extent petitioner requests that this court order the district court to act
on or grant his petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioners filing is construed as
a petition for writ of mandamus. We note that on June 12, 2009, the district court
issued its findings and recommendations in petitioners case. Accordingly, petitioner
has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means
of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court,
557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). The petition is denied.
167 words were counted from "The court" to "denied".
At 17:18 28/11/2009, CTBC Director wrote:
The REAL real way to bring justice to judges: Get them OFF THE BENCH!

The means will vary - some instances will require complaints to be brought, others may require the light of publicity.

One remedy available in many states is quite simple: VOTE THEM OUT!

Whether in contested elections or "retention" votes, it is a simple, constitutional remedy that does not require a great deal of institutional change, convoluted legal procedure, or even (in many cases) huge expenditure of effort.

Case in point: the coming elections in Colorado (November 2010) presents an opportunity to remove FOUR extremely activist, partisan, anti-constitutional Colorado Supreme Court justices from office.

This opportunity is clearly important not just for Colorado, but has the potential to send a very strong message on a truly national scale that judges CAN be held accountable to the law - to the Constitution, and their oath to support the same.

This represents a tremendous opportunity to educate the populace at large as to the importance of holding judges accountable (in particular) and the importance of the judicial branch and need to uphold the rule of law (in general).

Clear The Bench Colorado ( is the organization I founded to research, analyze, communicate, and popularize the issue and remove FOUR "unjust justices" from office.

I would welcome and appreciate the support of anyone on this list (and beyond) interested in actually having a concrete, measurable impact in effecting judicial accountability and reform. Yes, it's one state - and not a terribly prominent or populated one at that - but the opportunity to remove a majority on a state Supreme Court on the basis of failure to adhere to the standards and adherence to the Constitution we should have a right to expect of judges IS very important.

Thanks -

Matt Arnold
Director, Clear The Bench Colorado

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Brad Henschel <> wrote:
You've heard the old saying there is strength in number. The obvious way to get the attention of the Judicial Performance Commission is for ALL OF YOU to pick ONE really good example of BAD judicial behavior, then ALL of you make a complaint and get others to make a complaint as well. THEN if the matter is denied to seek judicial review to the Calif Supreme Court. - Brad
This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.

Sent: Sat, November 28, 2009 2:16:37 PM
Subject: RE: How to bring justice to judges
While I really do appreciate your exhaustive analysis of whether judges should be liable and how to enforce liability, if you should, Bob, and I'll keep it for future reference, the issue is not all that complicated. Judges should be held liable for breach of duty causing injury, the same as any of us. If the state wants to immunize judges, then it must stand in the judges liability shoes, just as any employer must do ... the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Judges won't be liable for wrong decisions, only wrong decisions negligently or wantonly arrived at, or in conspiracy cases with the prosecutor, for wrongs done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
But I do appreciate your exhausting statement of possible remedies.

Subject: How to bring justice to judges
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:51:01 -0500
How to Bring Justice to Judges

Suing Judges

I just read Suing Judges, A Study of Judicial Immunity, by Abimbola Olowofoyeku. Yeah, I broke my mouth trying to say the authors name.
The book gives a few hints but pathetically little hope to people seeking evidence of true judicial integrity throughout America. The author spends most of the pages describing the immunity of the judges and quasi-judicial actors like clerks (Not my fault. I just obeying orders.). But it differentiates between judicial and administrative functions. It alleges that a judge must have immunity for defaming people in court because we give him that authority as one who judges and expresses that judgment. Maybe we shouldnt split hairs. If a judge can sentence a perp to death, why shouldnt the judge simply pull out a gun and kill the perp, or smack him on the nose for good measure? Lots of perps deserve both death and a smack on the nose, right?

We Must Identify ideals

No. We must settle this issue: Can and should a judge get away with abusive behavior that falls outside the scope of a purely judicial act? Should we forgive a judge for calling a defense counsel a slut in court, or for any other torts, except punishment meted out to the defendant? Must or should the law must punish malicious acts committed outside self-defense, regardless of who does them?
We must ask ourselves how justice regarding judges evolves. I believe it evolves with the general ethics of the society. We tend to permit behavior of judges that we generally find acceptable because they are only human. But if we look around at the impact of political correctness, we see people expressing disdain for use of the N word, gender-specific pronouns in gender neutral sentences, and almost anything people might find embarrassing or demeaning. On the other end of the spectrum, we witness all manner of defiantly ignominious expressions, and we tolerate most of them as protected under the First Amendment. Which of those standards should we apply to judges?
Maybe its too late for that question. Attorneys have tolerated and condoned bad judicial behavior as a matter of group policy. The bar refuses to act to discipline judges (such as by canceling bar membership). And now judges even get away with murder.

The Meaning of Immunity

Immunity is a right of the public to have their judges speak and act honestly, no matter how ignominious it might seem to any given observer. Political correctness has no place in court. In a sense, judges are the mommies and daddies of society, and until we flat outlaw all forms spanking, cursing, malnourshing, neglecting, and abusing of children by parents, we will get similar behavior from judges. AS a matter of public right and public policy and practical operation and practice. Those of us who dont like this can move to Louisiana or South Africa where judges enjoy less liberal immunity for malicious acts. Everywhere else in the USA judges may publish defamatory remarks in the context of the case, with absolute immunity.

How to Go After a Judge

In any case, some remedies do exist against judicial excess and abuse (we should never think punishment of the judge constitutes redress, for it doesnt):
1. Seek appellate review habeas corpus, certioari, prohibition, mandamus.
2. Lodge with a U.S. military or other officer (18 USC 4) a criminal complaint against the judge and all who obstruct prosecution of the judge for the associated crime consider criminal RICO, Wire or Mail Fraud (including Honest Services Fraud)
3. Public outcry inform the news media of the facts and get all friends and family and associates to do the same, demanding an investigation
4. File an Ethics complaint, if relevant, with the Judicial Qualifications Commission or equivalent
5. File a complaint against the judge with the bar
6. Dig up the judges bond or insurance policy and file a claim against it for damages, sending copies to the news media, House Judiciary Committee, bar, JQC, and Chief Judge
7. File a complaint with the State/Federal House Committee on the Judiciary and demand impeachment.
8. Send a copy of every complaint to the news media, military officer (preferably JAG), JQC, House Judiciary Committee, chief Judge, bar, bars insurer, judges bonding/insurance company, CFOs risk management department, your state and US senators and representatives, area lawmakers, and a huge BCC list of attorneys, law makers, the targets friends and family, mailing list owners, etc. (always show the number of BCC recipients). You could put others on the CC list. That tends to subject them to real spam, but it also encourages them to comm with one another.
9. Attack the judges credentials campaign contribution violations, financial entanglements with enterprises that create a conflict of interest, missing loyalty oath, dummied bar exam, law college not accredited, improper or missing loyalty oath (see CUSA Article IV Section 4, 4 USC 101 & 102, 5 USC 3331, state oath laws), improper or missing voter registration and electors oath, improper or missing bar oath, improper or missing public officers oath of office. Look for forged signatures on the oath document (I saw Jeb Bushs 1998 oath of office he signed in the proper place and in the jurat so he did not lawfully hold his first term of office, and in the second term, his Secretary of State Harris had removed the jurat from the election forms, so he did not lawfully hold office in the second term either).
10. If you dig up irregularities that make the judge an imposter, file a Qui Tam lawsuit, for the judge made fale claims to the CFO for an unwarranted paycheck. State law might give you up to 15% as a reward for recovery of the money.
11. In the event of those irregularities, file a Quo Warranto lawsuit and makethe judge prove the irregularities dont exist. Appeal any ruling in the judges favor.
12. Encourage courtwatchers to attend the judges proceedings and file into the casess and with the JQC, news media, bar, and House Judiciary Committee, affidavits of probable cause showing the judge abused the constitutional rights of litigants, witnesses, or observers (crooked judges seem to favor jury tampering).

13. Hire a private investigator to dig into his family, finances, and personal habits if hes dirty on the bench, hes dirty elsewhere, and you can and should expose him, regardless of the problems he suffers as a consequence. Tough titty. Cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Be sure to look into finances very hard. Crooked judges win bets (the kind they didnt really win) at the poker table, golf links, etc. In California, many judges have recently received mortgage loans which mysteriously got fully paid off a few months later. Journalist Janet Phelan (in hiding in Switzerland) has reported on a number of them in the San Bernardino paper. And lets not even get into the incredible retirement benefits judges obtain. However, do look for investments into seriously conflicting enterprises that own or benefit from owning jails, prisons, and related properties or industries, or companies selling products manufactured with prison labor. Look hard for evidence of pornograpy, child abuse, and sexual indiscretions, and get them splattered on page 1 of the newspaper. Take all of the judges family and friends to task for their peccadilloes, misdemeanors, crimes, and indiscretions. Expose their wrongs to public scrutiny and let them know the judge stands at the root of their problems. Then they too will hammer the judge into line. Use every possible lawful pressure to convince the judge to behave, then put his figurative head on a figurative pike for other judges to observe and ponder lest they end up in a similar fix. In this very guerilla war, the wicked shall have no rest.
14. Send the judge notice and demand estoppel letters and assign a value to your work (time, expenses) for administering it. This does tend to perfect evidence of exhausting administrative remedy and building up a obligation to you for your expenditure of time and resources protecting your rights from the judges abuse.
15. Hire a ghost writer and PR firm to send out announcements and releases challenging everything about the judge and making him look bad without actually libeling him. Start numerous anonymous blogs to expose the perp. Hire a marketing company to distribute the links via email (lawfully) to everybody possible. Get Web Position Pro (software) and use it to enhance the ranking of your web site/blog in the search engines. Read the stuff at and become an expert at direct marketing so that you can make your messages and web pages effective. Example, create your expose on paper. On the letter, put a call to action (join the protest group, write to the judge and House judiciary committee and local editors of news media, etc), and a web site to get more info. Stick two shiny new pennies to the top. Boldly headline it with Shameless bribe to read this letter. Stuff it in an odd-sized colored envelope. Get it hand-addressed in a womans lovely handwriting, drop a dot of perfume on it. Take a pile of them to Tijuana, and mail them to the USA recipient with a huge obviously Mexican lick-and-stick stamp on it. Beyond all doubt, every recipient will tear into the letter and read it. Many will take action if you do the letter properly.

16. Campaign against the judge at the next election, and get all the attorneys you know to do the same.
17. Support the bad judges opponent at the next election.
18. Run for office to replace the judge with yourself.
19. Last resort file a tort lawsuit against the judge and seek remedy that will not interfere with judges judicial functions. See Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d. 1256 (5th Cir., 1978) Ask for equitable relief through a declaratory judgment under 42 USC 1983, 1988 that the judge and fellow conspirators violated your constitutional rights. See Jacobson v. Schaefer, 441 F.2d. 768 (7th Cir., 1971). Also, respecting jail for non-jailable offenses, see US Supreme Courts 5-to-4 Blackmun ruling awarding injunction and attorney fees in Pulliam v. Allen, 80 L. ed. 2d. 565 (1984). Blackmun analyzed the Kings Bench use of the Great Writs (habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus) to control inferior courts. American common law does support collateral relief from judicial abuse, even if you cannot collect a damages award.
20. Ultimate resort file a tort lawsuit against the government for injuries caused by improper control of its rogue judges. The state has vicarious liability (rejected in the 1980 Owen v City of Independence ruling, but see the Federal Tort Claims Act 1988 amendment in 28 USC 2674) because of the judges status as a servant of the state, and therefore of the people from whom all state sovereignty flows. In the alternative, the state has primary liability for wrongful exercise of sovereign powers by its jjudiciary, of which the judge operates as a component, and which is an element of government, the representative of the state (you might want to block-diagram this). Remember that under 28 USC 2680(a) you might file a claim for failure of the judge to perform some non-discretionary function (see Cromelin v. U.S.). You might see a non-discretionary function as administrative, not judicial. 42 USC 1983 subjects EVERY PERSON acting under color of state law to liability for depriving any person in the US of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. Of course this does not abolish common law immunities (meaning judges can rule so as to protect themselves).
21. Whimzy file a RICO lawsuit against all the bar members of the state, and actually target the 10 or 20 most egregious (jurists and attorneys, state and federal) central to the cause of complaint. After all, they ARE racketeers. The Florida Supremes integrated (absorbed) the state bar association into the Supreme Court in 1949. This violated Article II Section 3 of the State Constitution (separation of powers bar members infest/infect every branch of government, some constitutionally, but most not), and CUSA Article VI clause 3 (guarantee of a republican form of Government). Florida (and I imagine California) operates under a Judicial Oligarchy which prevents the People from knowing all of the relevant common law (by sealing or not publishing salient cases, under the Supremes Rules of Judicial Administration rule 2.420, for such spurious and fallacious reasons as public policy and government interest) . This warrants a lawsuit for judicial correction, if not outright violent rebellion against the judiciarys rulers.

Relying upon the Constitutions

Bottom line, the Constitution must mean what it says. You do have constitutional rights which the state, government, judiciary, and judge MUST respect and protect. In point of fact a real conflict exists between the Bill of Rights (and State equivalents) and the concept of judicial immunity, and rights advocates simply must use every possible tool to hammer the judiciary into compliance with the Constitution, regardless of the cost. Judges wrote the common law, and it constitutes a conflict of interest for them to use that to establish immunity doctrines that protect them from all damage claims for their violations of rights, procedures, rules, laws, and other guarantees of due process, access to the courts, and timely justice.
Common law immunities have no constitutional foundation. In fact, the Declaration of Independence specifically railed against immunities enjoyed by the King and his agents and military in the Colonies. Circumventing those immunities constituted a major reason for the War of Independence from English Rule.
All men have the right to redress of grievance in the courts, to due process of law, and to constitutional protection of privileges and immunities. And the contravening judicial immunity doctrine is fundamentally and unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious, in spite of Chief Justice Finesilvers opinion in Chrietensen v. Ward, BECAUSE the Constitution does not authorize it as a technique for undermining the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It falls in the same class as whimsical imprisonments for contempt of court without a trial by jury, also unconstitutional. If an act by any person would violate constitutional rights, then the same act by a judge also unconstitutionally violates those rights.

Nothing Constitutional about Immunity

In Mason v. Melendez, 525 F. Supp. 270 at 275 (USDC Wisconsin, 1981), Judge Doyle opined Immunity from damages, whether absolute or qualified, represents a sharp departure from the principle that persons are responsible for the harm they inflict upon one another, and that the victims may seek compensation from the perpetrators.
Even when some means exists to discipline a rogue judge, that does not provide a real remedy unless some power forces the judge or chain of command to compensate the victims of that rogue behavior, including monetary damages for the infringements of constitutional or common law rights. If the judge does not have to pay, then the State must pay, or justice remains undone, and God will have to exact penalty in the hereafter (or the Mob in this lifetime). Take heed lest God exacts penalty from us for doing NOTHING EFFECTIVE to put the judiciary back in its box.
Good for one, Good for all
In principle, the law provides a mechanism for the group (nation of states and people) to punish a perp criminally (jail, fine) who hurts someone, and to compensate (monetary damages) a victim directly from the labor of the perp. If for some reason the group has fallen asleep on that obligatory mechanism and allowed some custom (common law) to emasculate it (such as with judicial immunity), then a smaller group (vigilante, mob) has incumbent responsibility to provide remedy. This happened by, with, and through the Declaration of Independence, all but two of the signatories of which suffered dire consequences for signing it. It can, and perhaps should, happen through the Mafia, community action groups, lynch mobs today, or violent general rebellion. Jucial independence cannot and should not be bought at the price of tolerating judicial abuse in the name of immunity or amnesty for rogue behavior. Otherwise all judges will become rogues, and, taking their cue, all attorneys will become rogues along with them. Birds of a feather DO, after all, flock together.
Gratifying Our Quest for Balance
In the final analysis, we must seek balance in th judicial integrity equation.
First and foremost we need to know what each judge does. A civilian courtwatcher group becomes indispensible to this effort. Courtrooms need to provide critique forms to observers, and they should rate the judge, attorney, and bailiff performance, but most credence should go to professional courtwather analyses and reports, and all reports should go into a free, publicly accessible database which people can access at election time.
1. Judges must have immunity from liability for honest mistakes, but EVERY mistake should incur a penalty of enhanced training and correction, at the judges personal expense, so the judge wont make it again. Every error needs to go on the judges public score card.
2. Judges must receive punishment for malicious errors and incompetence (repeating an error, or making a case go to appeal out of malice, fear, sloth, or political expedience), and they must compensate the people they injure from their own pockets, and get thrown off the bench.
3. We must insist upon laws that punish violations of loyalty oaths.
4. All judges must have bonds in the amount of $1,000,000 minimum, and they must pay the bonding fee out of their salaries, not out of public money.
5. A special grand jury (SGJ) drawn from the pool of jurors with bachelor degrees and no bar membership should receive all complaints against judges for malicious abuse or rights violations, and rule as to the guilt or innocence of the judge. They should approve or deny damage awards from the judges bond/insurance policy, and have the power to order a non-reviewable revocation of the bond or elevation of the bonding fee. No government attorney would have the right to attend or advise in this process, but the SGJ could hire consulting attorneys, ex-attorneys, law professors, judges, ex-judges, and other experts for help sorting through issues.
6. We need to undo hundreds of years of this is how weve done it for centuries tradition by eliminating the bulk of common law through codifying it in statute. This of course will eliminate the vast majority of judicial rulings as precedents. The legislature would review all panel court rulings, and add it to the list of rulings in support of the meaning of the statutory law, or enact an amendment or replacement to the respective law and cite the ruling (if any) that led to it. The law could require the legislature not to get more than a year behind on any case. At first this would create a huge expense. But in time it would settle down so some minimum. All statutory law and supporting case law would go in a nationwide government-operated free, on-line database that would also include the statutory and common law of England that provides the basis for American law. This would break the monopoly on law databases maintained by the ALI, Westlaw, and Lexus Nexis and reduce the legal services monopoly enjoyed by lawyers. It would finally make the law easily knowable by the people. And it would break the hegemony enjoyed by the judiciary over Americans. Judges should not have the power to make law at their whim.

7. We must replace all public policy and government interests with statutory law. They amount to nothing more than whim, CYA, and political expediency. They have no rightful place in jurisprudence.
Summary Judges Cannot and Will Not Control Judges

Until our world and its people become much more spiritually oriented, self-interest (money, job, fame, ego) will always provide the highest motivation for the decisions judges make. Next to that comes family well-being. Then comes the legal profession (cronyism). Then government obligation. Then, maybe, finally, the litigants rights. If we expect something better from that in the next 500 years, we expect way too much.

Axiom: the FOX shall not guard the HENHOUSE.
We chickens violate that axiom at our peril.

Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511
Donate to my Law Scholarship fund
Learn civil litigation with Jurisdictionary
Subscribe to Lawmen Newsletter FREE
Download Files FREE from the Lawmen Archive
Improve your financial fortunes with GetZooks!


Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 12:20 AM
Subject: RE: Ken, (1)what are you talking about? & (2) MOVING CONSTRUCTIVELY FORWARD -- RE: What are you talking about, Sean? RE: You are right, Sean -- RE: Can someone enlighten me -- RE: No thanks to Elena Sassower's constant DEMAND everyone listen to her.
I had spoken with Elena on the phone some time ago regarding her "Critique" of the Breyer Report and related materials. My private criticism, which Elena insisted that I render, was that her critique and memoranda contained too much scathing invective to be taken seriously as a scholarly work. As I have conveyed to certain other persons I hold in high regard, it has been my experience that writing a brief (or a manifesto) to the judiciary saying --in effect-- "Y'all are a bunch of corrupt thugs. Now grant me the relief applied for herein" is arrantly ineffective. (Yes, I know the difference between arrant and errant, and I intended the word as written).
In my phone conversation with Elena, I then mentioned a few professors who have published works in this area, who are taken seriously. Elena was annoyed by my comments, pointing out that one or more of the purported judicial misconduct experts (e.g., Prakash & Smith, Martin Redish, Charles Geyh, Stephen Lubet, Arthur Hellman, to name a few) declined to reply to her numerous letters and inquiries and, therefore, she presumptively contended that I/we should discount their scholarship and question their motives. Although I am aware that some of these fellows may have certain interests to protect, I try very hard not to view our world in black and white.
Now, Elena is doubly angry concerning my "fair question" from a few days ago, and has made an issue out of the perceived attack on her scholarship.

If anyone else here has spent more time than I did skimming Elena's "critique" and disagrees with me and found that it had persuasive qualities to send to the U.S. Judicial Conference and House & Senate Judiciary Committees, then please speak up and disabuse me of my foolish notions.

09-11-29 Happy Holidays, and a little gift for you and yours

RE: Happy Holidays, and a little gift for you and yours

Please accept this note as my little Holidays gift to you and yours...
Joseph Zernik

Bethlehem - end of 19th century.
Among other endeavors, I was named Editor, by commission, on a volume of early middle-eastern modern fiction, published by the official Press of the Calvinist Church of Switzerland, Labor et Fides:

- - - Nouvelles d'Hebron by Yitzhaq Shami (1888-1949)
- - - Edited by Joseph Zernik. with Introduction by Arnold Band
- - - Labor et Fides, Geneve, Switzerland, 2006
The English version of the work, original edition, became a collector's item, available at scalping prices as used books on Amazon and elsewhere:
- - - Hebron Stories by Yitzhaq Shami (1988-1949),
- - - Edited by Moshe Lazar and Joseph Zernik, with Introduction by Arnold Band, 2000.
This volume was recognized by the Palestinian Academic Society as one of the important Palestinian literary works of the 20th Century. With that it held a unique place in the Israeli-Palestinian landscape - as a shared cultural treasure.
In 2004 I was invited and visited the Palestinian Authority, in relationship to efforts to produce a high-quality Arabic translation of the volume. Copied below is an English version of the Epilogue for the French Edition.

Hebron - end of 19th century

Yitzhaq Shami (1888-1949)
Yitzhaq Shami, born in Hebron and a native Arabic speaker, was an early Modern Hebrew writer and an
early Middle Eastern Enlightenment figure. He studied in Hebron under one of the prominent rabbinical
authorities of his generation, Rabbi Medini a teacher of law, ethics, and Kabala. However, in his teens
Shami was caught by the ideals of the Enlightenment, and by seventeen he left the religious academy and
joined a secular teachers seminary in Jerusalem, committing himself to the revival of the Hebrew language.
In his youth Shami was deeply impacted by the writing of Jirji Zaidan (1861-1914) leader of the Arab
Awakening (Nahdah). Shami advocated Zaidans call for unity of the Moslem world and for unity of
Religion and Enlightenment. But Zaidans most important contribution, according to Shami, was the call
for examination of the historic variations in the relationships between Islam and the State. A century later,
these calls still need to be heeded.

Shamis position regarding organized religion both Jewish and Moslem - was complex and multi-faceted.
His first story, The Barren Wife, published while he was still in his teens, decried the treatment of Jewish
women by Halachic law. Protest of the treatment of women in both Moslem and Jewish traditional
communities was a recurring theme in his works. But Kabalistic and Sufi motives appeared in Shamis
writing and personal correspondence throughout his life.

The pilgrimage from the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron to the Tomb of Moses in the Judean desert near
Jericho provides the backdrop for Vengeance of the Fathers. Abraham and Moses are the two central
prophets of the Jewish religion, and the revelations to Ibrahim Khalil Allah (Gods Beloved) and Musa
Kalim Allah (Gods Interlocutor) are likewise central in the Quran forming the basis for the revelation to
the Prophet Muhammad. These two holy tombs, with Jerusalem-al-Quds in between, also formed the axis
of Moslem devotion in Palestine.

The revelation to Moses is the theme of the Sufi hymn included Vengeance of the Fathers. And the
manifestations revealed to Abraham are associated with the vengeful, jealous Almighty alluded in the
novellas title and ending. Therefore, this novella and Shamis work as a whole artfully preserved voices
and images of Moslem and Jewish way of life and local religious rites in Ottoman Palestine long since
vanished with the advent of Modern times. But Shamis writing showed no nostalgia he was a self proclaimed
anti-Orientalist, coining the Hebrew term for Orientalists in 1912.

Instead, Shamis stories sounded a doomsday prophecy and opposition to zealous veneration of holy tombs
and holy sites, foretold the violence and bloodshed that soon enveloped his homeland, and called for social
justice. In all of these Shami echoed biblical prophets from neighboring towns in Judea, like Amos and

Implied in the title of Vengeance of the Fathers was also a macabre variation on the Blessing of the Fathers
one of the oldest and most central blessings in the Jewish prayer book. Rather than a source of blessing,
the Patriarch Abraham through religious zealotry could become a source of perpetual violence and
bloodshed to his descendents and followers Christians, Moslems, and Jews.

Vengeance of the Fathers was signed in Hebron, when Shami and his family lived outside the Jewish
quarter, in a house leased from a local Effendi who, with his family, were also close friends. Shami was
concomitantly teaching in a Jewish school and in a Moslem school, while also serving as Secretary of the
local Jewish community. In the 1920s he was among the founders of an Arab-Jewish friendship
association in Hebron in an attempt to dissipate the growing tension. Shamis position left him outside the
mainstream of either Israeli or Palestinian literature. After leaving Hebron for Tiberias in 1928 he lamented
I feel that the Arabs are missing here, and expressed the impossible position of his writing
Sometimes I think that during this period, full of violence and atrocities between us and our neighbors, it
may not be appropriate to show interest in them [the Arabs].... Indeed, Shamis writing, recently
recognized by the Palestinian Academic Society as an important part of Palestinian literature, belongs to the
long tradition of Arab literature, where in Shamis words the desert winds blow from between the lines.
Joint efforts are under way in recent years to introduce Shamis work to a new generation of young readers
in Palestine and Israel as part of their common cultural landscape. At a time of growing peace prospects, let
Shamis work, emanating from Hevron al-Khalil, become the source of the blessing of Ibrahim

Joseph Zernik
February 2005
On Behalf of the Literary Estate of Yitzhaq Shami

Epilogue by Joseph Zernik for Nouvelles dHebron by Yitzhaq Shami, Labor et Fides, Geneve, Switzerland, 2006.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

09-11-18 Fine made it into wikipedia with miniminal editing....

Richard Isaac Fine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard Isaac Fine (1940- ) was a Los Angeles, California anti-trust attorney, former U.S. prosecutor, who was assigned (year) to investigations of corruption in Los Angeles, later disbarred. On March 4, 2009 - Richard Fine was jailed and he is perceived a political dissident.

Fine was born and raised in in the American Mid-west, in Milwaukee to a middle-class family. He earned his baccalaureate degree from theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, his law degree from the University of Chicago, and a doctorate from the London School of Economics. He was successful particularly as an anti-trust attorney - in pursuing his clients' cases against the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. [1]Ruling to disbar Atty Fine in October 2007 was the outcome of administrative procedure of the State Bar of California, where he was charged with "Moral Turpitude", albeit, moral turpitude in this case was construed to be the filing of complaints against Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles judges [2]. Fine claimed violation of his First Amendment rights in such ruling [3]. The ruling stated that his “remarkable academic and professional background” were no justification for his “improper and vindictive reactions” to unfavorable rulings by the bench. The ruling was upheld by the California Supreme Court. [4], [5]

Richard Fine exposed starting in the early 2000's the ongoing, then secret, payments by the County of Los Angeles to all (~450) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, judges. Such payments, at about ~45,000 per judge per year had by then proceeded for over a decade [6]. Fine also compiled the initial data to show that it had become practically impossible to win a case against the County at the Superior Court during those years, whereas the County was one of the most common party to litigations. Such data were later expanded and confirmed through more complete compilation by others.

In litigation, which originated from the objection to such payments, and where plaintiff Harold Sturgeon was represented by Judicial WatchSturgeon v County of Los Angeles (BC351286), such payments were ruled in October 2008 as "not permitted" by the California Court of Appeals,4th District (San Diego),[7]. However, such litigation was still ongoing. Some media labeled the payments "bribes". To counter potential civil and criminal liabilities to all Los Angeles State of California judges, a bill was passed and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger on February 20, 2009, providing pardons to all such judges. Both the passage of this bill and its incorporation into the California Government Code were fraught with irregularities in procedures. [8], [9], [10], [11]

Two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, Richard Fine was arrested by the Warrant Detail of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, at the end of a dramatic proceeding, in the presence of media, by Judge David Yaffe, whom Richard Fine was attempting to disqualify for accepting such payments from a party to the litigation then at bar - Marina County Home Owners Association v County of Los Angeles(BS109420). Strangely, the entire proceeding later failed to appear in the publicly available litigation chronology, published online by the court. Likewise, the March 4, 2009 Judgment and Sentencing, which were widely reported by media present in court, was later found to be invalid on its face,[12] and lacking authentication. [13]

Richard Fine has been held ever since at the Men's Central Jail facility in Los Angeles, California under unusual, possibly unprecedented conditions[citation needed]. He has been held under continuous solitary confinement, in a hospital room in the jail, albeit - no disease or disability were ever claimed by jail authorities. In the first few months of his jailing, he was denied access to pen and paper, and such conditions undermined his ability to file habeas corpus and related petitions. Jail authorities also explicitly attempted in the initial period to deprive him of the right to represent himself in pro se, and to coerce him to accept representation by counsel, which Fine declined. On June 7, 2009, the Los Angeles Times published report by female Journalist Victoria Kim, who managed to enter the Men's Jail, interview Fine, and emerge out of the jail unnoticed, at a time that the Sheriff's Department and the court banned interviews with Fine.[14] [15]

Fine's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Fine v Sheriff Department of the County of Los Angeles (2:09-cv-01914) [16] was dictated by phone to a friend, and was filed on behalf of Richard Fine at the U.S. Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), but without his hand signature, and without review of the filed document by him. Key documents were later claimed missing from the docket [17]. The case was unusual in that the Sheriff, named as respondent refused to respond. Eventually, response was filed by the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe. However, such response was filed by attorney Kevin McCormick, who failed to ever file any of the required certifications indicating that he was engaged as counsel of record for the case by his clients. In his response there was no indication that he ever communicated with his clients. The records he filed were all derived from the Sheriff, not from the Court, and were accompanied by a short declaration by counsel, not by Judge Yaffe or any officer of the court. A scheme, involving representation by counsel - albeit not counsel of record - was rebuked in an unrelated case in Texas, in March 2008, providing the details of the scheme [18]. The June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendations issued by Magistrate Carla Woehrle concluded by recommending denial with prejudice [19]. The 25 page review, carefully referenced, was distinguished as habeas corpus review by the fact that it failed to ever explicitly state the caption of the Los Angeles Superior Court case that was under review, or ever mention the word "warrant" [20]. A June 29, 2009 Judgment issued by Judge John Walter [21], who presided in the case after a number of recusals, accepted the recommendation [22]. However, both of these court papers, like all papers issued by the U.S. court in this case lacked authentication [23], and were therefore of dubious validity and effect - at best [24].

Likewise - a petition filed on Fine's behalf at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit - Fine v Sheriff (09-71692), was denied, but the June 30, 2009 Order denying the petition, bearing the names of Chief Judge Alex Kozinksi [25] and Circuit Judges Richard Paez [26] and Richard Tallman [27] was unsigned, unentered, and lacked authentication as well [28].

The circumstances surrounding these denials remain unclear, since Richard Fine has been held at the time of this writing (November 2009) for seven months with no warrant at all [29]. The information provided by the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County in this matter on it Inmate Information Center was incorrect [30], and possibly misleading. The arrest and booking were listed as if they had taken place at Municipal Division 86 at the San Pedro Courthouse. However, no such agency existed. In fact - no municipal courts existed in Los Angeles for almost a decade.

Fine's jailing was perceived by many as false imprisonment, and became the center point for demands for reform of the judiciary. Small rallies took place outside the Men's Central Jail, and fundraisers were organized to help sponsor his legal expenses [31]. Fine's jailing and the underlying secret payments to judges were also mentioned as diminishing the prospects of California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, one of the recipients, for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Embattled Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Alex Kozinski, never commented on the unsigned order issued in his name in this case, which appeared inconsistent with his usual liberal, civil rights oriented, judicially incisive image [32]. The fundamental judicial wrongdoing at the Los Angeles Superior Court, as alleged by those who consider the case False Imprisonment, should be seen in perspective of the widespread False Imprisonments affected by that court, which had been documented already a decade ago, as part of the Rampart scandal investigation, and estimated by PBS at many thousands [33] , but which the LA Superior Court judges have resisted undoing over the past decade, as reviewed in official report commissioned by the LAPD - the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006), which recommended "external review" of the Los Angeles justice system, which was never instituted, and which singled out the Los Angeles Superior Court as requiring review. [34], [35],[36]

It remained to be seen what role Richard Fine would play in the future of Los Angeles justice system upon his release, but if past experience is any predictor - it was not likely that he would stay out of public life.


  1. ^,0,206146.story
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^ In several copies, separately stamped by the clerk and separately endorsed by the judge, the record was stamped as "FILED" at the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 4, 2009, but endorsed by Judge Yaffe as of March 24, 2009
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^ In Fay v Noia 372 U. S. 391 (1963), the late Justice William Brennan, writing for he majority stated: "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"
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^,0,206146.story
  32. ^
  33. ^
  34. ^
  35. ^
  36. ^

[edit]External links