Attempts to access, to verify and to authenticate court records remain almost entirely pending, unanswered, or denied... in violation of Common Law, First and Sixth Amendment rights...
The previous package earlier this week, included the Motions at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - for an Order on the Clerk of the Court of Appeals to provide access to NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) and digital signatures of the Court of Appeals records in petitions of Zernik v U.S. District Court (08-72714) [i] and Fine v U.S. District Court (09-71692),[ii] so that authenticated records can be definitively distinguished from unauthenticated records. Other Orders, which were requested from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were on the Court of Honorable Carla Woehrle, Magistrate, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, to allow access to NEFs of the Los Angeles court in Zernik v Connor et al (2-08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2-09-cv-01914), all pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). In the Nixon tapes decision, the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the Commons Law right of public access to judicial records, to inspect and to copy, the First Amendment right of the press to publish such public records, and the Sixth Amendment right for Public Trial.
Today's package includes the copy of the Motion at the U.S. Court, Washington DC, requesting NEFs and disambiguation by the Court of the Honorable Richard Leon, U.S. Judge and the Clerk of that Court, regarding Zernik v Melson et al (1-09-cv-00805) – and the nature of unauthenticated papers that appeared as personal correspondence from the Honorable Judge, and detailed, among others – denial of the request that US Dept of Justice provide Equal Protection of Att Richard Fine’s First Amendment rights by securing for him paper and pen, which were denied by the Sheriff Dept of LA County. The Washington DC Court was also requested to provide the rationale of operation of Pacer vs. ECF/CM, as duplicate systems for accessing U.S, court records, separate and unequal, and where the parties are segregated.[iii]
Today's package to the jailed Att Richard Fine – also includes the various meet and confer letters to the parties in Marina v County (BS109420) and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County, and Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (2:09-cv-01914), in attempt to figure out how a judgment that was purportedly entered on March 4, 2009, and was filed as evidence at the U.S. Court, LA on March 20, 2009, got verified by Judge Yaffe with the hand inscribed date of March 24, 2009. [iv], [v], [vi] The Meet and Confer letters also asked the parties to provide immediately copies of the Authenticated Register of Actions and the Judgment, if they have such record in their possession, since the LA Superior Court denies requests to authenticate such record, or for that matter - to provide access to them.
Requests for access to the Register of Actions and Judgment records in Sturgeon v LA County (BC 351286) – the litigation that yielded the “not permitted” ruling, was summarily denied by the LA Superior Court Clerk’s office – through letters by the Counsel for the court, which were deemed false and deliberately misleading. [vii], [viii], [ix] One must wonder how Judicial Watch was induced to participate for the past 2 years in litigation where trial records are concealed even from the party, when LA County and the LA Superior Court are both parties, and the LA Superior Court is also maker and keepers of the concealed records…
Today’s package also included requests to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, Terry Nafisi, to allow access to the NEFs and digital signatures in Zernik v Connor et al ( ) and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County ( ). [x] Clerk Nafisi was also requested to investigate concerns regarding the docketing and maintenances of court record, and the conduct of Magistrate Woehrle, her Courtroom Assistant - Donna Thomas, and Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer, relative to litigation records in Zernik v Connor et al, and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County. [xi]
So far, all requests, remain pending, unanswered, or denied, except for Ms Sharon McGee, Clerk Room Supervisor, who concurred with concerns regarding conduct relative to the record that was the March 4, 2009 Judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine, which may have been altered, or more likely adulterated, since such alterations, if any, were carried out without the consent of the jailed Att Richard Fine. Ms McGee informed me that she raised the issue before the Court of Magistrate Woehrle.
At this point, it looks likely that Att Richard Fine was and is falsely jailed based on a false judgment record. We should wait and see if the Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi, intends to get to the bottom of this unreasonable situation, and if and when any of the judges or justices, who would be reliably informed of "unprofessional conduct", would initiate the corrective action, as required by the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges, and also by the California Code of Judicial Ethics. [xii]
As a reminder - when two judges in Pennsylvania were indicted in February 2009[xiii] in relationship to false imprisonments of juveniles, that court set up within a month a panel to review and void judgments as necessary. [xiv] However, that has not been the custom in LA County in the past couple of decades...
Thousands of Rampart-FIPs are still falsely incarcerated,[xv], [xvi], [xvii]10 years after they were shown to be falsely convicted and falsely sentenced. Similarly - no judge ever proposed to review and void any of the judgments in trials where LA County was party, and which were adjudged and entered by courts during the period that the judges collected "not permitted" payments[xviii], which were called by media "bribes".
Therefore, it may still be necessary to file a Motion for Relief from Judgment, even if the facts become as clear and unforgiving as the August Los Angeles sun.