Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9
 
 
Dr ZDr ZDr ZDr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
 
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs 
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2010
10-02-01 Fine v Sheriff, US v City of LA, SEC v BAC: Fraud pandemic in the courts of the United States - introduction to Non-Cases, Non-Counsels, Non-Orders, Non-Judgments..
 
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:36:48 -0800 To: lawsters@googlegroups.com From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: FACT BASED DISCUSSION:
 Fine v Sherif
 (2:09-cv-01914), Judge John Walter, Magistrate Woehrle, and the ongoing false hospitalization of Richard Fine.
 Dear All: For those interested in fact-based discussion regarding the caption listed above, and alleged Willful Misconduct by Magistrate Carla Woehrle and US Judge John Walter, as well as alleged criminality by Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge David Yaffe, Judge Charles McCoy (Presiding Judge, LA Superior Court) and John Clarke (Clerk of the Court, LA Superior Court): Most records in the caption can be found at: http://inproperinla.com/ Use the "Find" function in your browser (typically "Control F") and query for "fine_v_sheriff" [underlines, but no quotes].  You would get to the section of the archive holding the relevant papers. Enjoy your readings in the fraudulent court system of the United States!  jz
 
 Page 2/9 February 1, 2010
 At 04:14 PM 2/1/2010, joseph zernik wrote:
 Dear all: I copied into this new thread the facts I quoted regarding this case:
FALSE APPEARANCES BY COUNSEL, WHO WAS NOT COUNSEL OF RECORD IN
 FINE V  SHERIFF 
 (2:09-cv-01914).
 
In
 Fine v Sheriff 
 (2:09-cv-01914), the NON-CASE of Richard Fine's habeas corpus petition, the following facts should be noted:
 
1. Sheriff was rightly named as Respondent, since he is holding Richard Fine. 2. Sheriff refused to respond [because Fine is held with no legal foundation]. 3. US Magistrate Carla Woehrle refused to release Fine, who filed ex parte application for his own release following refusal of the Sheriff to respond on a Habeas Corpus petition. 4. Eventually, Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court purported to respond in lieu of the Sheriff, albeit - they were never named Respondents by Richard Fine. They were not the ones holding him. 5. Purported appearances for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court were by Attorney Kevin McCormick from Ventura County, a relatively young attorney, of no significance, but relatively far away... 6. Kevin McCormick failed to file the required certifications for appearance as Counsel of Record for David  Yaffe and the LA Superior Court. Regardless, Magistrate Carla Woehrle allowed him to appear. 7. Kevin McCormick filed briefs with Declaration by Counsel - himself, not a competent fact witness in this case at all. No declaration by any of his clients was ever filed. 8. Kevin McCormick filed false records as evidence, with no authentication at all. 9. None of the records McCormick filed originated from his purported clients. 10. Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge Yaffe, and the LA Superior Court refused to respond to repeated inquiries to ascertain that McCormick was appearing as Counsel of Record for such clients under the respective caption.
In short
- there was no evidence in the court file that Kevin McCormick had ever communicated with Judge David Yaffe or the LA Superior Court. Needless to say, no order or judgment were ever entered in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).
 
 Page 3/9 February 1, 2010
Such NON CASE for the habeas corpus of Richard Fine, and such appearances by false counsel were used to affect deprivation of Liberty.  As a reminder
THE ESSENTIALS OF A NON CASE: NON-CASES - the cornerstone of judicial corruption in the United States today, in both state and US courts, are surely another subject that is never taught in law school. Therefore, let me offer you the overview:
1.
Commencing records must be defective
 
2. Termination records must be defective as well. 3. No valid commencement of jurisdiction may be entered (no valid assignment to a judge, no valid reference, etc). 4. No valid dispositive order on jurisdiction may be entered (no valid order on disqualification, either denying or granting it). 5. All executable orders that may be issued by the court during the course of a NON-CASE must be defective, and none must be entered, which explains the plethora of unsigned orders and judgments in the US today. 6. No court fee may be collected, where any mention is explicitly provided that such fees were for court services.
7.
Public access to court records that would provide definitive evidence of the racketeering by the judges must be denied - today - often achieved through implementation of fraudulent case management systems at the courts.
 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group. To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en.
  _________
Scott: Let's try to keep this fact-based: a) [Defendants] "had adequate and competent representation by counsel" -
 How did you establish that in US v City of LA et al Defendants were represented by Counsel, or  for that matter, that Defendants appeared at all?
Fraud in US courts regarding appearances by counsel who was not counsel of record is pandemic, especially when

Ihre Neugier belohnen

Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505