Digitally signed by

Dr Z Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Joseph Zernik, PhD Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@ea
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; rthlink.net, c=US
Location: La Verne,
California
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Date: 2010.03.17
03:00:37 -07'00'
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-03-16 Richard Fine: Request Mr Carrizosa – Administrative Office of the Courts - Review of
Attorney McCormick’s Conduct

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:32:30 -0700

To: "Carrizosa, Philip" <Philip.Carrizosa@jud.ca.gov>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of
habeas corpus

March 17, 2010

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov

The favor of a response within 10 days was requested.

RE: Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of
habeas corpus

Dear Mr Carrizosa:

Thank you again for your response, copied below. Request for correction of the error in the case
caption in your response was separately emailed. I write as a follow up on your response, regarding
the caption and case number referenced above - Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) ("the Case") at the United States Court, Central District of California.

You listed the Cal Gov Code, 811.9 and Cal Rules of Courts 10.202 as the legal foundation for the
conduct of the Administrative Office of the Court in retaining Attorney Kevin McCormick to represent
Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in the Case.

Cal Gov Code 811.9 states in pertinent part [underlines added - jz]:

811.9.
...
(b) To promote the cost-effective, prompt, and fair resolution
of
actions, proceedings, and claims affecting the trial courts, the
Judicial Council shall adopt rules of court requiring the
Administrative Office of the Courts to manage actions,
proceedings, and claims that affect the trial courts and involve
superior courts, superior court judges, subordinate judicial
officers, court executive officers, or trial court employees in
consultation with the affected courts and individuals. The
Administrative Office of the Courts' management of these actions,
proceedings, and claims shall include, but not be limited to,
case management and administrative responsibilities such as
selection of counsel and making strategic and settlement
decisions.

Page 2/6 March 17, 2010

Rule 10.202 states in pertinent part [underline added - jz]:

(b)Duties of the Office of the General Counsel

...
... the Office of the General Counsel under the direction of the
Administrative Director of the Courts and the General Counsel, must:
...
(3) Select and direct any counsel retained to represent any trial or
appellate court, justice, judge, subordinate judicial officer, court
executive officer or administrator, and trial or appellate court
employee being provided legal representation under (2), after
consultation with the trial or appellate court and any such
individual
defendant;

My questions and requests regarding the Case are as follows:

1) By law, as quoted above, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, through
and by the Office of the General Counsel were required to consult with Judge David Yaffe, and
accordingly advise, direct, and manage Attorney Kevin McCormick to conduct the Case in a manner
that was aimed to promote a fair resolution.

Question 1:
Did the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of the General
Counsel indeed comply with Cal Gov Code 811.9(b) and CRC Rule 10.202, Section (b) (3) regarding
consultation with Judge David Yaffe?
Did the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or Office of the General Counsel
conduct consultation with Judge David Yaffe and accordingly - did they jointly and/or severally direct
and manage the counsel retained in the Case - attorney Kevin McCormick - to conduct the Case -
Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - in a manner that was strategically
aimed to promote a fair resolution?

By law, as quoted above, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, through and
by the Office of the General Counsel retained administrative and case management duties in the Case.
Therefore, I write to point out to attention of the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts,
and/or the Office of the General Counsel the conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case:

(a) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file the certifications required by Local Rules of the US Court,
Central District of California, as Counsel of Record for Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles in the Case;

(b) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file any declaration by Judge David Yaffe and/or by any Officer
of subordinate of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in the Case in support of his
brief;

(c) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case was there any signature by
Judge David Yaffe and/or by any other Officer or subordinate of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles;

(d) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the Case was there any indication that he
had ever consulted, directly or indirectly, with Judge David Yaffe and/or any other Officer or subordinate
of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, or that such parties, on whose behalf he
purported to appear, had any knowledge of his appearances in the Case;

(e) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed declaration by Counsel only in support of his brief in the Case, albeit
Counsel was not a competent fact witness in the matter at all; [1]

(f) Attorney Kevin McCormick never filed any record in the Case that was obtained from Judge David

Page 3/6 March 17, 2010

Yaffe and/or from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - the parties, on whose
behalf he purported to appear in the Case;

(g) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked at [1],
below, false and deliberately misleading, record, titled "Remand/Removal Order", [2] which bears no
relevance to the case at hand, unless in its capacity to mislead;

(h) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked [1], below,
false and deliberately misleading record, titled "Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine".
[2] Such record was never adequately verified by Judge David Yaffe, and was never authenticated
either. Such record could not possibly be deemed a Judgment that was entered by the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles in compliance with the law, and which required "full faith and
credit". In short - it was NOT an honest, valid and effectual Judgment of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles;

(i) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file with his brief and declaration the Register of Actions
(California civil docket) - the essential record that would have provided the foundation for any other
record in the case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, from which the Case at
hand originated.

A reasonable person, upon review of the matter as a whole, would conclude that the case of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, from which the Case originated, included neither
an honest, valid, and effectual warrant for the arrest of Richard I Fine, nor any honest, valid, and
effectual judgment, conviction, or sentencing record.

A reasonable person, upon review of the matter as a whole, would conclude that Attorney Kevin
McCormick was either incompetent, or else - that Attorney Kevin McCormick engaged in false and
deliberately misleading conduct, which was strategically aimed not at promoting a fair resolution of the
Case, but instead - at perverting justice and at affecting continued false imprisonment of Richard I Fine;
Moreover - that Attorney McCormick achieved such aim through false appearances - without ever
being authorized to do so by Judge David Yaffe and/or by the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles and through the filing of false briefs and false court records; Finally - that Attorney Kevin
McCormick aimed to provide Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles full and complete deniability of any knowledge or collusion in such conduct and such
perversion in the Case.

Of note, I have repeatedly informed Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge David Yaffe, and the the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, of the grave concerns listed above. All refused to
respond at all. There is no indication that any of them initiated any corrective actions.

I therefore request that you forward this communication to the Judicial Council, the Administrative
Office of the Courts, and the Office of the General Counsel, with the following question:

Question 2: Why would the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of
the General Counsel not review the concerns listed above, pursuant to their duties by law, regarding
conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case - Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914)?
If such concerns, as listed above, are found valid - why would the Judicial Council, the Administrative
Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of the General Counsel not take corrective actions to immediately
release Richard I Fine from alleged false imprisonment?

Thank you again for your help in this matter, where Liberty is at stake.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345

Page 4/6 March 17, 2010

http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

LINKS:

[1] Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-1_declaration-by-counsel-
for-la-sup-ct-in-support-of-response-f&e-may-1-2009.pdf

[2] Exhibit A to Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus, including (a) "Remand/Removal Order", and (b)
"Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine":
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-
contempt-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf

At 02:50 PM 3/16/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:

Mr. Zernik,

In response to your March 13 request for clarifying information and confirmation of

your five hypothetical assertions, I offer our response:

The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham
law firm to represent the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court, Case No. CV 09-1914,
pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules
of Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the
responsibility to select legal counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin
McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.

We cannot respond to your other hypotheticals.

I hope this answers your inquiry.

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"

At 03:23 PM 3/13/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 3:23 PM
To: Carrizosa, Philip
Cc: McCormick, Brenda; McCormick, Kevin M; Attention: Judge David Yaffe and the
LA Superior Court C/O John Clarke, Clerk
Subject: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the
habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA

Page 5/6 March 17, 2010

March 13, 2010

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov

The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested.

RE: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
the habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA

Dear Mr Carrizosa:

Thank you again for your past help in clarifying information pertaining to the California
Administrative Office of the Courts. I again request your help.

In recently published online notes in several forums, I alleged dishonest and/or

fraudulent conduct by Attorney Kevin M McCormick of the law-firm of Benton, Orr,
Duval & Buckingham, relative to his appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Los Angeles. I
further alleged that his conduct was key to affecting the ongoing false hospitalization
of Attorney RICHARD FINE - a political dissident. [1], [2], [3]

Following the online postings at the ABA Journal, I received unauthenticated,

unverified communications, which lead to the formulation of the following five (5)
hypothetical assertions:
1) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK's wife, Attorney BRENDA MCCORMICK, was
Court Managing Attorney for the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura.
2) Appearances of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were not pursuant
to his engagement by the Intervenors in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID
YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES.
3) Appearances of KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR,
DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were pursuant to his
engagement by the California Administrative Office of the Courts, an arm of the
Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE, and/or
through related entities.
4) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR, DUVAL &
BUCKINGHAM was never authorized as Counsel of Record by the Intervenors in
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
5) Engagement of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM by the California Administrative Office of the Courts,
and arm of the Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD
GEORGE, and/or related entities. included a stipulation prohibiting Attorney KEVIN
MCCORMICK from communicating with the Intervening parties - DAVID YAFFE and
the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - regarding
Attorney KEVIN MCCORMICK's appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).
Request is for confirmation on behalf of the California Administrative Office of
the Courts, and the Chairman of the Judicial Council, California Chief Justice
Ronald George, the five (5) hypothetical assertions, listed above, regarding
engagement of Attorney Kevin McCormick to appear in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-

Page 6/6 March 17, 2010

01914) - the habeas corpus petition.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

CC:
1. McCormick, Brenda - by email
2. McCormick, Kevin - by email
3.Yaffe, David and the LA Superior Court - by fax
4. Others of Interest

LINKED:

[1] The American Bar Association's motto is: "Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice"

[2] ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-year Mark In
Jail In Contempt
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-
year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#comments

[3] March 13, 2010 ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-
year Mark In Jail In Contempt, as copied:
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-13-aba-journal-article-on-richard-fine-and-comments-
s.pdf