Dr ZDr ZDr ZDr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
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.
Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US Location: La Verne, California Date: 2010.03.17 03:00:37 -07'00'
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
Ihre Neugier belohnen
Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.