Case No 09Case No 09Case No 09Case No 09----A827 A827 A827 A827 IN THEIN THEIN THEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ RICHARD I. FINE, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent. ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ AMENDED REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT OF THE US JOSEPH ZERNIK
In Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd La Verne, CA Mail: PO Box 526 La Verne, CA 91750 Phone:323.515.4583 Fax: 323.488.9697 Email <jz12345@earthlink.net
Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US Location: La Verne, California Date: 2010.04.19 00:24:21 -07'00'
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827) 1/5
[[[[PROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF PROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF PROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF PROPOSED] INTERVENOR’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIONS IN RECORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE USTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE USTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE USTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE US Concomitantly filed under separate faces: 1. Motion to Intervene; 2. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer; 3. Request for Correction in US Supreme Court Records; 4. Request for Incorporation by Reference. 5. Appendix TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: [Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik herein requests that the Court correct records of the Supreme Court of the US, in the case at hand, as detailed herein.
1.1.1.1. The dockets and The dockets and The dockets and The dockets and papers under case number 09 papers under case number 09 papers under case number 09 papers under case number 09- -- -A827 are inconsistent relative to A827 are inconsistent relative to A827 are inconsistent relative to A827 are inconsistent relative to case caption.case caption.case caption.case caption.
The case caption in the case at hand is inconsistently listed in Court records. [Proposed] Intervenor followed in this respect the caption used by Petitioner Fine.
2.2.2.2. Court records a Court records a Court records a Court records are inconsistent relative to denial, or lack thereof, of instant re inconsistent relative to denial, or lack thereof, of instant re inconsistent relative to denial, or lack thereof, of instant re inconsistent relative to denial, or lack thereof, of instant Petition on March 12, 2010, by Association Justice, the Honorable Anthony Petition on March 12, 2010, by Association Justice, the Honorable Anthony Petition on March 12, 2010, by Association Justice, the Honorable Anthony Petition on March 12, 2010, by Association Justice, the Honorable Anthony Kennedy.Kennedy.Kennedy.Kennedy.
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827) 2/5
Local Rules of Court state that such denial had to be inscribed on the face of the Application. Copy of the Application in case 09-A827, obtained from office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the US file by [Proposed] Intervenor, showed no such inscription on the face of the Application. Likewise, no denial was listed among the orders and rulings of the Court listed online on or about March 12, 2010. Yet – the docket, as publicly accessible online, stated that the Application was denied on March 12, 2010.
3.3.3.3. Attorney Paul Beach was listed as Counsel for Respondent Sheriff. Attorney Paul Beach was listed as Counsel for Respondent Sheriff. Attorney Paul Beach was listed as Counsel for Respondent Sheriff. Attorney Paul Beach was listed as Counsel for Respondent Sheriff.
It is alleged that evidence provided in Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I, and additional discovery would show that Paul Beach was never Counsel of Record for Respondent Sheriff of Los Angeles County in instant Application by Richard I Fine. Instead, it is alleged that additional discovery would reveal that he was part of a scheme of counsel who was not counsel of records with “no communications with client” clause, as described by the Hon Jeff Bohm in Appendix XIV. Appendix XIV. Appendix XIV. Appendix XIV. Evidence is presented in the Motion to Intervene and in Appendix XI Appendix XI Appendix XI Appendix XI that such was the case also for Attorney Kevin McCormick, who was represented as counsel for Judge David Yaffe and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
4.4.4.4. Therefore, the Court is respectfully requested to correct the records as the Court Therefore, the Court is respectfully requested to correct the records as the Court Therefore, the Court is respectfully requested to correct the records as the Court Therefore, the Court is respectfully requested to correct the records as the Court deems fit.deems fit.deems fit.deems fit.
Respectfully submitted, Dated: April 18, 2010 Joseph Zernik
Ihre Neugier belohnen
Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.