Human Rights Alert
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog:
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
10-07-01 Complaint against Danny Bickell – US Supreme Court Counsel - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law
Ronald C. Machen Jr. US Attorney, DC United States Attorney's Office 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 By certified mail By email: dc.outreach@usdoj.gov
TO US ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s Complaint by Dr Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) against Mr Danny Bickell, US Supreme Court Counsel, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law, pertaining to his conduct in caption of
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827) in March-April 2010. Please also accept instant Citizen’s Complaint as a request for equal protection of Mr Richard Fine, the 70 year old, former US prosecutor, pursuant to the
US Constitution
and pursuant to ratified international law – the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The complaint alleges that Mr Bickell denied Mr Fine Fair Hearing and Due Process of the Law at the US Supreme Court, and is likely to have affected ongoing false imprisonment of Mr Fine.
1. Complainants Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Dr Joseph Zernik and Human Rights Alert (NGO) Address: 1853 Foothill Blvd, La Verne, California, 91750 Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750 Tel: 323-515-4583 Fax: (preferred) 323-488-9697 Email: (preferred) jz12345@earthlink.net
2. Attorney Representation
Dr Zernik is not an attorney, neither is he or Human Rights Alert (NGO) represented by counsel in the matters that are subject of instant complaint. Dr Zernik is unqualified to expound on legal theories. Therefore, no section of the code was cited. The US Attorney is requested to review the facts in the matter and apply the appropriate sections of the code. In cases where legal claims were made in error, the US Attorney is requested to ignore such claims and review to the facts alone.
3. Complaint against Mr Danny Bickell
Mr Danny Bickell Address: US Supreme Court, 1 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20543 Tel: 202-479-3011
4. General Allegations
Conduct of Mr Danny Bickell under caption of
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827) at the US Supreme Court in March-April 2010 is alleged as violations of the law including, but not limited to: a)
Public Corruption,
b)
Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law,
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US Date: 2010.07.01 13:21:42 +03'00'
Page 2/5 July 1, 2010
c)
Honest Services Fraud,
d) Obstruction of Justice
e)
Extortion,
f)
Fraud, g) Mail Fraud,
h)
Conspiracy,
5.
General Description of the Facts
a) Relative to purported March 12, 2010 denial of Mr Fine’s application by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
It is alleged that there was and there is no valid record of a March 12, 2010 denial of the application of Mr Fine by Associate Justice Kennedy. Regardless, on March 12, 2010, Mr Bickell issued a false and deliberately misleading notice, unsigned, and with no authority at all, stating that the application was denied.
b) Relative to the April 23, 2010 Supreme Court conference re: Application of Mr Fine
It is alleged that Mr Bickell eliminated from the US Supreme Court docket, with no authority at all, Dr Zernik’s
Motion to Intervene
and related papers, filed on April 20, 2010, including, but not limited to
Request for Correction of Errors in the Supreme Court Records
, where Mr Bickell’s conduct, relative to the March 12, 2010 purported denial by Associate Justice Kennedy, was described.
c) Relative to records and online dockets of the US Supreme Court
It is alleged that insecure docketing systems at the US Supreme Court, lacking in integrity, permitted an unauthorized person, such as Mr Bickell to obstruct justice and likely also to deprive Mr Fine of liberty.
6. Court Opinions and Judgments:
No opinion or ruling of the US Supreme Court was therefore issued in the application of Mr Fine in
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827). Mr Fine remains imprisoned to this date and was denied through the conduct of Mr Bickell fair hearing and due process of law.
7. Remedies Requested:
Request is herein filed by Dr Zernik with Office of the US Attorney, District of Columbia, for the following remedies: a) Equal protection for Richard Fine under US law and under ratified international law. b) Investigation of the facts alleged in the complaint, and prosecution of Mr Bickell, if necessary, to the full extent of the law. c) Public scrutiny of security and integrity of the US Supreme Court computers (case management system) to prevent conduct such as described in the complaint, where unauthorized persons affected construction of a invalid, false and deliberately misleading online dockets.
8. Public Policy Significance:
The case is of highest public policy significance, since it amounts to alleged public corruption and deprivation of rights by a person, who is routinely involved in operations of the highest court of the land. Moreover, as detailed in the complaint, conduct of Mr Bickell was part of a chain of events at the lower courts, all of the same nature and the same effect. Each, in and of itself, could simply appear as a technical errors. Combined, such chain of events cannot be reasonably be deemed as inadvertent. All of these technical errors, without exception, had the same effect – ensuring that the alleged false imprisonment of Mr Fine continue to this date. Mr Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by Los Angeles judges of “not permitted” payments, termed by media “bribes”. The facts, which Mr Fine exposed, led the Governor of California to sign on February 20, 2009 “retroactive immunities” (pardons) for all judges involved. Less than two weeks later, on
Page 3/5 July 1, 2010
March 4, 2009, Mr Fine was arrested, with no warrant, in open court by the Los Angeles Sheriff. Mr Fine is held ever since by the Sheriff with no judgment, conviction, or sentencing ever entered in his case. All Mr Fine’s consequent efforts to restore his liberty were undermined through conduct at the various courts, of the kind that is the subject of instant complaint against Mr Bickell. As a result, Mr Fine remains in solitary confinement to this date.
9. Brief Chronology:
a) Relative to purported March 12, 2010 Denial of Mr Fine’s Application by Justice Anthony Kennedy
i. In March 1, 2009 – according to the US Supreme Court docket,
i
Mr Fine’s application (09-A827) was submitted to Associate Justice Kennedy. ii. On March 12, 2010 – the docket, referenced above, states:
Application (09A827) denied by Justice Kennedy.
It is alleged that conduct of Mr Bickell affected the insertion of such false and deliberately misleading statement in the US Supreme Court docket. iii. Review of the US Supreme Court records
ii
in the caption of
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827) revealed no written order by Justice Kennedy denying Mr Fine’s Application. Neither was denial by Justice Kennedy inscribed on the face of the application, as permitted by the Local Rules of the US Supreme Court. iv. Review of the US Supreme Court records in the caption of
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827)
iii
revealed a March 12, 2010 letter issued by Mr Bickell, falsely noticing denial of the application by Justice Kennedy. However, Mr Bickell’s notice was unsigned. Furthermore, Mr Bickell was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk; therefore, the letter was issued with no authority at all.
b) Relative to the April 23, 2010 Supreme Court conference re: Application of Mr Fine
i. On March 30, 2010, following the purported denial by Justice Kennedy, Mr Fine re-filed the application with Associate Justice Ginsburg, according the US Supreme Court docket.
iv
ii. On April 12, 2010 Dr Zernik called the US Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk to notify his intent to file
Motion to Intervene
in
Fine v Sheriff
(09-A827). Dr Zernik was referred to Mr Bickell. Mr Bickell informed Dr Zernik that such filing would be timely as long as the application was pending before the court. However, Mr Bickell informed Dr Zernik that unless there was a “compelling justification”, the
Motion to Intervene,
it would most likely be denied by the Court. iii. On April 20, 2010 Dr Zernik filed at the US Supreme Court
Motion to Intervene
and related papers: -
1 Amended Motion to Intervene
v
- 2 Amended Request for Lenience by
Pro Se
Filer
vi
- 3 Amended Request for Corrections in US Supreme Court Records
vii
- 4-Amended-Request-for-Incorporation-by-Reference-s
viii
- 5 Amended Appendices
ix
iv. On April 20, 2010 Dr Zernik received from the US Supreme Court staff receipts confirming the filing of the papers listed above.
x
v. On April 21, 2010 Dr Zernik called the Office of the Clerk, US Supreme Court, and spoke with a staff member at the Office of the Clerk. The staff member informed Dr
Ihre Neugier belohnen
Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.