Willkommen bei Scribd!

2010-08-10 RE: Fine v Baca (09-A1250) in the Supreme Court of the United States - Declaration of George McDermott in re: April 26, 2010 unsigned letter by unnamed Deputy Clerk, noticing denial of the application, as discovered in Court file.

Hochgeladen von

0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

41 Ansichten3 Seiten

10-08-26 RE: Richard Fine - request for restoration of access to justice, and for corrective actions re: publicly and legally accountable validation of case management and online public access systems of the courts, jails, and prisons Executive Summary Los Angles, August 26 – request was filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, for restoration of access to justice in the case of the imprisoned, 70 year-old, former US prosecutor Richard Fine was filed with Prof Laurence Tribe - Senior Counsel, US Department Of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative. Richard Fine, had exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by California judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (“pardons”) for all judges in Los Angeles County, California. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, pretence “sentencing proceeding” for contempt was conducted on Richard Fine at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, which was never validly recorded by the Court. Instead, the Court published false and deliberately misleading online records. On March 4, 2010, Richard Fine was arrested in open court by the Warrant Detail of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – albeit with no warrant at all. Richard Fine has been held ever since in solitary confinement – albeit with no judgment/conviction, or sentencing ever entered in his case. Instead, the Sheriff’s Department insisted on holding him under false and deliberately misleading online inmate registration records, stating that he was arrested and booked on location and by authority of the non-existent “Municipal Court of San Pedro”. The request detailed Richard Fine’s attempts to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court – Central District of California, through the US Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States. In all United States courts involved, Richard Fine was denied access to justice, and was instead subjected only to pretense judicial review. Concomitantly, false and deliberately misleading dockets were published online by all courts involved, which would lead a reasonable person to falsely conclude that Richard Fine’s case was indeed accorded judicial review, and was duly denied. The request further provided expert opinions regarding the inherent invalidity of case management and online public access systems of the courts and the Sheriff’s Department, which enable the holding of prisoners under pretense of lawfulness, and conduct of pretense court proceedings and issuance of invalid court records, as part of pretense of judicial review. Key structural defects were identified in the justice system in the United States, which stemmed from invalidity of case management and online public access systems implemented in recent decades: a) Online public dockets were implemented at the courts, where the authority of the clerk was never invoked, and where the clerks deemed themselves unaccountable for validity of the records; such systems enabled denial of access to justice and pretense judicial review; b) Online prisoners’ registration systems were implemented in the jails, where authority of record supervisors was never invoked, and where the records supervisors deemed themselves unaccountable for validity of the records; such systems enabled denial of Liberty and imprisonments under pretense of lawfulness, and c) In all agencies, involved in this matter, the publication of false and deliberately misleading online dockets/prisoners’ registrations was accompanied by denial of access to public records and/or First Amendment rights to access judicial records – to inspect and to copy, and d) All courts, which were inspected, failed to publish local rules, and US Congress likewise failed to enact the law establishing procedures governing the implementation and use o