page counter

Why was this blog created?

All further in-house efforts to further justice in the US justice system are futile. These efforts are only worthwhile to the degree that they provide additional documentation of the widespread corruption of the US justice system.

Our focus must be on the international community.

In November 2010 the United Nations will review for the first time ever the Human Rights record of the United States. Corruption of the justice system was the core of reports filed by Human Rights Alert and others for the April 2010 deadline.

In August 2010 the US State Department is scheduled to respond on the reports, and in November 2010 the UN will conduct the review session and issue the report, and set goals, which the US would be asked to reach between 2010 and the next scheduled review in 2014.

Between now and November 2010, we must focus on informing and lobbying the nations that sit on the review panel, to ensure that the most effective report is issued.

This blog was created in hope that the French Government would support a UN UPR report that calls upon the US federal government to provide equal protection under the law to all who reside in the United States.

Please call or write your elected representatives. Please ask that the French Government support in November 2010 the issuance of a UPR report by the United Nations, which calls upon the US government to abide by its duties and responsibilities pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

S'il vous plaît appelez ou écrivez vos représentants élus. S'il vous plaît demander que le soutien du gouvernement français en Novembre 2010, la publication d'un rapport par les Nations Unies, qui invite le gouvernement américain à respecter ses obligations et responsabilités en vertu de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme.

S'il vous plaît signer la pétition - Libérer Richard Fine

RICHARD FINE was arrested on March 4, 2009 and is held since then in solitary confinement in Twin Tower Jail in Los Angeles, California, with no records,  conforming with the fundamentals of the law, as the basis for his arrest and jailing.

Richard Fine - 70 ans, ancien procureur des États-Unis, a montré, que les juges de comté de Los Angeles avait pris «interdit» les paiements (appelé par les médias "pots de vin").Le 20 Février 2009, le gouverneur de Californie a signé «immunités rétroactives" (amnesties) pour tous les juges à Los Angeles. Moins de deux semaines plus tard, le 4 Mars, 2009 Richard Fine a été arrêté en audience publique, sans mandat. Il est détenu depuis en isolement cellulaire à Los Angeles, en Californie. Aucun jugement, condamnation ou la peine n'a jamais été inscrit dans son cas.

S'il vous plaît signer la pétition - Libérer Richard Fine:

Sunday, August 1, 2010

10-08-01 Fine v Baca (09-A827) - une nouvelle preuve de fraude, de non-révélation de crime à la Cour suprême des États-Unis

William Suter
Clerk of the US Supreme Court 
Fine v Baca (09-A827) - Further Evidence for Fraud, Misprision of Felonies at the US Supreme CourtLos Angeles, August 1 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) released additional evidence of fraud and misprision of felonies at the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine v Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) - application for stay of execution of ongoing solitary confinement of the 70 year old former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, who blew the whistle on "not permitted" payments ("bribes") secretly taken by judges of Los Angeles County, California.  [1]Records recently received by Joseph Zernik, PhD, from the Court included an April 29, 2010 letter, signed by Court Counsel Danny Bickell on behalf of Clerk of the Court William Suter, noting: "Your motion to intervene, received April 21, 2010, is herewith returned."
The records also included the Motion to Intervene and related papers, [1] with stamp of US Marshals at the Court, indicating receipt of the records on March 20, 2010, and "RECEIVED" stamp of the Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the US, dated April 21, 2010. 
The April 29, 2010 letter by Mr Bickell documented that Mr Bickell held the records, filed in a timely manner, past the April 23, 2010 conference of the Court, where the case was purportedly reviewed. Furthermore, the letter documented that Mr Bickell denied review of the records by authorized Clerks and/or Justices of the court, and issued instead a letter, stating that the Motion and related papers were "returned", with no authority and with no legal foundation at all.
Human Rights Alert alleged that upon investigation and competent review, such conduct would be found as deprivation of rights by Mr Bickell, including, but not limited to the right to file petitions, access to the courts, equal protection, and due process of law. 
Conduct of Mr Bickell must be deemed particularly alarming, since papers, which were filed with the Motion to Intervene [2], [3]  also documented the prior alleged fraud by Mr Bickell, related to an unsigned, unauthorized notice he had sent to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, falsely stating the March 12, 2010 denial of the Application by Justice Kennedy, with no legal foundation in the Court records in the case. 
The papers filed on April 20, 2010 with the Motion to Intervene requested that the Court initiated corrective actions relative to conduct of Mr Bickell in the matter.
Human Rights Alert further alleged that upon investigation and competent review it would be found that conduct in the matter involved collusion and/or misprision of felonies by Mr William Suter - Clerk of the Supreme Court of the US.
Combined, conduct of Counsel Bickell and Clerk Suter was alleged as intended to cover up misconduct by other justice system agencies relative to former US Prosecutor Richard Fine, which was also detailed in the papers filed with the Motion to Intervene. Such conduct facilitated the continued alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine.
On April 21, 2010, Deputy Clerk of the Court acknowledged by phone receipt of the Motion to Intervene and related papers, but explained that the records failed to appear in the online docket of the Court, since they were held by Court Counsel Danny Bickell.
On April 21, 2010, Mr Bickell by phone first attempted to deny that the Motion and related papers were received at all.  Later he acknowledged that he was holding the records, and further explained that he would determine their disposition, although he consented that he was authorized neither as Clerk nor as a Deputy Clerk of the Court. 
Following the April 23, 2010, conference, disposition of the Application remained unknown. 
On April 26, 2010 a note appeared in the US Supreme Court online docket, [4]indicating denial of the Application. 
However, records, which were obtained from the Court file on July 26, 2010, showed no legal foundation at all for the April 26, 2010 denial noted in the online Court docket. [4]
Therefore, it was alleged that the case documented the repeated fraud in publication of false notes in the online US Supreme Court docket, fraud in the issuing of false, unauthorized notices by US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell, all committed with collusion and/or misprision by US Supreme Court Clerk William Suter.
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing on February 20, 2009 of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.  Since March 4, 2009, he has been imprisoned in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California.  Albeit, no warrant was ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing was ever entered in his case.
The case of Richard Fine documented a pattern of publication of false records in online public access systems, and denial of access to true judicial records:
1)      The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case.
2)      The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine.
3)      The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and to the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court.
4)      The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal.
5)      The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting denials on both March 12, 2010 and April 23/26, 2010, which were not supported by the Court records in the case.  The US Supreme Court online "docket" further failed to list the Motion to Intervene and related papers in the case. Access to true dockets in the case management system of the Supreme Court was yet to be permitted.
Therefore, Human Rights Alert submitted a request to the US Congress Judiciary Committees to establish by law the operation of the online public access systems and case management systems of the US Courts. [5]Notice of the newly discovered records of the US Supreme Court was also submitted to the US State Department and the United Nations. 
Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert as part of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States in the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.  The April 2010 UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
10-08-01-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-at-the-US-Supreme-Court-Further-Evidence-of-Fraud-Misprision-of-Felonies-April-29-2010-Letter-by-Court-Counsel-Bickell noting Motion to Intervene and related papers were "returned".
[2] 10-04-20 Motion to Intervene and related papers
[3] Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
[4] 10-07-26 Human Rights Alert's Request for Representation by Dean Minow at US Supreme Court Relative to Alleged Fraud in US Supreme Court Records
10-07-25 Fine v Baca (09 A827) Alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records in Fine v Baca (09-A827)
10-07-28 Fine v Baca (09-A827) Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court pertaining to purported denial of the Application in Conference
[5] 01-07-31 Human Rights Alert s Request for the Judiciary Committees to Establish Case Management and Online Public Access System of the US Courts by Law
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35149271/Human Rights Alert - NGO
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
Locations of visitors to this page
"Innocent people remain in prison"*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
"...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000)
"This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."     Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000)
April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/b) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/d) UPR Tool Kit by the Urban Justice Center:

No comments:

Post a Comment