Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 09-05-01 Fine V Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) DKT #16-2: Response by LA Superior Court - March 4, 2009 Judgment Records S

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    58 views17 pages
    09-03-04 Records that were faxed from “Judicial Services” to the Sheriff’s Department and were later filed on May 1, 2009 as purported records that provided the foundation of the arrest and booking of Richard fine, in response by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, under Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) The attached court records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles are deemed false and deliberately misleading records for reasons including, but not limited to the following: 1. The fax header data indicated that such records were faxed from “Judicial Services” to the Sheriff’s Department with no cover sheet, and therefore, with no authentication at all. 2. Such records were faxed only at 4:31pm according to the fax header imprint, whereas the booking was purported to have been executed at 12:32 pm. Therefore, such records could not possibly be the foundation for the purported booking. 3. The purported booking was falsely listed in the Sheriff’s online Inmate Information Center, as executed pursuant to the authority of the Municipal Court, City of San Pedro. In contrast, the attached records were purported to imply the authority for the arrest and booking pursuant to purported records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, City of Los Angeles. 4. The attached records were filed on May 1, 2009 under caption of Fine v Sheriff by Attorney Kevin McCormick on behalf of the Superior Court of California and Judge David Yaffe. However, the litigation records of Fine v Sheriff failed to include the required certifications of Attorney Kevin McCormick as Counsel of Record for the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. 5. The attached records were filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick with declaration by counsel only, and with no declaration by Judge David Yaffe, by Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, by Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, or by any other officer of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Kevin McCormick was not a competent fact witness in this matter, and therefore such filing was insufficient. 6. The attached records were filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick with no authentication at all. Therefore, such records could not be accepted as honest, valid, and effectual records of the Court, which required “full faith and credit” pursuant to the US Constitution, Article IV, §1. 7. The attached records failed to include an honest, valid, and effectual warrant for the arrest of Richard Fine. 8. The purported March 4, 2009 Judgment record was stamped on its front page “Filed” with the date March 4, 2009. In contrast it was signed on its final page by Judge David Yaffe with the date of March 24, 2009. Such record could not possibly be deemed an honest, valid, and effectual Judgment record of the Court. 9. Although Sheriff Lee Baca was rightly named as Respondent in the Petition, the Sheriff refused to respond. 10. In January 8, 2010 Letter by Los Angeles Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich, Sheriff Lee Baca’s December 29, 2009 Response was provided to inquiry by County of Los Angeles Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich. In his December 29, 2009 Response Sheriff Lee Baca refused to produce such records as part of the arrest and booking records of Richard Fine. Instead, the Sheriff’s response stated that California Public Records Act did not require production of records which did not exist.

    Original Title

    09-05-01 Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Dkt #16-2: Response by LA Superior Court - March 4, 2009 Judgment records s

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    09-03-04 Records that were faxed from “Judicial Services” to the Sheriff’s Department and were later filed on May 1, 2009 as purported records that provided the foundation of the arrest and booking of Richard fine, in response by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, under Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) The attached court records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles are deemed false and deliberately misleading records for reasons including, but not limited to the following: 1. The fax header data indicated that such records were faxed from “Judicial Services” to the Sheriff’s Department with no cover sheet, and therefore, with no authentication at all. 2. Such records were faxed only at 4:31pm according to the fax header imprint, whereas the booking was purported to have been executed at 12:32 pm. Therefore, such records could not possibly be the foundation for the purported booking. 3. The purported booking was falsely listed in the Sheriff’s online Inmate Information Center, as executed pursuant to the authority of the Municipal Court, City of San Pedro. In contrast, the attached records were purported to imply the authority for the arrest and booking pursuant to purported records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, City of Los Angeles. 4. The attached records were filed on May 1, 2009 under caption of Fine v Sheriff by Attorney Kevin McCormick on behalf of the Superior Court of California and Judge David Yaffe. However, the litigation records of Fine v Sheriff failed to include the required certifications of Attorney Kevin McCormick as Counsel of Record for the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. 5. The attached records were filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick with declaration by counsel only, and with no declaration by Judge David Yaffe, by Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, by Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, or by any other officer of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Kevin McCormick was not a competent fact witness in this matter, and therefore such filing was insufficient. 6. The attached records were filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick with no authentication at all. Therefore, such records could not be accepted as honest, valid, and effectual records of the Court, which required “full faith and credit” pursuant to the US Constitution, Article IV, §1. 7. The attached records failed to include an honest, valid, and effectual warrant for the arrest of Richard Fine. 8. The purported March 4, 2009 Judgment record was stamped on its front page “Filed” with the date March 4, 2009. In contrast it was signed on its final page by Judge David Yaffe with the date of March 24, 2009. Such record could not possibly be deemed an honest, valid, and effectual Judgment record of the Court. 9. Although Sheriff Lee Baca was rightly named as Respondent in the Petition, the Sheriff refused to respond. 10. In January 8, 2010 Letter by Los Angeles Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich, Sheriff Lee Baca’s December 29, 2009 Response was provided to inquiry by County of Los Angeles Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich. In his December 29, 2009 Response Sheriff Lee Baca refused to produce such records as part of the arrest and booking records of Richard Fine. Instead, the Sheriff’s response stated that California Public Records Act did not require production of records which did not exist.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    58 views17 pages

    09-05-01 Fine V Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) DKT #16-2: Response by LA Superior Court - March 4, 2009 Judgment Records S

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    09-03-04 Records that were faxed from “Judicial Services” to the Sheriff’s Department and were later filed on May 1, 2009 as purported records that provided the foundation of the arrest and booking of Richard fine, in response by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, under Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) The attached court records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles are deemed false and deliberately misleading records for reasons including, but not limited to the following: 1. The fax header data indicated that such records were faxed from “Judicial Services” to the Sheriff’s Department with no cover sheet, and therefore, with no authentication at all. 2. Such records were faxed only at 4:31pm according to the fax header imprint, whereas the booking was purported to have been executed at 12:32 pm. Therefore, such records could not possibly be the foundation for the purported booking. 3. The purported booking was falsely listed in the Sheriff’s online Inmate Information Center, as executed pursuant to the authority of the Municipal Court, City of San Pedro. In contrast, the attached records were purported to imply the authority for the arrest and booking pursuant to purported records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, City of Los Angeles. 4. The attached records were filed on May 1, 2009 under caption of Fine v Sheriff by Attorney Kevin McCormick on behalf of the Superior Court of California and Judge David Yaffe. However, the litigation records of Fine v Sheriff failed to include the required certifications of Attorney Kevin McCormick as Counsel of Record for the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. 5. The attached records were filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick with declaration by counsel only, and with no declaration by Judge David Yaffe, by Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, by Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, or by any other officer of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Kevin McCormick was not a competent fact witness in this matter, and therefore such filing was insufficient. 6. The attached records were filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick with no authentication at all. Therefore, such records could not be accepted as honest, valid, and effectual records of the Court, which required “full faith and credit” pursuant to the US Constitution, Article IV, §1. 7. The attached records failed to include an honest, valid, and effectual warrant for the arrest of Richard Fine. 8. The purported March 4, 2009 Judgment record was stamped on its front page “Filed” with the date March 4, 2009. In contrast it was signed on its final page by Judge David Yaffe with the date of March 24, 2009. Such record could not possibly be deemed an honest, valid, and effectual Judgment record of the Court. 9. Although Sheriff Lee Baca was rightly named as Respondent in the Petition, the Sheriff refused to respond. 10. In January 8, 2010 Letter by Los Angeles Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich, Sheriff Lee Baca’s December 29, 2009 Response was provided to inquiry by County of Los Angeles Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich. In his December 29, 2009 Response Sheriff Lee Baca refused to produce such records as part of the arrest and booking records of Richard Fine. Instead, the Sheriff’s response stated that California Public Records Act did not require production of records which did not exist.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 17

    Digitally signed

    Dr Z by Joseph H
    Zernik
    DN: cn=Joseph H
    Joseph Zernik, PhD Zernik, o, ou,
    email=jz12345@e
    PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; arthlink.net, c=US
    Location: La
    Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Verne, California
    Date: 2010.02.09
    06:04:19 -08'00'
    Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

    09-03-04 Records that were faxed from “Judicial Services” to the Sheriff’s Department and were later
    filed on May 1, 2009 as purported records that provided the foundation of the arrest and
    booking of Richard fine, in response by Superior Court of California, County of Los
    Angeles, under Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

    The attached court records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles are deemed false and
    deliberately misleading records for reasons including, but not limited to the following:

    1. The fax header data indicated that such records were faxed from “Judicial Services” to the Sheriff’s
    Department with no cover sheet, and therefore, with no authentication at all.

    2. Such records were faxed only at 4:31pm according to the fax header imprint, whereas the booking was
    purported to have been executed at 12:32 pm. Therefore, such records could not possibly be the
    foundation for the purported booking.

    3. The purported booking was falsely listed in the Sheriff’s online Inmate Information Center, as executed
    pursuant to the authority of the Municipal Court, City of San Pedro. In contrast, the attached records
    were purported to imply the authority for the arrest and booking pursuant to purported records of the
    Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, City of Los Angeles.

    4. The attached records were filed on May 1, 2009 under caption of Fine v Sheriff by Attorney Kevin
    McCormick on behalf of the Superior Court of California and Judge David Yaffe. However, the litigation
    records of Fine v Sheriff failed to include the required certifications of Attorney Kevin McCormick as
    Counsel of Record for the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

    5. The attached records were filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick with declaration by counsel only, and
    with no declaration by Judge David Yaffe, by Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, by Clerk of the Court
    John A Clarke, or by any other officer of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Kevin
    McCormick was not a competent fact witness in this matter, and therefore such filing was insufficient.

    6. The attached records were filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick with no authentication at all. Therefore,
    such records could not be accepted as honest, valid, and effectual records of the Court, which required
    “full faith and credit” pursuant to the US Constitution, Article IV, §1.

    7. The attached records failed to include an honest, valid, and effectual warrant for the arrest of Richard
    Fine.

    8. The purported March 4, 2009 Judgment record was stamped on its front page “Filed” with the date
    March 4, 2009. In contrast it was signed on its final page by Judge David Yaffe with the date of March
    24, 2009. Such record could not possibly be deemed an honest, valid, and effectual Judgment record
    of the Court.

    9. Although Sheriff Lee Baca was rightly named as Respondent in the Petition, the Sheriff refused to
    respond.

    10. In January 8, 2010 Letter by Los Angeles Supervisor, the Honorable Michael Antonovich, Sheriff Lee
    Baca’s December 29, 2009 Response was provided to inquiry by County of Los Angeles Supervisor,
    the Honorable Michael Antonovich. In his December 29, 2009 Response Sheriff Lee Baca refused to
    produce such records as part of the arrest and booking records of Richard Fine. Instead, the Sheriff’s
    response stated that California Public Records Act did not require production of records which did not
    exist.
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 2 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 3 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 4 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 5 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 6 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 7 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 8 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 9 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 10 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 11 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 12 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 13 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 14 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 15 of 16
    Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 16 of 16

    You might also like