Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-03-16 Richard Fine: More on Remedies – Restoration of First Amendment Rights

Postings at the ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-
year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#68499

MORE ON REMEDIES – A CALL FOR RESTORATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO

ACCESS COURT RECORD – TO INSPECT AND TO COPY - IN LOS ANGELS, CALIFORNIA,
AND THE UNITED STATES

The case of Richard Fine provided unparalleled documentation of the widespread corruption of the judiciary,
particularly in Los Angeles County, California. Already in 2008, in complaint filed with FBI Director and US
Attorney General, Dr Joseph Zernik provided credible evidence of racketeering by the judges of the Los
Angeles Superior Court, and requested appointment of a Special Counsel pursuant to 28 CFR §600 for
investigation, and prosecution, if necessary, of those who deny First Amendment rights in Los Angeles
County - to inspect and to copy judicial records that were the electronic records of the Court’s case
management systems.

Such records included, but were not limited to the Index of All Cases, the Calendars of the Courts, the
Registers of Actions, and the Judgments Index in Sustain - the civil case management system of the LA
Superior Court. Dr Zernik provided evidence that following the installation of Sustain, the Los Angeles
Superior Court adopted an unpublished local rule of court: “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only”. It was
alleged that such unpublished local rule of court was contrary to both the Rule Making Enabling Acts (federal
and state) and First Amendment rights.

Through the proposed limited mandate and limited term charge of such Special Counsel, Dr Zernik claimed
that First Amendment rights could be restored in Los Angeles County, California, within 2 weeks - at least on
court locations, not by remote access. It was further claimed that restoration of First Amendment rights and
public access to court records would be sufficient to largely paralyze the racketeering by the judges of the Los
Angeles Superior Court. Moreover, it was alleged that restoration of such access to the criminal case
management system records would allow speedy release of the thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely
Imprisoned Persons) through petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Needless to say, restoration of such access
would provide the ultimate evidence for the alleged fraud by Judge David Yaffe and Clerk of the Court John
A Clarke relative to Marina v LA County and the alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine.

It was later realized that similar actions were required relative to the conduct of US Courts and US Courts of
Appeals throughout the United States. In installation of PACER and CM/ECF, the case management and
public access systems of the United States Courts, public access to court records and First Amendment rights
pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) were curtailed with no foundation in the law. The
attestations and certifications of records by the clerks of the courts were removed from public access with no
foundation in the law and with no published Rules of Courts to substantiate such sea change in the operations
of the courts. The denial of access to such certifications and authentications – the NEFs (Notices of Electronic
Filings) [1] was documented by Dr Zernik in US Courts across the nation. the case of Mr Fine’s habeas
corpus petition at the US District Court, LA – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) was but one example. [2] It was
further documented that the US District Court, Los Angeles engaged in unrelated cases in the issuance of
invalid NEFs – to perpetrate alleged fraud on litigants. Such fraud by the US District Court, Los Angeles, was
also indirectly confirmed in the case of the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine.

Page 2/2 March 16, 2010

In his 2008 complaints and requests to the US Department of Justice, Dr Zernik further alleged, that upon
restoration of public access to court records in Los Angeles County, California, it would be discovered that the
Registers of Actions and other electronic court records in Sustain were a catalog of criminalities by the judges
of the Los Angeles Superior Court over the past quarter century. It was proposed that such computerized data
easily lent itself to be effectively used in the speedy construction of an index, which could be used to rank the
criminality of the individual judges, based on such public records. Such index and such ranking could be
instrumental in further reviews and determinations.

Dr Zernik further proposed that since it would not be possible to dispose of all 250 judges and 150
commissioners of the County of Los Angeles at once, the solution for the widespread corruption and
racketeering of the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court should include the establishment of "Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions". Similar processes were undertaken in various other countries upon emerging
from various types of tyrannies. It was proposed that there was nobody as qualified and as credible as Mr
Richard Fine to preside in such process.

In 2008 the FBI and US Attorney General office refused to answer on such complaints and requests by Dr
Zernik. Later, in response to Congressional Inquiries by the Honorable Dianne Feinstein and the Honorable
Diane Watson on behalf of Dr Joseph Zernik, senior officer of the US Justice Department filed responses with
US Congress, which were alleged as fraud on US Congress, on Joseph Zernik, and on the people. Such
responses by Kenneth Kaiser - Assistant Director of FBI for Criminal Investigations, and by Kenneth Melson
- then Director of US Office of US Attorneys, are currently subject of complaint by Dr Joseph Zernik to US
DOJ Inspector General - Glenn A Fine. Again - there was refusal of the DOJ-IG to respond on the
complaints. Again - there was inquiry by the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, on behalf of Dr Joseph Zernik, why
the DOJ-IG would not respond on the complaints.

As repeatedly documented, the US justice system was unable to address its own corruption. Further public
measures and possibly international pressure may be required before any corrective actions are undertaken.

LINKS:

[1] Notices of Electronic Filings of the United States Courts – a Review

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24732941/10-01-03-Notice-of-Electronic-Filing-NEF-First-Amendment-CMSs-
Review

[2] Denial of Access to NEFs and other court records in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Richard Fine at the
United States Court, Los Angeles

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28342152/10-03-14-Richard-Fine-Repeat-Complaint-Filed-With-Terry-Nafisi-
Clerk-of-the-US-Court-Los-Angeles-re-Alleged-Fraud-and-Abuse-in-Records-of-Fine-v-S