Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.07.23
19:29:04 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-07-23 BLOG: Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored

• Posted on July 22, 2010 by NBC - Zernik discusses Taitz

On his “Human Rights Alert” website. Remember, Joseph Zernik has filed a complaint against Danny
Bickell.
Her motion should not have been for verification of signature… There is no legal foundation for such motion… Her motion should have
been for Due Process of Law -notice and service by the US Supreme Court of orders and mandates that are verified by a Justice of the US
Supreme Court and attested by the Clerk of the US Supreme Court, and require “full faith and credit”.

Alternatively, in the absence of a verified, attested order, motion should have been for Justice Thomas to comply with the Code of Conduct
of US Judges, and expediently dispose of judicial matters brought before him.

Zernik is still struggling with electronic docketing systems. His troubles with the Court have a long and
sad history which started when he lost his home. He has since then developed a somewhat novel ‘legal
theory’ about signing of orders. Most recently he filed a motion to intervene in Fine v Sheriff and continues
to argue that Justice Kennedy’s denial of the case was invalid because, as Zernik insists, there exists no
valid signed order. He then accused Danny Bickell of issuing a false and misleading notice that the
application was denied.
As to Richard Fine, he has been held in prison for civil contempt and since he somewhat unwisely had
claimed that he would not abide by the Judge’s orders until he had exhausted his legal options of appeal,
the Judge kept him locked up for over a year now.
Richard Fine, who has an impressive legal career, got in trouble when he continued to ask CA Judges to
recuse themselves because they had taken illegal payments or “bribes” since their salary had been
supplemented by local government. The story is quite interesting but in the end, Richard Fine lost appeal
after appeal. Perhaps worth a separate posting?

51 Responses to Zernik discusses Taitz

• Joseph Zernik says:
July 23, 2010 at 15:55
SUMMARY:
Discussion covered several cases in several courts, pertaining to the imprisonment of Richard Fine and
sanctions imposed on Attorney Orly Taitz. The discussion focused on validity of court records, and avoided
any arguments on the legal matters themselves.
.
1) Marina v LA County (BS109420) – ancillary proceedings for contempt
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
.
* RECORDS
 Page 2/26 July 23, 2010

+ March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt by Judge David Yaffe

—Is stamped FILED March 4, 2009
—Is signed by Judge Yaffe March 24, 2009
—Lacks any form of authentication
—Lacks any evidence of entry as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”.
+ March 4, 2009 Minutes
— Lack Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry by Clerk
— Failed to mention any sentencing or entry of March 4, 2009 Judgment
+ Register of Actions (California civil docket)
— Has never been discovered to this date
— Clerk and Presiding Judge of the Court are denying access to the Register
.
* LOCAL RULES OF COURT
— Falsely claim that entry of judgment is executed through entry in Judgment Books held in the Public
Division of each district of the Court.
— Deputy Clerks and Supervisors stated that no such Judgment Books have been maintained for decades.
— Court Counsel Bennett wrote a letter claiming that the effective Judgment Book is the microfilm judgment
archive.
— No copy of the March 4, 2009 Judgment was entered in the microfilm judgment archive.
.
2) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) – habeas corpus petition
US District Court, Central District of California
.
* RECORDS
+ Judgment, Orders, Minutes
— Were issued with NEFs lacking “Document Stamps”
— Total of 15 judicial records were issued by a person who was NOT Deputy Clerk.
+ PACER Docket
— Clerk of the Court Terri Nafisi continues to refuse to certify the docket as one that was constructed
pursuant to US law and by authority of the Clerk of the Court.
+ Paper record of commencing record (Dkt #1)- Petition by Richard Fine
— The Clerk of the Court denies access to the record
— At times claims were made that the record was shredded shortly after filing.
— Access to any record documenting the shredding was denied with no explanation at all.
.
* LOCAL RULES OF COURT
- No Local Rules were ever published establishing the nature of authentication and entry of
orders/judgments in CM/ECF
- General Order 08-02 was published online – albeit – with no name of its author and no signature by a
judge, where some information was provided. However, the information was deemed vague and ambiguous.
.
3) Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) – application for stay of execution (confinement)
US Supreme Court
 Page 3/26 July 23, 2010

.
RECORDS
* Purported March 13, 2010 Order of Denial by Justice Kennedy
- No order denying the application has ever been discovered.
- The online docket listed the application as denied March 13, 2010.
- The online log of SCOTUS orders failed to list such order of denial
- The imprisoned Richard Fine was noticed through an unsigned letter by a person who was not authorized
as Deputy Clerk that his application was denied. However, such notice failed to include any Order or any
other valid court record.
.
LOCAL RULES OF COURT
* State that denial of an Application may be inscribed by the Justice on the face of the Application.
- The Application failed to show any inscription of denial by Justice Kennedy on its face.
.
4) Rhode v McDonald () – application for stay of execution (sanctions)
US Supreme Court
.
RECORDS
* Purported Order of Denial by Justice Thomas
- No order denying the application has been discovered so far.
- The online docket listed the application as denied.
- The online log of SCOTUS orders failed to list such order of denial
- Attorney Orly Taitz has been neither served nor noticed.
.
LOCAL RULES OF COURT
* See above.
.
CONCLUSIONS:
1) The US and California courts insist on keeping vague and ambiguous Rules of Court
2) The courts deny access to records – to inspect and to copy.
3) Court records, which were discovered in the cases listed above, were consistently defective of deficient in
material ways.

• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 13:18
IN RE: PURPORTED MARCH 4 JUDGMENT FOR CONTEMPT RE: FINE AT THE CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NBC brought an interesting new point:
“Let me help you
In those counties where the clerk of the court places
individual judgments in the file of actions and either a microfilm copy of the individual judgment is
made, or the judgment is entered in the register of actions, or into the court’s electronic data-processing
system, prior to placement of the judgment in the file of actions, the clerk shall not be required to enter
 Page 4/26 July 23, 2010

judgments in a judgment book, and the date of filing the judgment with the clerk shall constitute the date
of its entry.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 668.5″
The California Code cited by NBC provided various options for the individual county courts regarding
technology that they may use as Judgment Books.
Local Rules of Court of the County of Los Angeles state:
“LOCAL RULES OF COURT:
3.0 JUDGMENTS (See Also LASCR, rule 8.96)
a) Original and Copy.
Whenever a proposed judgment is submitted to the court, the original shall be accompanied by a
complete, legible copy.”
And the same section continue (underline added):
“(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees.
Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court, which are required by law to be entered, shall be
entered by the clerk in judgment books kept by him/her either in the Public Services Division, of the
Central District, or the clerk’s office in each of the several districts. The judgment, order or decree shall
be entered in the judgment books in the district wherein the same was rendered and no other entry
thereof shall be required.”
Numerous attempt were made to access the Judgment Book at the Public Services Division”. Deputy
Clerks and Supervisors repeatedly stated that no Judgment Books were maintained at the Public Services
Division of the various districts for decades.
Numerous requests were forwarded to the Presiding Judge and the Clerk of the Court to disclose the
valid and effectual Local Rules of Court and correct the false published Local Rules of Court.
The Presiding Judge and the Clerk of the Court refused to respond on such requests, and continue to
publish false Local Rules of Court.
Instead, Court Counsel Frederic Bennett sent a letter, addressed to Joseph Zernik, stating that today the
Judgment Book of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was the microfilm judgment
archive of the court. However, such private letter by Court Counsel could not possibly be deemed a
substitute for published, honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of Court.
Moreover, following receipt of that letter, extensive search was conducted, assisted by Deputy Clerk of
the microfilm judgment archive, but no March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt was ever found entered
in the archive.
In short:
a) The Superior Court of California has been publishing for decades false Local Rules of Court in re:
Entry of Judgment.
b) Presiding Judge and Clerk of the Court refuse to publish honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of
Court.
c) If a private letter by Court Counsel Bennett is to be relied upon, and the microfilm judgment archive
is in fact today the LASC’s Judgment Book equivalent, then no March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt
was ever entered, and therefore, such March 4, 2009 Judgment was never “effectual for any purpose”.

• Joseph Zernik says:

 Page 5/26 July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010 at 12:58

IN RE: PURPORTED MARCH 4, 2009 JUDGMENT FOR CONTEMPT RE: FINE

NBC managed to made multiple false statements in one short sentence.
1) Docket in Marina v LA County (BS109420)
NBC says:
“The Docket shows the entry of the minute order as well as the document on the 4th.”
I would be grateful if NBC could provide a link to the docket. As stated before, my repeated written requests
for access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS109420) were
repeatedly denied.
Incredibly, the Habeas Corpus at the US District Court – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) was conducted with
no docket of the underlying case – Marina v LA County, having ever been discovered.
2) March 4, 2009 Minute Order in Marina v LA County (BS109420)
* Did NBC in fact read the March 4, 2009 Minute?
* Did the March 4, 2009 include the required “Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry by Clerk”?
* Did the March 4, 2009 include any mention of sentencing or judgment?
Again, since costs seem to be a stumbling block, leading people to groundless speculations, all records, where
access was gained, are provided free of charge at the archive: http://inproperinla.com/
To get to the section holding the records in a given case, query the page with the case number.

• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 11:44

NBC is still skirting the issues:

1) NBC is making up Rules of Court as he goes, but still fails to provide any valid reference where he
pulls them out of. Published Rules of Court, which are NOT vague and ambiguous are a fundamental of
Due Process rights.
2) In the Habeas Corpus of Richard Fine, 15 NEFs were issued not by a party, but by Court, albeit by a
person who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk of the Court.
3) In the Habeas Corpus, the Clerk of the Court, denied numerous requests to certify the PACER docket
of the Habeas Corpus as a docket that was constructed pursuant to US Law, on behalf of the Clerk of the
Court.
Please notice, that in contrast with the older Certificate of Service by Clerk, there is no mention of the
name of the person issuing the NEF in CM/ECF, no mention of his/her authority as Deputy Clerk, and
no mention of the authority of the Clerk of the Court anywhere either in the NEF or in the PACER
docket.
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 03:31

Another question, of the same nature, albeit – at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles:
NBC stated with full confidence that Richard Fine was imprisoned pursuant to a March 4, 2009
Judgment for Contempt. The only record that was produced in the Habeas Corpus was linked above.
 Page 6/26 July 23, 2010

I claim that it was false on its face, void not voidable, since it as stamped “FILED” on its face with the
date of March 4, 2009, but verified by Judge Yaffe on its last page on March 24, 2009.
Regardless, the Superior Court does not use CM/ECF:
1) Where did NBC find the authentication by the Clerk of the March 4, 2009 Judgment for contempt?
2) California law requires that that a judgment be entered in a Judgment Book to make it “effectual for
any purpose”. Where did NBC find any evidence that the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment was ever
entered as required for Judgments and Appealable Orders?
• bob says:

July 23, 2010 at 03:51

Do you believe that the order never existed? (Is it a conspiracy of clerks?)
Or that the order does exist, but can’t acted up due to these asserted violations?
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 12:37

“· bob says:
July 23, 2010 at 03:51
Do you believe that the order never existed? (Is it a conspiracy of clerks?)
Or that the order does exist, but can’t acted up due to these asserted violations?”
What I am saying is that court records must not be vague and ambiguous.
- The docket shows an entry, unsigned, that the application was denied…
- No denial order was ever served and noticed, in and of itself alleged violation of Due Process rights…
- The log of SCOTUS rulings shows no listing of such denial…
- The Journal of SCOTUS shows no listing of such denial either…
- The denial record itself is nowhere to be seen…
Court records must not be a game of hide and seek.
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 12:48

RE: Purported March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt in re: Richard Fine.
I am sorry in case I was not clear, although I tried to be explicit:
We are talking about a purported March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt from the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.
As I clearly stated before, this is a California state court, and it does not use PACER & CM/ECF.
NBC raised an additional interesting point, claiming that the official record of a case is the docket…
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles is denying for over a year repeated requests to
access the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case of Marina v LA County (BS109420),
in ancillary proceedings of which Richard Fine was purportedly arrested and imprisoned.
No matter how many times I went to the Clerk’s Office and offered to pay, access was denied, in alleged
violation of First Amendment rights and US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978), which re-affirmed the public’s right to access court records – to inspect
and to copy.
 Page 7/26 July 23, 2010

o NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 04:38

2) California law requires that that a judgment be entered in a Judgment Book to make it “effectual for
any purpose”. Where did NBC find any evidence that the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment was ever
entered as required for Judgments and Appealable Orders?
The official record is now the Docket system CM/ECF. Simple really
I claim that it was false on its face, void not voidable, since it as stamped “FILED” on its face with the
date of March 4, 2009, but verified by Judge Yaffe on its last page on March 24, 2009.
by what legal authority would that make the judgment void?
Where did NBC find the authentication by the Clerk of the March 4, 2009 Judgment for contempt?
The Docket shows the entry of the minute order as well as the document on the 4th.
o NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 04:59

NBC stated with full confidence that Richard Fine was imprisoned pursuant to a March 4, 2009
Judgment for Contempt. The only record that was produced in the Habeas Corpus was linked above.
Your point? You appear to claim that it was ‘false’ and void. By what legal authority? The Habeas
Corpus hearing focused on very specific arguments as to why Fine should be released, none of which
was found to hold much water legally speaking.
I am not aware if the March 24 order versus March 4 order issue was raised, and if it was not then there
is nothing to argue here.
As I explained I have seen the same document with the date march 4 and march 24 and the docket shows
it entered on March 4 so where lies the problem?
The judge found Fine in contempt and ordered him jailed. The order was executed on March 4 and Fine
was escorted from the Court room if I remember the details correctly.
See the order, signed and dated March 04, 2009
bob says:

July 23, 2010 at 05:25

Zernik lives in Los Angeles. If he wants, at any time he can go the Los Angeles Superior Court and
request to view the case file. He can look at original paper judgment at any time.
For a few dollars, the clerk will even copy it for him. For a few dollars more, the clerk will certify the
copy.
NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 05:57

Or order them online for a fee. The docketing system is online of course Zernik is confused by the lack
of NEF’s, not realizing that the docket itself is the official court record.
 Page 8/26 July 23, 2010

o NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 05:45

California law requires that that a judgment be entered in a Judgment Book to make it “effectual for any
purpose”. Where did NBC find any evidence that the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment was ever
entered as required for Judgments and Appealable Orders?
Let me help you
In those counties where the clerk of the court places
individual judgments in the file of actions and either a microfilm copy of the individual judgment is
made, or the judgment is entered in the register of actions, or into the court’s electronic data-processing
system, prior to placement of the judgment in the file of actions, the clerk shall not be required to enter
judgments in a judgment book, and the date of filing the judgment with the clerk shall constitute the date
of its entry.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 668.5
But you were told this already as shown in this document in which you complain about the confusing
rules and procedures.
You insisted
The purported March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt in re: Richard I Fine in Marina v LA
County (BS109420) was never found in the microfilm judgment archives of the Court, either.[4]
Therefore, such records were never entered in a book of judgments or its equivalent, as required by law,
and were and are void, not voidable, and were and are never effectual for any purpose.
And yet it shows up on the docket of the electronic filing system. Weird…
But the quote above explains
either a microfilm copy of the individual judgment is made,or the judgment is entered in the register of
actions, or into the court’s electronic data-processing system,
Cheers
You have the Docket on your site which shows the entry of the March 4, 2009 Judgment order.
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 03:21

Let’s raise another issue of vagueness and ambiguity in CM/ECF:

In the Certificate of Service of the US District Court, prior to the implementation of CM/ECF, example
of which was copied above, the hand signature had to be by a Deputy Clerk, and he/she had had to
explicitly state:
“I certify…”. Moreover, the signature was stated as being on behalf of the Clerk of the Court.
.
NBC states that the login serves that purpose in the NEF.
1) Where do you find in the NEF the statement “I certify…”
2) Where do you find in the NEF any evidence that the person who logged in to issue the NEF was
 Page 9/26 July 23, 2010

indeed a Deputy Clerk?

3) Where do you find in the NEF any mention of the fact that the NEF was issued on behalf of the Clerk
of the Court?
.
In the Habeas Corpus of Richard Fine a total of 15 court records had NEFs issued by a person who was
NOT a Deputy Clerk.
Moreover, the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify the docket of the habeas corpus as one that was
constructed pursuant to the law of the United States and on behalf of the Clerk of the Court.
Rate This

Reply

o NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 04:30

1) Where do you find in the NEF the statement “I certify…”

2) Where do you find in the NEF any evidence that the person who logged in to issue the NEF was
indeed a Deputy Clerk?
3) Where do you find in the NEF any mention of the fact that the NEF was issued on behalf of the Clerk
of the Court?
The NEF serves the Notice of Service requirement, that’s all. The evidence that the person logged into
the system was indeed the deputy clerk follows from the track record generated in NEF. If you believe
that any of the records were entered fraudulently then you can have a complaint filed. However, the
CM/ECF is the official record of the court and thus when an order is filed, the order is legally binding.
The NEF of a court order can only be issued by the Court itself, or an authorized person.
In the Habeas Corpus of Richard Fine a total of 15 court records had NEFs issued by a person who was
NOT a Deputy Clerk.
Well of course, there are the parties involved who can enter records in the system.
Moreover, the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify the docket of the habeas corpus as one that was
constructed pursuant to the law of the United States and on behalf of the Clerk of the Court.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Perhaps some relevant references as to what was asked
for, what was granted and what was stated in the rejection.
So back again to Fine’s case. It appears that Fine admitted to failings on his part and when the Court
convened for a legal purpose to close his representation, Fine disobeyed the order(s) and filed for recusal
based of the Judge. Now suddenly, Fine was arguing that the Judge did not have the power to do x, y
and z.
Nothing to do with whether or not the clerk certified the docket, nothing to do with the Sturgeon case.
All to do with basic responsibilities that were not met.
If Fine had not argued that he would not obey the judge’s order until he had exhausted his legal options,
the detention could have been argued to have been punitive and his stay would have been capped at 5
days.
 Page 10/26 July 23, 2010

I fail to see what the absence or presence of NEFs has anything to do with the merits of the case.
Let me walk through the case which was a real estate lawsuit for Marina Strand against LA and Del Rey.
Due to a miscalculation, Fine missed a filing and Fine filed an affidavit of fault to protect his client but
which would also open him up for damages to pay for reasonable legal fees and costs. When Fine
subsequently refused to participate in the hearing to determine the cost and fees and produce the
necessary documents, Fine was order in contempt of Court.
That’s the extent of Fine’s case. While I understand that people have embellished it with accusations of
corruption, fraud, bribes and other crimes of the Courts, the core of Fine’s present imprisonment is
because he refused to participate in the hearing.
The Court observed
Fine holds the key to his jail cell. By simply agreeing to answer questions and produce documents
concerning his assets, that he has a legal obligation to provide, his coercive confinement will end.
There are some insightful documents to be found on Scribd
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 26 Filed 06/12/2009 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 10, 2007, 28 Petitioner Fine, on behalf of Marina Strand, filed a motion for relief from
dismissal based on Petitioner Fine’s own affidavit of attorney fault. [Id.] In the affidavit, Petitioner Fine
stated under oath 3 that he had miscalculated the time to file. [Order Striking Notice of Disqualification
(“Order Striking Notice”), McCormick Decl. Ex. B, at 1.]
Sidenote: In the mean time the CA State Bar had placed Fine on inactive
Meanwhile, on October 12, 2007, the State Bar Court (in an 7 administrative action not related to Case
No. BS109420) recommended that Petitioner Fine be disbarred and ordered him involuntarily enrolled
as an inactive member of the State Bar.4
Judge Yaffe following the rules order Fine to pay fees and cost
Judge Jaffe also ordered Petitioner Fine to pay fees and costs, noting that “Code of Civil Procedure
section 473(b)mandates that the court also order the attorney at fault to pay reasonable compensatory
legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.”
Fine then attempted to have the judge recused
On February 19, 2008, Petitioner Fine filed a document in whichhe attempted to disqualify Judge Yaffe
and all judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court. [Order Striking Notice at 1-2.] In an order filed
March 18, 2008, Judge Yaffe ordered the disqualification stricken (1) as giving insufficient notice, (2)
because it was not filed by a party or [current] attorney for a party, (3) because a challenge may only
be made against a presiding judge and not all judges, (4) because it was untimely, and (5) because it
“disclosed on its face no legal grounds for disqualification.”
Yaffe then advised Fine that he had 10 days to file a write of mandate but instead Fine filed another
disqualification notice and missed his opportunity.
 Page 11/26 July 23, 2010

Judge Yaffe advised Petitioner that the strike order could only by reviewed if he sought a writ of
mandate from the court of appeal within ten
days. [Id. at 2-3.] Instead, Petitioner filed another notice of disqualification on March 25, 2008.
[Judgment & Order at 6; Order Striking Notice at 3.] Judge Yaffe issued a final order striking both
notices on March 27, 2008.
Then the hearing
Petitioner Fine was ordered to appear for a judgment debtor examination before Commissioner Murray
Gross. A series of judgment debtor examinations were held (on June 18, 2008, August 25, 2008, October
15, 2008, and December 29, 2008), at which Petitioner refused to answer questions or produce
documents in response to subpoenas, even though Commissioner Gross overruled Petitioner’s
objections. [Id. at 6-7.]
Then the Order to Show Cause was scheduled
On November 3, 2008, the Real Parties applied for an order to show cause re contempt against
Petitioner Fine. [Id. at 2.] Judge Yaffe issued an order to show cause on November 3, 2008, and set trial
for December 22, 2008. [Id.] The order to show cause set forth sixteen charges [Id. at 2-4], which were
reorganized for trial as the following five charges:
The Judge ruled
Judge Yaffe found Petitioner guilty of contempt, beyond a reasonable doubt, on charges one and four,
and not guilty on charges
two, three, and five
Thus the judgment
Judge Yaffe pronounced sentence on March 4, 2009. [See “Sentencing Transcript,” McCormick Decl.
Ex. D.] On charge one, Judge Yaffe sentenced Petitioner to be confined in the county jail until he
complied with Commissioner Gross’s orders, and ordered him to pay attorney’s fees to the accusing
parties. [Judgment & Order at 13-14.] On charge four, Judge Yaffe imposed a fine of $1,000, or five
days in county jail consecutive to the custody on charge one. [Id. at 14.]
Then Fine made the following statement
At the sentencing hearing Petitioner indicated that he would go on refusing to answer Commissioner
Gross’s questions until his habeas corpus actions (including the present case) were “entirely finished,”
but would answer the questions if he lost in the habeas proceedings.
[Sentencing Transcript at 9-11.] To date, Petitioner has not complied with the contempt order and
remains in custody at Los Angeles County Jail for civil contempt.
An excellent overview of the case against Richard Fine.
Anything else is totally irrelevant.

• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 03:10

 Page 12/26 July 23, 2010

NBC states above:

“Clerk’s authenticate court records when they are being requested by other jurisdictions, to certify their
authenticity. NEF’s have no relevance to this really. ”
The explicit language of the General Order 08-02 is diametrically the opposite [upper case added-jz]:
“An encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the NEF. The
electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of CONFIRMING THE AUTHENTICITY of
the transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary.”
.
Again, the question is: What is the basis for all the definitive statements of NBC regarding CM/ECF?
Please provide references.
Rate This

Reply

• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 02:46

NBC writes:
“Which is why the stamp only seems to show up on documents filed by the parties and not by the
Court.”
Where is the Rule of Court spelling it out?
Validity of court record must not be based on “seemingness…”
No one here disputed that prior to the introduction of CM/ECF there was a requirement for
authentication of Orders/Judgments by the Clerk, but now that requirement “seems” to have vanished?
o NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 04:31

No one here disputed that prior to the introduction of CM/ECF there was a requirement for
authentication of Orders/Judgments by the Clerk, but now that requirement “seems” to have vanished?
It’s called the NEF. And you yourself showed examples where there was no signature on the pre-
CM/ECF order
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 02:39

In response to posting by NBC:

1) NBC still failed to explain where he found that a JUDGE is permitted to issue a signature through an
encrypted “Document Stamp.” I fail to see any hint of that in the General Order 08-02.
2) The underlying claim in NBC’s response is that there was a radical change in the Rules of Court with
introduction of CM/ECF, and while authentication/certification of court records was required prior to the
introduction of CM/ECF, now it was no longer required.
I cannot see where you figured that Rule of Court from.
However, I fully agree with you that there was a radical change in conduct of the courts following
introduction of CM/ECF.
 Page 13/26 July 23, 2010

The fundamental claim is that the courts failed to publish the new local Rules of Courts, and that the
minimal records that do exist, such as General Order 08-02, left coditions that are vague and ambiguous.
The failure to publish Rules of Courts pertaining to CM/ECF is alleged as violation of Due Process
rights, in and of itself.
The mere discussion conducted here documents the vague nature of the current court procedures in
CM/ECF.
3) The issue of the nature of authentication/certification of court records was never reviewed by the US
courts, as far as I can tell. I would be glad if you could point out a single case where the issue was
reviewed by a US Court.
…
I would be grateful if you could spell out the source for your various statements regarding CM/ECF,
which appear to be groundless.
o NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 04:01

5) I would be grateful if you could spell out the source for your various statements regarding CM/ECF,
which appear to be groundless.
I call that irony.
As to the rest of your claims, remember that it is you who has to prove that the lack of an RSA
document stamp on a NEF somehow invalidates the rulings of the Court. In fact, as I have documented,
once on the CM/ECF system, the document becomes the official record. The NEF is to satisfy the
service requirements for the parties involved. The RSA document stamp service little if no purpose that
would not be served by the NEF itself.
To argue, as you have done, that orders which lack a RSA stamp are somehow void requires a leap of
faith that is not warranted by the evidence you have provided so far.
Authentication and certification are still part of the Court, but they happen not through the NEF.
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 23, 2010 at 01:24

As you may or may not know, I spent several decades as a Univ Prof, and I feel like I have to give a
lecture here… so please try to follow.
You missed the core issue.
Paragraph “O” has nothing at all to do with signature by a JUDGE.
The title of the paragraph is the following:
“O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described
herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court.”
The paragraph outlines the method established in CM/ECF for certification and authentication by the
CLERK.
To start out, you must recognize that for a court order or judgment to be a valid and effectual, it had to
have two signatures, not one. It must have signature of the JUDGE on the Order or Judgment itself, and
 Page 14/26 July 23, 2010

it must have Authentication/Certification – signed by a CLERK.

Here you can see a sample form used for Certification/Authentication of court record, from the period
prior to implementation of CM/ECF:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-sj-wright-v-bac-10-1-unsigned-paper-cos-by-clerk.pdf
It was titled:
“CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California.
That on May 11, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies)
in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in
the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk’s
office.
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Tiffany Salinas-Harwell, Deputy Clerk”
The certification/authentication serves two purposes:
a) Authenticate the signature of the JUDGE, on the order/judgment itself, in a manner similar to that in
which a Notary Public authenticate the signature of a person signing a record before him/her, and
b) Certify that the order/judgment were served on all parties to the case, satisfying the fundamental due
process requirement for Notice and Service.
The Certification/Authentication is deemed an integral part of any valid court order/judgment, the same
way that a Notary Public acknowledgement is physically connected to the record that it certifies.
Paragraph “O” of General Order 08-02 established that following implementation of CM/ECF, entry of
court Order/Judgment, is no longer certified/authenticated by the traditional form, such as linked above.
Instead, the Clerk of the Court, upon entry of Order/Judgment signed by a judge, sends by email the
Order/Judgment to all parties in the case, together with a record called NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing), which is the electronic certification/authentication record. In the NEF the hand signature of the
clerk, which previously appeared on the paper-based Certificate of Service was replaced by the
encrypted “Document Stamp”.
There is no mention in General Order 08-02 of a JUDGE issuing an encrypted “Document Stamp”. It is
only the current tool for CLERK’s certification/authentication of entry of an Order/Judgment.
Joseph Zernik
The next questions that you are supposed to ask are:
1) Since when is a clerk supposed to certify/authenticate a court record?
Isn’t it enough that a judge signed the Order/Judgment?
2) Where are the NEFs? I have never seen one in my life…
Joseph Zernik
o NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 01:48

Missing the point again. But we are slowly getting somewhere.

 Page 15/26 July 23, 2010

Here you can see a sample form used for Certification/Authentication of court record, from the period
prior to implementation of CM/ECF:
Time before the Courts switched to electronic dockets. Now there are various ways for the Judge to
‘sign’ the orders and decisions, including the Court Rule that unsigned notices will be considered to be
signed. Which makes sense of course since it is the Court who introduced them on the docket.
But Judges can also decide to ‘sign’ using an electronic RSA code, the login/password of their CM/ECF
account etc etc.
What you seem to be missing is that once the document is in ECM/CF it becomes the official record and
the NEF merely serves the function to provide notice to those who need to know, that is the plaintiffs
and defendants that the document has been added to the official record.
When documents are filed by a non-Court party, an encrypted signature is added as an added security
feature that the documents attached indeed are the ones which were filed. This is most relevant where
opposing parties need to be able to rely on the authenticity of these documents.
However, a court record of a Court order or minute order or judgment only requires the NEF without the
need for such authentication.
NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 02:36

I can see why Zernik may feel that the legal system betrayed him. However, his motivations, which
remain speculative at best, are of less interest to me than exploring the legal foundation for his claims.
o NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 01:58

The next questions that you are supposed to ask are:

1) Since when is a clerk supposed to certify/authenticate a court record?
Isn’t it enough that a judge signed the Order/Judgment?
2) Where are the NEFs? I have never seen one in my life…
Why do you presume something that is so trivially wrong. Orly Taitz used to post some of her NEF’s
and NEF’s are hardly much of a mystery. Of course, they are merely a notice of electronic filing of a
document(s) which has become part of the official court records. Which is why it is impossible to delete
records, at least by the users.
Clerk’s authenticate court records when they are being requested by other jurisdictions, to certify their
authenticity. NEF’s have no relevance to this really. Actually IIRC, deputy clerks certify, circuit clerks
authenticate. Anyone can request a certified or authenticated copy as far as I have been able to
determine.
Authentication is most relevant in Full Faith and Credit situations.
Nothing of this has much to do with a ruling, minute order, judgment etc being void or not.
In the NEF the hand signature of the clerk, which previously appeared on the paper-based Certificate of
Service was replaced by the encrypted “Document Stamp”.
Which is why the stamp only seems to show up on documents filed by the parties and not by the Court.
 Page 16/26 July 23, 2010

• Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 22:43

NBC is great at cutting and pasting. However, he repeatedly makes it obvious that he does not
understand what he cuts and pastes.
“When a document has been electronically filed into CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic
recording of the document kept in the custody of the Clerk of Court.”
NBC needs to review the difference between “FILE” and “ENTER.”
1) FILE means in most courts that a record was conveyed into possession of the clerk. Therefore, the
sentence quoted by NBC in fact says that when a record is electronically conveyed into possession of the
Clerk, it is indeed officially deemed conveyed into possession of the Clerk.
2) ENTERing a record, involves authentication by the Clerk, which requires the encrypted “Document
Stamp”. That is where the General Order 08-02 defines Authentication and Certification by the Clerk.
Please try to educate yourself on basic terms, read some of the related records, and let’s keep the
conversation going.
Joseph Zernik
o NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 22:49

2) ENTERing a record, involves authentication by the Clerk, which requires the encrypted “Document
Stamp”. That is where the General Order 08-02 defines Authentication and Certification by the Clerk.
I fail to see where GO 08-02 makes such a distinction. The NEF does not require an encrypted document
stamp and as far as I can tell is only consistently used when documents have been filed by parties to the
case. When the Court responds in orders or judgments, the NEF need not contain any document stamps,
the fact that they were filed by the Court and ‘signed’ is sufficient.
Authentication is only necessary for documents filed by the parties.
I fail to see so far any positive evidence that supports your position. In fact, it appears that Court rules
allow the Judge to ‘sign’ the orders in variety of manners, including an RSA stamp.
Your appeal to Full Faith and Credit and the various acts do not apply beyond official authentication of
documents to be admitted in other jurisdictions and has no relevance to documents filed in a particular
case as being ‘authentic’. The mere fact of the document having been filed by the Court is sufficient
evidence and absent a signature, the signature is implied.
1 Votes

Reply

• Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 21:51

A reasonable review of Fine’s predicament is found at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/
 Page 17/26 July 23, 2010

A reasonable review of large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, documented for over a
decade in official, unofficial, and media reports is provided at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729660/
Rate This

Reply

o NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 02:21

How do you define ‘reasonable’? Yes, there may be hundreds if not thousands still in jail due to the
Rampart years. But that has nothing to do with Richard Fine’s situation. You are comparing apples and
oranges.
And while I may spend some time addressing your ‘reasonable’ view of Fine, I would like to point out
that the payments were not unconstitutional per se, but they were not prescribed by the legislature as
required. Once the legislature passed an act to rectify this oversight, the payments were, once again
within the constitution. In addition, the act resolved that Judges could not be held liable for the years
where they received payments that had not been properly prescribed by the Legislature.
See Sturgeon v County of LA
The legislature passed Senate Bill SBX2 11
But even this has little to do with Richard Fine’s problems.

• Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 21:47

NBC indeed do a great job cutting and pasting the General Order 08-02, but still failed to read what he
himself posted:
” An encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the NEF. The
electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the
transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary. ”
No NEF bearing the “encrypted verification code” was ever issued on the June 29, 2009 Habeas Corpus
Judgment, and therefore, it was not authenticated, hence – never entered as a valid, effectual court
judgment.
NBC would be well served to read what he himself posts.
Joseph Zernik
o NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 22:04

No NEF bearing the “encrypted verification code” was ever issued on the June 29, 2009 Habeas
Corpus Judgment, and therefore, it was not authenticated, hence – never entered as a valid, effectual
court judgment.
 Page 18/26 July 23, 2010

There lies the problem. You interpret the absence of the verification code as the judgment not being
valid.
You missed the relevant part
When a document has been electronically filed into CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic
recording of the document kept in the custody of the Clerk of Court.
All the encrypted stamp does is
The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the
transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary.
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 21:43

Dave said:
“Do you have any basis for that “no warrant was issued”?”
The records from the habeas corpus are posted at:
http://inproperinla.com/
Query for 01914 to get to the right section.
You are more than welcome to find a warrant there.
Joseph Zernik
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:57

Dave says:
“OK, so there was a habeas petition on Fine’s behalf, and the judgment of the court was that there was
no failure of due process. I understand that the gist of your comment is that you feel that the court is
wrong. But frankly your arguments sound to me like quibbling over unimportant details. You said in an
earlier comment that there was no warrant, but given that there is a judgement of contempt, why is that
important?”
Dave is again failing to understand the basic facts in the matter:
1) There is no valid and effectual, entered Judgment for Contempt, as detailed in a previous message,
which also provided a link to the fraudulent record that was produced by the Sheriff.
2) There is no claim that the US District Court erred in its judgment on the Habeas Corpus. The fact is
that the US District Court failed to enter a judgment on the Habeas Corpus that would comply with the
US District Court’s own rules, as stated in General Order 08-02.
For such judgment to be deemed valid, effectual, entered judgment, an NEF bearing an encrypted
“Document Stamp” should have been issued. The US District Court chose not to enter the June 29, 2009
for reasons that were never explained.
.
Joseph Zernik
o NBC says:
 Page 19/26 July 23, 2010

July 22, 2010 at 21:25

Zernik argues that a NEF with encrypted stamp is required, however the document he references reads
as follow
2) There is no claim that the US District Court erred in its judgment on the Habeas Corpus. The fact is
that the US District Court failed to enter a judgment on the Habeas Corpus that would comply with the
US District Court’s own rules, as stated in General Order 08-02.
For such judgment to be deemed valid, effectual, entered judgment, an NEF bearing an encrypted
“Document Stamp” should have been issued.
The General Order 08-02 specifies
O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and
44(c), the method of electronic certification described herein is deemed proof of an official court record
maintained by the Clerk of Court. The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification
of the United States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An encrypted
verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the NEF. The electronic document
stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the transmission and associated
document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into
CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the custody of the Clerk
of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated document(s) is a true and correct copy of
the original filed with the court.
It is not clear to me that a NEF with an encrypted code is required as electronic filing is sufficient for the
document to become to official record.
Will need to do some research.
o NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 21:56

The user login and password required to submit documents to the CM/ECF system serve as the filing
user signature on all electronic documents filed with the court. They also serve as a signature for
purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 11, the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the applicable local rules, and for any other purpose for which a signature is required in
connection with proceedings before the court.
Source
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:50

NBC apparently fails to recognize the difference between “FILED” and “ENTERED”.
Furthermore, NBC is again relying on dubious sources in stating:
“Pacer itself explains the rules:”
PACER in and of itself is a software package, and as such cannot explain any rules at all. Even if it
could – it would have had no authority at all.
.
 Page 20/26 July 23, 2010

The rules regarding filing in PACER at the US District Court, Central District of California, are
presumably explained in General Order 08-02:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27632471/
The General Order 08-02 states that entry and authentication by the Clerk are satisfied through a
digitally encrypted “Document Stamp” appearing in the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings), which are
issued by the court in response to any electronic filing of records.
.
However, in the Habeas Corpus petition of Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), no valid
NEFs bearing the encrypted “Document Stamps” were ever issued by the Court.
.
Joseph Zernik
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:43

NBC is original in his claims:

“The Supreme Court site itself notices that most applications will be denied with an unsigned order.
Judgments however may need a signed order although unsigned minute orders in some jurisdictions can
be treated similarly as long as it does not mention that a formal signed order should be issued.”
The Supreme Court site itself is not a legal reference. However, on the Supreme Court site there is a
copy of the Local Rules of the Supreme Court. The Local Rules state something entirely different – that
a Justice who decided to deny an Application should indicate the denial on the face of the Application
itself.
No denial was noted by Justice Kennedy on the face of the Application by Richard Fine.
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:36

I would be grateful if NBC or Dave could provide a link to the record that was purported to have been
referred to in the statement “On 03/04/2009 Judge Yaffe entered a judgment and order of contempt for
Richard Fine.”
.
Links are provided in the petition site and also below, where you can view the existing records:
a) Which were produced by the Sheriff, in response to a formal inquiry by Los Angeles Supervisor
Michael Antonovich on my behalf. That set of records fraudulently claims that Richard Fine was
arrested on location and by authority of the “Municipal Court of San Pedro”. No such court has existed
for almost a decade. Moreover, the Sheriff refused to correct the records even after their falsehood was
brought to his attention.
http://inproperinla.com/10-01-08-antonovich-ltr-repeat-mailing-w-attch-env-s.pdf
.
b) Which were produced by the Sheriff, as part of the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine. Such
records purported that Richard Fine was arrested and imprisoned pursuant to March 4, 2009 Judgment
for contempt by Judge David Yaffe. However, the record was stemped “FILED” on March 4, 2009, but
was signed by Judge Yaffe on March 24, 2009. Moreover, the records includes no authentication by a
 Page 21/26 July 23, 2010

clerk, and was never entered by the court.

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-false-fine-judment-record-copy-
from-us-dist-ct-habeas-corpus-doc-16-response-by-la-sup-ct-filed-may-1-2009.pdf
.
Therefore, each of the two sets of records is deemed void, not voidable, in and of itself, and the two
contradictory records are deemed fraud by the Sheriff in false imprisonment of Richard Fine.
.
Joseph Zernik
o Dave says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:49

OK, so there was a habeas petition on Fine’s behalf, and the judgment of the court was that there was no
failure of due process. I understand that the gist of your comment is that you feel that the court is wrong.
But frankly your arguments sound to me like quibbling over unimportant details. You said in an earlier
comment that there was no warrant, but given that there is a judgement of contempt, why is that
important?
NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:58

If I understand Zernik’s arguments, he is claiming that the remand/removal and book forms are
contradicting as one mentions D-86 court room in LA County Superior Court while the other incorrectly
names Div 86 of the San Pedro Muni. An obvious discrepancy but Zernik argues this to be fraudulent.
As to the judgment/contempt, Zernik is arguing that the order was never properly entered in the record
and signed 20 days after the event.
The order however was prepared by the lawyers of the opposing side and signed by the Judge. I am sure
that one of the minute orders will describe in more detail what happened. But $7.50 per document is a
bit steep.
Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 21:09

1) Dave is choosing first to misunderstand the facts:

The purported Judgment record was signed 20 days after it was stamped “FILED” by the Clerk. No
court records signed that way could be deemed an honest, valid, and effectual court record. Furthermore,
the record bears no authentication as required for a Judgment to be entered.
Link was provided.
2) Dave is choosing to make statement by the seat of his pants with no access to the records in the case.
As a gesture of generosity, you can view all court records in the case from the period immediately prior
to March 4, 2009 arrest, free of charge.
You are more than welcome to find and point out the March 4, 2009 Minute pertaining to the entry of a
March 4, 2009 Judgment. The March 4, 2009 Minutes were not certified by the Clerk, as required by
law. More over, there is no mention of entry of March 4, 2009 Judgment of Contempt in the March 4,
2009 Minutes.
 Page 22/26 July 23, 2010

RECORDS:
[1] The archive of records is at:
http://inproperinla.com/
You can reach the section holding the records from Marina v LA County, where Richard Fine was
purportedly arrested, by query for
[2] The March 4, 2009 Minutes are at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-minute-order.pdf
In short: It would be great if Dave and NBC could spend some time reviewing the records, before
blowing so much hot air.
Joseph Zernik
NBC says:

July 23, 2010 at 04:35

The purported Judgment record was signed 20 days after it was stamped “FILED” by the Clerk.
I have seen two documents, one signed on the fourth, the other on the 24th. There is no requirement of
authentication for judgment to be entered. You are too much focused on what you believe the rules of
the Court should be, not what they really are and what the impact is of the Judge not having
‘authenticated’ his ruling. He surely signed it. Is that suddenly not enough?
NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 21:11

Hmm interesting, so far I have seen about 3 different orders, with afaict the same text but either with
date 4 or 24 and a real signature or signature stamp.
The one on file with the docket system would be the relevant one.
o NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:52

So rather than not existing, you disagree with it being enforcable as you argue that it is void. The
document shows up on the docket for the case, was signed by the judge and it seems that appeals courts
have found no problems here.
Again, this appears to be a misunderstanding on your part of these procedures. You are correct that the
Booking papers mention San Pedro Municipal Div 86 where the removal/remand order indicates
courtroom D86, which helps explain this minor discrepancy.
• Joseph Zernik says:

July 22, 2010 at 19:21

Comments:
1) Signatures by Judges and authentication by Clerks of Court Orders, Judgments.
“Novel legal theory”?
It is well grounded in the US Constitution and some of the earliest acts of Congress:
 Page 23/26 July 23, 2010

a) U.S.Constitution, Art. IV s. I,
b) Act of May 26, 1790,
c) Act of March 27, 1804,
d) Act of May 8, 1792, s. 12
No court of the land would accept filing of papers with no authorized signature. The notion that judges
can issue court records with no signature appears ludicrous.
I also believe that Attorney Taitz agrees with me on this point – therefore her motion for “verification of
signature”. The disagreement was only on the appropriate legal tool to address the issue, not on the
matter itself.
.
2) False Imprisonment of Richard Fine
The writer never figured out the true story. Richard Fine is held in solitary confinement for 17 months
with no valid record to provide the legal foundation for his arrest and imprisonment. No warrant was
ever issued, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered in his case.
Please sign the petition – FREE RICHARD FINE
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Links are provided in the petition to the false records that were produced by the court and the Sheriff as
the arrest and booking records of Fine.
.
3) The common theme
Use of electronic docketing systems to list orders and judgments that never existed, or are false on their
faces, void not voidable – since they were never verified by a judge and/or never authenticated by a
clerk. Web pages tolerate anything, and the courts are using them to engage in large scale fraud across
the US.
Rate This

Reply

o NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 19:41

Joseph argues
The writer never figured out the true story. Richard Fine is held in solitary confinement for 17 months
with no valid record to provide the legal foundation for his arrest and imprisonment. No warrant was
ever issued, and no judgment/conviction/sentencing was ever entered in his case.
The writer is quite aware of the novel arguments that were all rejected by the various courts. The case
was rather straightforward. Richard Fine refused an order by a Judge, was held in civil contempt, argued
that he would not obey with the judge’s orders until he had exhausted his legal options and was held in
prison pending the outcome of him exhausting his legal options.
There is a reasonable overview of Richard’s predicaments found here
Notable quotes:
Fine is held exclusively under CCP 1219 (a) that allows:
 Page 24/26 July 23, 2010

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), when the contempt consists of the omission to
perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, he or she may be imprisoned until he
or she has performed it, and in that case the act shall be specified in the warrant of commitment. (MG:
(b) and (c) do not apply to Fine.)
o NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 19:47

Use of electronic docketing systems to list orders and judgments that never existed, or are false on their
faces, void not voidable – since they were never verified by a judge and/or never authenticated by a
clerk. Web pages tolerate anything, and the courts are using them to engage in large scale fraud across
the US.
By virtue of these orders being on Pacer they have been verified and/or authenticated by the clerk. There
is no evidence as far as I have been able to ascertain which support your accusations of fraud across the
United States. A far simpler explanation is that you may have failed to understand how the electronic
docketing system works.
The notion that judges can issue court records with no signature appears ludicrous.
The notion that orders found in official Court Dockets are somehow illegal, void, or non-binding would
appear to be more worthy of that term. Of course, calling an order denying an application was somehow
‘invalid’ is not going to do Fine much good really…
The Supreme Court site itself notices that most applications will be denied with an unsigned order.
Judgments however may need a signed order although unsigned minute orders in some jurisdictions can
be treated similarly as long as it does not mention that a formal signed order should be issued.
It may give you some comfort that the Court of Appeals in California noted
One final comment: As readers might (hopefully) garner from this opinion, California’s law of appellate
procedure is just too complicated. In cases of subsequent motions and attacks on appealable decisions
the chances of innocent miscalendaring are too great. There are too many counterintuitive results
(today’s is one, as was the result in Hollister Convalescent Hosp.), obscure statutes waiting to jump out
of the dark, and common law doctrines with all sorts of unexpected implications. (And not to mention
the ostensible splits in decisions of the Court of Appeal that must be carefully analyzed in order to know
what is, and is not, common ground.) We therefore call upon the Legislature to consider revising the
rules of access to the appellate courts so that, if nothing else, they are simple enough even for those of
us encumbered with law degrees to understand.
Pacer itself explains the rules:
A document filed with the court electronically shall be deemed to be signed by a person (the
“Signatory”) when the document identifies the person as a Signatory and the filing complies with either
subparagraph A or B. Any filing in accordance with any of these methods shall bind the Signatory as if
the document were physically signed and filed, and shall function as the Signatory’s signature, whether
for purposes of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to attest to the truthfulness of an
affidavit or declaration, or for any other purpose.
 Page 25/26 July 23, 2010

All orders, decrees, judgments, and proceedings of the court will be filed in accordance with these rules
which will constitute entry on the docket kept by the clerk under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58
and 79 and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 49 and 55. All signed orders will be filed
electronically by the court or court personnel.
Any order filed electronically without the original signature of a judge has the same force and effect as
if the judge had affixed the judge’s signature to a paper copy of the order and it had been entered on the
docket in a conventional manner.
o Dave says:

July 22, 2010 at 19:50

Do you have any basis for that “no warrant was issued”?
NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:09

I believe Richard Fine was arrested in open court. Will need to research
Dave says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:24

Why is it that every time somebody comes around here with a surprising and baseless allegation, we
have to do some research? I have a great idea — how about if they do some research?
If there is anything untoward about Fine’s confinement, then he can have a habeas proceeding. If he had
one, let’s hear the result. And if he didn’t, well, that’s his choice, end of story.
NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:25

On03/04/2009 Judge Yaffe entered a judgment and order of contempt for Richard Fine.
NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:28

DEMAND FOR RELEASE DUE TO UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT

I have the following complaint: Sheriff is holding me illegally the remand order does not show a bail
amount. It shows “no bail”. It does not show an “appearance date” which is required. It shows a
charge of CCP Section 1219 (a) which is contempt of court. Under CCP Section 1218, the penalty for
contempt of court is five days. Today is my 309 day. The judgment and order of contempt attached to the
remand order, at page 14, lines 3-6, orders Fine “sentenced to confinement in the county jail until he
provides all information that he has been ordered to provide..”. Such sentence is “punitive” and not
“coercive” as the information sought is about Fine’s assets. It does not relate to the issue of the case
which was “whether Judge Yaffe should have recused himself?”. As such Fine could not be remanded,
or if remanded, only for five days. See In Re Farr 36 CAL. App. 3rd 577, 584 (1974) – no substantial
likelihood contempt order would serve its coercive purpose cited In Re William T Farr 64 CAL App. 3rd
605, 611, (1976).
 Page 26/26 July 23, 2010

Richard I. Fine
Fine is correct about 5 days for Criminal contempt but he is held under civil contempt. Since Fine
remarked that he would not respond to the judge until he had exhausted his legal options, the argument
that the contempt order was ‘punitive’ was somewhat undermined.
NBC says:

July 22, 2010 at 20:32

The judgment and remand order can be read online

It’s not that I have no problems with Richard Fine’s predicaments but I find the arguments of some of
his supporters to be somewhat exaggerated.