10-04-21 HRA #11 - On the steps of the US Supreme Court - Filing Papers in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827)

The clip documents the filing on April 21, 2010 of Motion to Intervene in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court in Washington DC. The Motion to Intervene did not address the various arguments brought up by Richard Fine himself in the application to US Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg. Instead, it argued that Richard Fine must be immediately released for the simple reason that there were no records, conforming with the fundamentals of the law, to provide the legal basis for his confinement. Therefore, the filing provided detailed evidence of the alleged fraud in respective records of the various agencies of the justice system:
(a) The Los Angeles Superior Court - which refuses to this date to allow access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case;
(b) The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - which insists to this date on fraudulently claiming that Richard Fine was arrested and booked at an by the authority of the non-existent "Municipal Court of San Pedro";
(c) The US District Court, Los Angeles - which purported to conduct a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but served minutes, orders, judgment, and mandate with no valid authentication at all;
(d) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - which likewise served orders, judgments, and a mandate unsigned, and with no authentication at all.

The US Supreme Court handled such filing the same way the other courts did - the papers simply vanished.
A declaration posted at SCRIBD detailed what took place: The exhibit to the declaration provided the conformed copies that were received from the US Supreme Court as evidence of the filing. It also recorded the phone call with the US Supreme Court the next day: Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell initially tried to deny that the papers were filed and were held in his possession. Later he stated that he had not yet made the decision whether the papers would or would not appear in the Supreme Court docket of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827). When asked whether he was the Clerk of the Court or whether he was authorized as Deputy Clerk, he admitted he was neither. Regardless, he stated he would made the decision... And indeed apparently he did - the papers simply vanished with no Due Process at all...
No discrepancy notice or any other notation ever appeared in the docket to document the filing...
Forget about the First Amendment right to to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." The US Supreme Court disregarded it, just like the lower courts...
PS I still don't know how to take good videos, and forget about editing...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Joseph Zernik
• Richard Fine
• US Supreme Court
• Anthony Kennedy
• Ruth Ginsburg
• Danny Bickell