Digitally signed

Dr Z by Joseph H
Zernik
Joseph Zernik, PhD DN: cn=Joseph H
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: 2010.03.23
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs 14:11:40 -07'00'

10-03-23 Richard Fine: Requesting Ronald George, Chair of the Judicial Council to Take
Corrective Actions in re: Conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick

Hon. Ronald M. George

Chief Justice of California
Chair, Judicial Council
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
By Certified Mail, Restricted

The favor of a response within 10 days was requested.

Dear Chair George:

I write to you in your capacity as Chair of the California Judicial Council, and as a California
Judge, to reliably inform you of the conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick, and to request
review of his conduct in the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine, which was affected
through a retainer by the Judicial Council, regardless of any error that may have fallen in the
case caption, as listed in the retainer agreement drafted by the Council.

Conduct of Attorney McCormick was alleged as fraud on the court, obstruction and
perversion of justice, deliberately intended to affect the false imprisonment of Richard Fine.

Please let me know if the you, personally, and/or the Judicial Council and its subordinate
offices plan on reviewing the allegations in the correspondence copied below, and if found
valid – initiate corrective actions.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

Attached:
1) Correspondence with Mr Carrizosa in re: Allegations regarding conduct of Attorney
McCormick
2) Correspondence with Mr Carrizosa in re: Case caption of the habeas corpus petition.
z Page 2/16 March 23, 2010

1) Correspondence with Mr Carrizosa in re: Allegations Regarding Conduct of

Attorney McCormick, Retained by the Judicial Council and/or Its Subordinate
Offices
On 3/23/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:

X-MSK: CML=1.001000
From: "Carrizosa, Philip" <Philip.Carrizosa@jud.ca.gov>
To: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:30:41 -0700
Subject: RE: Richard I Fine: Request for review of allegations of fraud
misconduct by Attorney McCormick, and for initiation of corrective
actions.
Thread-Topic: Richard I Fine: Request for review of allegations of fraud
misconduct by Attorney McCormick, and for initiation of corrective
actions.
Thread-Index: AcrKvd/6nca/TFBYSTed8tc5ESYGCwAARY2g
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Mr. Zernik,

You may mail your communication to:

Hon. Ronald M. George

Chief Justice of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

On 3/23/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:20 PM
To: Carrizosa, Philip
Subject: RE: Richard I Fine: Request for review of allegations of fraud misconduct by Attorney
McCormick, and for initiation of corrective actions.

Mr Carrizosa:

Would you please forward my communication, copied below, to the office of Ronald George, Chief
Justice of the California Supreme Court and Chair of the Judicial Council?

Alternatively, please provide and email or paper mail address for him.

Joseph Zernik

At 09:17 AM 3/23/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:

Mr. Zernik,

You should write to Chief Justice Ronald George directly with your allegations, not to me.

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
z Page 3/16 March 23, 2010

455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor

San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"

On Monday, March 22, 2010 Dr Joseph Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik [ mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:24 PM
To: Carrizosa, Philip
Subject: Richard I Fine: Request for review of allegations of fraud misconduct by Attorney McCormick,
and for initiation of corrective actions.

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov

The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested.

Dear Mr Carrizosa:

Thank you again for your expedient responses, and for clarifications in the March 22, 2010
communication [1] of the position of the Judicial Council, chaired by the California Chief Justice Ronald
George, relative to representation of Judge David Yaffe and the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, by Attorney Kevin McCormick in a matter pertaining to Richard I Fine.

I write to inform Chief Justice Ronald George, the Judicial Council, and its subordinate offices of alleged
violations of the law by Attorney Kevin McCormick in appearances on behalf of Judge David Yaffe and
the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, which upon investigation would be found to have
been the outcome of his being retained by the California Judicial Council pursuant to Cal Gov Code,
811.9 and Cal Rules of Courts 10.202, regardless of an error that may have fallen in the case caption,
as stated in the Judicial Council's retainer agreement with Attorney McCormick. Such allegations were
previously listed in my March 17, 2010 communication with the Judicial Council, [2] and are again
detailed below. I also write to inform Chief Justice Ronald George, the Judicial Council, and its
subordinate offices of alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by Attorney Kevin
McCormick in appearances on behalf of Judge David Yaffe and the California Superior Court, County
of Los Angeles.

Pursuant to Cal Gov Code, 811.9, Cal Rules of Courts 10.202, and California Code of Judicial Ethics,
Canon 3D(2), I write to ask that Chief Justice Ronald George, and/or the Judicial Council, and/or its
subordinate offices review such allegations, listed below, and initiate corrective actions in this matter.

Conduct of Attorney McCormick in caption of Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Case No
CV 09-1914, [2] was alleged as founded in fraud, and as intended to affect obstruction and perversion
of justice as well as the deprivation of liberty of Richard I Fine. Such conduct included, but was not
limited to the following:

(a) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file the certifications required by Local Rules of the US Court,
Central District of California, as Counsel of Record for Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles in the Case;

(b) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file any declaration by Judge David Yaffe and/or by any Officer
z Page 4/16 March 23, 2010

of subordinate of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in the Case in support of his
brief;

(c) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case was there any signature by
Judge David Yaffe and/or by any other Officer or subordinate of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles;

(d) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the Case was there any indication that he
had ever consulted, directly or indirectly, with Judge David Yaffe and/or any other Officer or subordinate
of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, or that such parties, on whose behalf he
purported to appear, had any knowledge of his appearances in the Case;

(e) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed declaration by Counsel only in support of his brief in the Case, albeit
Counsel was not a competent fact witness in the matter at all; [3]

(f) Attorney Kevin McCormick never filed any record in the Case that was obtained from Judge David
Yaffe and/or from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - the parties, on whose
behalf he purported to appear in the Case;

(g) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked at [3],
below, false and deliberately misleading, record, titled "Remand/Removal Order", [4] which bears no
relevance to the case at hand, unless in its capacity to mislead;

(h) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked [3], below,
false and deliberately misleading record, titled "Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine".
[4] Such record was never adequately verified by Judge David Yaffe, and was never authenticated
either. Such record could not possibly be deemed a Judgment that was entered by the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles in compliance with the law, and which required "full faith and
credit". In short - it was NOT an honest, valid and effectual Judgment of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles;

(i) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file with his brief and declaration the Register of Actions
(California civil docket) - the essential record that would have provided the foundation for any other
record in the case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, from which the Case at
hand originated.

Please let me know whether Chief Justice Ronald George, and/or the Judicial Council, and/or its
subordinate offices will review such allegations, listed above, and if found valid, would initiate corrective
actions in this matter.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

LINKS/NOTES:

[1] March 22, 2010 response by the California Judicial Council.

X-MSK: CML=1.001000
From: "Carrizosa, Philip"
To: joseph zernik
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:58:26 -0700
z Page 5/16 March 23, 2010

Subject: RE: Request for information - Fine case

Thread-Topic: Request for information - Fine case
Thread-Index: AcrHwfYJBnu5MkmISiKkBZ5LohiLpgCSAP4w
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Mr. Zernik,

In light of your revised request, I am again sending our original response which we believe contains the correct
and true caption for the case.

The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham law firm to represent the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles
Court, Case No. CV 09-1914, pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California
Rules of Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to
select legal counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the retained law
firm.

We cannot respond to your other hypotheticals.

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"

[2] March 17, 2010 letter by Dr Joseph Zernik to the California Judicial Council.
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:32:30 -0700
To: "Carrizosa, Philip" <Philip.Carrizosa@jud.ca.gov>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of habeas
corpus

March 17, 2010

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
The favor of a response within 10 days was requested.

RE: Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of
habeas corpus

Dear Mr Carrizosa:
z Page 6/16 March 23, 2010

Thank you again for your response, copied below. Request for correction of the error in the case
caption in your response was separately emailed. I write as a follow up on your response, regarding
the caption and case number referenced above - Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) ("the Case") at the United States Court, Central District of California.

You listed the Cal Gov Code, 811.9 and Cal Rules of Courts 10.202 as the legal foundation for the
conduct of the Administrative Office of the Court in retaining Attorney Kevin McCormick to represent
Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in the Case.

Cal Gov Code 811.9 states in pertinent part [underlines added - jz]:
811.9.
...
(b) To promote the cost-effective, prompt, and fair
resolution of actions, proceedings, and claims affecting the
trial courts, the Judicial Council shall adopt rules of court
requiring the Administrative Office of the Courts to manage
actions, proceedings, and claims that affect the trial courts
and involve superior courts, superior court judges,
subordinate judicial officers, court executive officers, or
trial court employees in consultation with the affected
courts and individuals. The Administrative Office of the
Courts' management of these actions, proceedings, and claims
shall include, but not be limited to, case management and
administrative responsibilities such as selection of counsel
and making strategic and settlement decisions.

Rule 10.202 states in pertinent part [underline added - jz]:

(b)Duties of the Office of the General Counsel

...
... the Office of the General Counsel under the direction of the
Administrative Director of the Courts and the General Counsel,
must:
...
(3) Select and direct any counsel retained to represent any trial
or appellate court, justice, judge, subordinate judicial officer,
court executive officer or administrator, and trial or appellate
court employee being provided legal representation under (2),
after consultation with the trial or appellate court and any such
individual defendant;

My questions and requests regarding the Case are as follows:

1) By law, as quoted above, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, through
and by the Office of the General Counsel were required to consult with Judge David Yaffe, and
accordingly advise, direct, and manage Attorney Kevin McCormick to conduct the Case in a manner
that was aimed to promote a fair resolution.

Question 1:
Did the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of the General
Counsel indeed comply with Cal Gov Code 811.9(b) and CRC Rule 10.202, Section (b) (3) regarding
consultation with Judge David Yaffe?
Did the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or Office of the General Counsel
conduct consultation with Judge David Yaffe and accordingly - did they jointly and/or severally direct
and manage the counsel retained in the Case - attorney Kevin McCormick - to conduct the Case -
Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - in a manner that was strategically
aimed to promote a fair resolution?

By law, as quoted above, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, through and
z Page 7/16 March 23, 2010

by the Office of the General Counsel retained administrative and case management duties in the Case.
Therefore, I write to point out to attention of the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts,
and/or the Office of the General Counsel the conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case:

(a) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file the certifications required by Local Rules of the US Court,
Central District of California, as Counsel of Record for Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles in the Case;

(b) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file any declaration by Judge David Yaffe and/or by any Officer
of subordinate of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in the Case in support of his
brief;

(c) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case was there any signature by
Judge David Yaffe and/or by any other Officer or subordinate of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles;

(d) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the Case was there any indication that he
had ever consulted, directly or indirectly, with Judge David Yaffe and/or any other Officer or subordinate
of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, or that such parties, on whose behalf he
purported to appear, had any knowledge of his appearances in the Case;

(e) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed declaration by Counsel only in support of his brief in the Case, albeit
Counsel was not a competent fact witness in the matter at all; [1]

(f) Attorney Kevin McCormick never filed any record in the Case that was obtained from Judge David
Yaffe and/or from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - the parties, on whose
behalf he purported to appear in the Case;

(g) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked at [1],
below, false and deliberately misleading, record, titled "Remand/Removal Order", [2] which bears no
relevance to the case at hand, unless in its capacity to mislead;

(h) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked [1], below,
false and deliberately misleading record, titled "Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine".
[2] Such record was never adequately verified by Judge David Yaffe, and was never authenticated
either. Such record could not possibly be deemed a Judgment that was entered by the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles in compliance with the law, and which required "full faith and
credit". In short - it was NOT an honest, valid and effectual Judgment of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles;

(i) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file with his brief and declaration the Register of Actions
(California civil docket) - the essential record that would have provided the foundation for any other
record in the case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, from which the Case at
hand originated.

A reasonable person, upon review of the matter as a whole, would conclude that the case of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, from which the Case originated, included neither
an honest, valid, and effectual warrant for the arrest of Richard I Fine, nor any honest, valid, and
effectual judgment, conviction, or sentencing record.

A reasonable person, upon review of the matter as a whole, would conclude that Attorney Kevin
McCormick was either incompetent, or else - that Attorney Kevin McCormick engaged in false and
deliberately misleading conduct, which was strategically aimed not at promoting a fair resolution of the
Case, but instead - at perverting justice and at affecting continued false imprisonment of Richard I Fine;
Moreover - that Attorney McCormick achieved such aim through false appearances - without ever
being authorized to do so by Judge David Yaffe and/or by the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles and through the filing of false briefs and false court records; Finally - that Attorney Kevin
McCormick aimed to provide Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles full and complete deniability of any knowledge or collusion in such conduct and such
z Page 8/16 March 23, 2010

perversion in the Case.

Of note, I have repeatedly informed Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge David Yaffe, and the the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, of the grave concerns listed above. All refused to
respond at all. There is no indication that any of them initiated any corrective actions.

I therefore request that you forward this communication to the Judicial Council, the Administrative
Office of the Courts, and the Office of the General Counsel, with the following question:

Question 2: Why would the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of
the General Counsel not review the concerns listed above, pursuant to their duties by law, regarding
conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case - Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914)?
If such concerns, as listed above, are found valid - why would the Judicial Council, the Administrative
Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of the General Counsel not take corrective actions to immediately
release Richard I Fine from alleged false imprisonment?

Thank you again for your help in this matter, where Liberty is at stake.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

LINKS:

[1] Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-1_declaration-by-counsel-
for-la-sup-ct-in-support-of-response-f&e-may-1-2009.pdf

[2] Exhibit A to Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus, including (a) "Remand/Removal Order", and (b)
"Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine":
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-
contempt-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf

[3] Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-1_declaration-by-counsel-for-la-
sup-ct-in-support-of-response-f&e-may-1-2009.pdf

[4] Exhibit A to Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus, including (a) "Remand/Removal Order", and (b)
"Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine":
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-contempt-in-
marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
z Page 9/16 March 23, 2010

2) Correspondence with Mr Carrizosa in re: Case caption of the habeas corpus petition of
Richard Fine, Where Attorney Kevin McCormick Appeared, Retained by the Judicial
Council and/or Its Subordinate Offices.
On March 22, 2010 Mr Carrizosa wrote:

X-MSK: CML=1.001000
From: "Carrizosa, Philip"
To: joseph zernik
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:58:26 -0700
Subject: RE: Request for information - Fine case
Thread-Topic: Request for information - Fine case
Thread-Index: AcrHwfYJBnu5MkmISiKkBZ5LohiLpgCSAP4w
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Mr. Zernik,

In light of your revised request, I am again sending our original response which we believe contains the correct
and true caption for the case.

The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham law firm to represent the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court,
Case No. CV 09-1914, pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules of
Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to select legal
counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.

We cannot respond to your other hypotheticals.

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"

At 17:09 on 3/19/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:09:26 -0700

To: "Carrizosa, Philip" <Philip.Carrizosa@jud.ca.gov>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Richard I Fine, at the US District Court, Los Angeles,
where Mr Kevin McCormick was retained by the Judicial Council to represent Judge David Yaffe and
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

PHILIP R. CARRIZOSA
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
z Page 10/16 March 23, 2010

Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588

philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov

The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested.

Mr Carrizosa:

I am sorry to bother you again.

As you know, I am no attorney, not even by a long short, while you represent the Judicial Council,
chaired by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. In order to avoid any error in the record,
which is your response on behalf of the Judicial Council and therefore - the Chief Justice of the
California Supreme Court, I request that you delete from the response, which you mailed to me at
03:01 PM 3/19/2010, copied below, the following text:
"Fine v. Sheriff, 2:09-cv-1914 with the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine
correctly stated, as it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket,"

I previously suggested that your office could use the PACER docket as a guideline, or an aide in an
effort to ensure that the caption and case number, as you list them in your response, are true and
correct. However, upon second thought, I would withdraw such suggestion. I am in no position to offer
any legal advice, whatsoever, to the Judicial Council and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court. Instead, I request that you consult with the legal authorities, to whom you have access at the
Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of the General Counsel.
Consequently, please state in your response whatever the Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court, the Judicial Council and its subordinate offices deem to be the true and correct, full and
complete, honest and valid caption and case number of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of
Inmate Richard I Fine, at the US District Court, Central District of California, where Attorney Kevin
McCormick appeared, retained by the Judicial Council, as you indicated below.

I again apologize for any trouble incurred by my requests, and please excuse my ignorance in legal
matters.

With that, I hope that you would be able to provide an adequate response on this matter, which no
reasonable person would be able to deem vague or ambiguous.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

At 03:01 PM 3/19/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:

Mr. Zernik,

I think this is what you want. If I am incorrect, please let me know.

The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham
law firm to represent the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff, 2:09-cv-1914 with the full caption of the case of
the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the US District
Court PACER docket, pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of
z Page 11/16 March 23, 2010

the California Rules of Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the
courts, including the responsibility to select legal counsel on behalf of courts and
judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.

We cannot respond to your other hypotheticals.

I hope this answers your inquiry.

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"

At 2:35 PM 3/19/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:35 PM
To: Carrizosa, Philip
Subject: RE: Request for information - Fine case

PHILIP R. CARRIZOSA
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov

The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested.

Dear Mr Carrizosa:

Thank you again for your expedient attention and care of my requests. Let me again
clarify my requests:

a) Mr Carrizosa's March 16, 2010 2:50 PM email stated the case caption as:
Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court.

b) Dr Zernik's March 16, 2010 11:41 PM email requested that the case caption
be stated as:
"the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as
it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket"
c) Mr Carrizosa's March 19, 2010 2:50 PM email stated the case caption as
Fine v. Sheriff .

d) Dr Zernik's March 19, 2010 12:58 PM email repeated the March 16, 2010
request that the case caption be stated as:
"the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as
it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket"
Again, I apologize for any burden that I created on your office. Herein, I respectfully
repeat my request, that your good offices issue a response that could not possibly be
viewed by any reasonable person as vague and/or ambiguous, therefore, stating the
z Page 12/16 March 23, 2010

case caption as:

"the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as
it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket"
The matter at hand pertains to a person's Liberty. Regardless, if through my own lack
of care, I unintentionally created in my requests for correct listing of the caption of the
case at hand a burden, which could not be accommodated by your office, please let
me know, so that I do not bother you by repeating the same request again.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

At 01:23 PM 3/19/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:

Mr. Zernik,

Perhaps I do not understand your request. I resent the message using the case title
and number as you stated it in your original e-mail. What is it about the resent
message that is incorrect?

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"

At 12:58 PM 3/19/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik [ mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:58 PM
To: Carrizosa, Philip
Subject: RE: Request for information - Fine case

The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested.

Dear Mr Carrizosa:

Thank you for your timely response. Given that ambiguity was created in the original
response by your office, relative to the identity of the case at hand, the March 16,
2010 letter, copied below, explicitly requested that "you ... resend the message
below, with the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly
stated, as it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket."

The favor of a corrected response from your good offices, including "the full caption of
the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the
US District Court PACER docket" is again requested.
z Page 13/16 March 23, 2010

Please bear with my additional request for correction - instant request is merely an
exact repeat of my March 16, 2010 request letter. I hope that you would be able to
abide with me in this clerical issue.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

At 11:24 AM 3/19/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:

Mr. Zernik,

In response to your March 16 request to resend our response with the case title and
number that you used, I offer our response:

The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham
law firm to represent the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff, 2:09-cv-1914, pursuant to Government Code
section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules of Court, which require the AOC
to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to select legal
counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the
retained law firm.

We cannot respond to your other hypotheticals.

I hope this answers your inquiry.

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"

At 11:41 PM 3/16/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik [ mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:41 PM
To: Carrizosa, Philip
Subject: Re: Request for information - Fine case

The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested.

Dear Mr Carrizosa:

Thank you again for your prompt response. Upon re-reading of your response below,
I realized that you had an typographical error in stating the caption of the case that
z Page 14/16 March 23, 2010

was the subject of my request for information. Therefore, for the record, in order to
have a valid response from your office on the matter at hand, I would be grateful if you
could resend the message below, with the full caption of the case of the habeas
corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the US District Court
PACER docket.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

At 02:50 PM 3/16/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:

Mr. Zernik,

In response to your March 13 request for clarifying information and confirmation of

your five hypothetical assertions, I offer our response:

The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham
law firm to represent the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court, Case No. CV 09-1914,
pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules
of Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the
responsibility to select legal counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin
McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.

We cannot respond to your other hypotheticals.

I hope this answers your inquiry.

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"

At 3:23 PM 3/13/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik [ mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 3:23 PM
To: Carrizosa, Philip
Cc: McCormick, Brenda; McCormick, Kevin M; Attention: Judge David Yaffe and the
LA Superior Court C/O John Clarke, Clerk
Subject: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the
habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA

March 13, 2010

z Page 15/16 March 23, 2010

Philip R. Carrizosa
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov

The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested.

RE: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
the habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA

Dear Mr Carrizosa:

Thank you again for your past help in clarifying information pertaining to the California
Administrative Office of the Courts. I again request your help.

In recently published online notes in several forums, I alleged dishonest and/or

fraudulent conduct by Attorney Kevin M McCormick of the law-firm of Benton, Orr,
Duval & Buckingham, relative to his appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Los Angeles. I
further alleged that his conduct was key to affecting the ongoing false hospitalization
of Attorney RICHARD FINE - a political dissident. [1], [2], [3]

Following the online postings at the ABA Journal, I received unauthenticated,

unverified communications, which lead to the formulation of the following five (5)
hypothetical assertions:
1) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK's wife, Attorney BRENDA MCCORMICK, was
Court Managing Attorney for the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura.
2) Appearances of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were not pursuant
to his engagement by the Intervenors in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID
YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES.
3) Appearances of KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR,
DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were pursuant to his
engagement by the California Administrative Office of the Courts, an arm of the
Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE, and/or
through related entities.
4) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR, DUVAL &
BUCKINGHAM was never authorized as Counsel of Record by the Intervenors in
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
5) Engagement of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM by the California Administrative Office of the Courts,
and arm of the Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD
GEORGE, and/or related entities. included a stipulation prohibiting Attorney KEVIN
MCCORMICK from communicating with the Intervening parties - DAVID YAFFE and
the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - regarding
Attorney KEVIN MCCORMICK's appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).
Request is for confirmation on behalf of the California Administrative Office of
the Courts, and the Chairman of the Judicial Council, California Chief Justice
Ronald George, the five (5) hypothetical assertions, listed above, regarding
engagement of Attorney Kevin McCormick to appear in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-
01914) - the habeas corpus petition.
z Page 16/16 March 23, 2010

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

CC:
1. McCormick, Brenda - by email
2. McCormick, Kevin - by email
3.Yaffe, David and the LA Superior Court - by fax
4. Others of Interest

LINKED:

[1] The American Bar Association's motto is: "Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice"

[2] ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-year Mark In
Jail In Contempt
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-
year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#comments

[3] March 13, 2010 ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-
year Mark In Jail In Contempt, as copied:
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-13-aba-journal-article-on-richard-fine-and-comments-
s.pdf