NO JUDGE IN AMERICA HAS LEGAL OATH OF OFFICE!
From: JZ <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [Lawsters:15087] NO JUDGE IN AMERICA HAS LEGAL OATH OF OFFICE! Important
Date: April 7, 2013 10:56:46 AM PDT
Are you serious? You must be kidding…
By the time Richard Fine’s habeas corpus was denied by the full conference of the Supreme Court (prior to that, Justice Kennedy ran on him simulated denial of his petition – search in the Supreme Court failed to reveal any valid record of that decision…), Fine concluded that the US justice system is corrupted from top to bottom. From prison, he called on the people to take action.
When Fine came out of the 18 months of solitary confinement (considered by the UN torture), he was silent for a couple of years.
Recently (March 2013) he lectured in a local law school, and you can hear for yourself what he thinks today (see links below). However, you should assume that he is partly muted, out of fear of further reprisal (see below).
In general, it is pratically impossible to reverse simulated decisions or judgments. The higher courts have jurisdiction to review only valid judgments and orders of the lower courts, not simulated judgments and orders. That is one reason that corrupt judges prefer simulated orders and judgments to true ones… (beyond the “avoidance of cognitive dissonance, previously mentioned).
For example, when Fine filed his habeas corpus petition to the corrupt 9th Circuit, he filed it from uncertified judgment. The corrupt clerk of the US District Court refused to certify (a cardinal sign on simulated court decision), and the 9th circuit agreed to only hear his arguments against the “not permitted” payments received by the judges, not the habeas corpus petition per se… (and then they promptly denied the petition).
In general, I believe that the clerks feel that it is none of their business, as long as there is no signature of a clerk anywhere in a simulated litigation…
I myself filed a Motion to Intervene in Fine’s cases in the corrupt 9th Circuit. Therefore, I was served with the 9th papers, unsigned and unauthenticated, including a simulated decision by the corrupt Alex Kozinski. Corrupt Clerk of the 9th Circuit Molly Dwyer refused to certify the decisions or the docket in the case.
I also filed a Motion to Intervene in Fine’s case in SCOTUS, only to have it “Returned” by the corrupt “SCOTUS Counsel” Danny Bickell (not by a Clerk!).
Back to the Israeli courts, which adopted the same type of corruption over the past decade, with help from IBM, EDS):
The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the UN Human Rights Council was titled “Integrity, or lack thereof in the electronic records of the courts of the State of Israel”. The subtitle was “A court that refuses to certify its own decisions, is certified corrupt!“.
By that I mean, any decision of a court (originating from English common law), which comes with no signed authentication record from the office of the clerk, and which the clerk of the court refuses to certify “True copy of the original”, should be deemed simulated court order.
The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission was incorporated into the 2013 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) report of the UN on Israel with a note referring “Lack of integrity in the elctronic records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel” (which naturally made me a darling here…).
The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the UN regarding the United States was in part based on detailed description of the fraud in Sustain – the electronic record system of the LA Superior Court, and the case of Richard Fine, as part of a series of similar simulated cases (I focused on real estate fraud by judges, attorneys and banksters on the one hand, and false imprisonment cases on the other).
The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission was incorporated into the UN 2010 UPR report of the UN on the United States with a note referring to “Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
A few days before the deadline for submission, there was an attempt to trap me by the US Marshals “District Threat Unit”, which I avoided. And a few days after the submission deadline, according to my neighbors, US Marshal came with guns, and looked eager to shoot. I immediately escaped from the United States. (needless to say, in my writing online I repeatedly emphasized that I am opposed to violence in principle, and that I am unarmed, although I am well trained in using weapons of various kinds.)
As of January 2013, the US is refusing to permit me to renounce citizenship, probably to keep some claim of jurisdiction over me outside the US, in case they manage to trap me.
In general, I believe that those, who wish to fix the widespread corruption of the state and US courts, should focus much more on corruption of the clerks. And the simplest test of any bizarre order or jugdment that you get is to ask the clerk to certify it “True Copy of the Original”. If you cannot get that, you can rest assured that what you got is a simulated legal record, nothing more.
 Richard I. FINE – part 1
 Richard I FINE – Speaks out – part 2
 Richard Fine – Speaks against Bribe taking L.A. Judges – part 3
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Bob Hurt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Well, then why hasn’t Fine sued the sheriff and judge for violation of minterial duties?
On 4/5/2013 8:20 PM, JZ wrote:
It all goes back to the simulatiion of legal process. A judge that has no Oath of Office, particularly in Texas, and issued an order as you described, which was served on the individual, should be deemed as engaged in simulating legal process.
By Texas Penal Code, that is a criminal offence. 
Moreover, a judge that engaged in such conduct, should be deemed void of any judicial immunity – he was not engaged in judicial conduct at all…
Was the judge ever prosecuted???
Of court not!
A counter example is in the case of Richard Fine.
California Judge David Yaffe was running on him a similated litigation with no valid legal records. Eventually, Yaffe issued on Richard Fine a simulated order with monetary penalty for “Contempt”.
Richard Fine, and experienced by old attoney, had no idea that the papers were not valid under the electronic system of the LA Superior Court (Sustain).
However, Richard Fine fully realized that the process was simulated, when Judge Yaffe ordered him to appear before a Commissioner, purportedly as Debt Examiner, who had no Appointment Order, as required by California law.
Eventually, on March 4, 2009, Judge David Yaffe issued a simulated Judgment of Contempt on Richard Fine, for refusing to answer to the Commissioner. The Judgement of Contempt, issued on March 4, 2009 was dated March 24, 2009, and never entered as required by California Civil Procedure section 664 to be “effectual for any purpose”, was never served on Richard Fine, and was never authenticated by the Clerk of the Court.
And Sheriff Lee Baca immediately took Richard Fine on March 4, 2009, from the LA Superior Court to solitary confinement for 18 months in the LA County jail.
However, in the absence of valid records for the imprisonment, the Sheriff registered Fine as arrested and booked on location and by authority of the Mincipal Court of San Pedro, which does not exist. And obviously, Richard Fine never appeared before the “Municipal Court of San Pedro”.
Was Judge David Yaffe or Sheriff Lee Baca ever prosecuted for such conduct?
Of course not!
In short: all the laws in the book are of no value when the justice system, judges, clerks, sheriffs are thoroughly corrupt.
 Texas Penal Code – Section 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
§ 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to
another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment,
or other court process with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any
action in response to the document, in compliance with the
document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with
the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a
sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
(c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section
that the simulating document:
(1) states that it is not legal process; or
(2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a
person or entity who did not have lawful authority to issue or
authorize the document.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to,
or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a
court created or established under the constitution or laws of this
state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was
delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under
this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the defendant has previously been convicted of a
violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, § 3, eff. May 21, 1997.