Saturday, December 05, 2009

Is There A Shadow Ninth Circuit?........... Guest Editorial by Richard I Fine



DEPUTY CLERKS ISSUING ORDERS "FOR THE COURT"

Los Angeles, CA Something very unusual has happened in the Writ of Habeas Corpus case of Fine vs Sheriff of L.A. County. Clerks are signing Court Orders “For The Court” instead of Judges.

CLERK DECIDING WHAT COURT WILL CONSIDER

On December 4, 2009 a Deputy Clerk of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the “Request for Judicial Notice” that the Court take notice of the fact that the entire Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals have recused itself in the second appeal in the case of the L A County payments to L A Superior Court Judges. This appeal seeks to hold the payments made under Senate Bill SBX2 11 unconstitutional. (Sturgeon vs. County of L.A)

ALL L.A. SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES RECUSED

The request should have been automatically granted, as the fact that all the L A Superior Court Judges have recused themselves in the Sturgeon case, was already before the Ninth Circuit through a document submitted by the L A Superior Court.

NINTH CIRCUIT PANEL UNAWARE OF ORDER?

The unusual part of the December 4, 2009 ORDER was that it was made by the Deputy Clerk “FOR THE COURT”. As of December 3, 2009, the identity of the “Panel” of judges deciding the case was publicly known. The panel is: Justices Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw. One has to question why their names were not on the ORDER.

WHO IS INTERFERING IN THIS CASE?

The more disturbing question is; “Whether someone else is interfering with the judicial process in this case and issued the ORDER.”

  • This second question is grounded in the history of the case. On November 12, 2009, the case was ordered submitted without oral argument by the then “unidentified panel” by order of the clerk “FOR THE COURT”.

  • On November 24, 2009, the clerk “FOR THE COURT” without reference to the “Panel” denied “Petitioners Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate to Immediately Enter Writ of Habeas Corpus or issue Order To Show Cause.”

  • The significance of this action was that such denial violated long established U S Supreme Court precedent that a man could not judge his own actions. (In re Murchison).

  • The underlying Writ of Habeas Corpus charged that the Magistrate Judge Woehrle and Walter had violated 18 USC Section 2243. The petition for Writ of Mandate showed that they “Judged their own actions” by dismissing the underlying Writ of Habeas Corpus in violation of the Murchison precedent.

JUDGE PANEL ON CASE ABOVE REPROACH

There is no question that experienced Justices such as Reinhardt, Trott and Wardlaw would never violate long standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent as they are bound to follow it.

These two "CLERK ORDERS" make one ask: "Is there a shadow Ninth Circuit?"


2 comments:

  1. What in the hell is going on in our courts? How is anyone supposed to get a fair trial in CA. if the judges are being paid off and the record is being manipulated. Time to put a stop to this for sure.
    Sacramento- are you listening?
    We've had enough with games and tit for tat. You will be held accountable. And if you're dirty you need to be prosecuted. Clean it up now!

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are MANY people about to be terribly humiliated ... and a couple of them might even have been good judges. (We will survive their loss.) But the time has passed where a judge could have credibly stepped forward and forced the system to clean itself up. Now we eagerly await the public furor that will follow Thursday's House Judiciary Committee hearing on the subject of judicial recusal, and its exposure and investigation of facts and material supplied re Fine's horrific experience.

    And just think, not a single pitchfork was used to get this far! ; )

    Savannah S. Winslow

    ReplyDelete