Misprision of Clerk
Pure and Honest Beyond Suspicion: The Clerks and the Emergence of Executive Branch Supervision of the Federal Courts

Historic review, linked below, highlights the key role of Clerks of Court in integrity of the courts, or lack thereof. It also emphasizes the need for executive branch oversight of the clerks, which otherwise - left for supervision only by the judges who appointed them, are prone to corruption.

The evidence is overwhelming of the central role of clerks of courts in corruption of the justice system in the United States today:

a) At the Supreme Court of the US, Clerk WILLIAM SUTER permitted Counsel DANNY BICKELL to issues unsigned notices of denial of applications by the Justices, e.g. in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827), while not authorized as Deputy Clerk, and with no valid records to provide the foundation for such notices. Complaint alleging public corruption was filed with US Attorney Office, Washington DC.

b) At the US District Court, Central District of California, Clerk TERRI NAFISI permitted unauthorized personnel to construct the dockets and issue court minutes, orders, judgment in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine. Clerk Nafisi now refuses to certify the docket as one that was constructed pursuant to the law of the US and by authority of the clerk.
Complaint alleging public corruption was filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles.

c) At the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Clerk JOHN CLARKE ran certain litigations, such as Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) , where none of the judges were assigned, and where all court fees were falsely designated as "Journal Entry". Such practice was deemed by accountancy textbooks the cardinal sign of high level financial management fraud. Moreover, both the clerk and the presiding judge refused to disclose the ultimate designation of such funds, and the Clerk refuses to certify the dockets in such cases as ones that were conducted pursuant to the law of California.
Complaint alleging public corruption and real estate fraud by the court was filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles. [4]

US Attorneys Office so far refuses to take action, or even acknowledge receipt of the complaints.

Any help in identifying any cases in recent history, where either US or state court clerks were prosecuted by US Dept of Justice, would be greatly appreciated.

Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.

Human Rights Alert
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Human Rights Alert - Los Angeles, California
Human Rights Alert - Los Angeles
Human Rights Alert-France
Inproperinla
Human Rights Alert Press Room
CNN
Free Richard Fine

WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* "Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
* "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000)
* "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."

Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000)
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)

Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)

Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)

Pure and Honest Beyond Suspicion: The Clerks and the Emergence of Executive Branch Supervision of the Federal Courts, 1839–1869

As the federal government attempted to centralize its operations and to regulate the conduct of its officers during the three decades spanning the middle of the nineteenth century, the clerks’ relationship to
that government was transformed. This transformation was effected by three separate legislative initiatives: a resolution requiring the clerks to submit regular reports of their fees to the Secretary of the Treasury; a pair of laws limiting the total amount of fees each clerk was allowed to retain; and another law establishing a uniform fee schedule. This section describes these initiatives in more detail while providing an account of some of the difficulties encountered by officials within the executive branch in enforcing them.

The Reporting Requirement of 1839
The need for some kind of oversight of the clerks and the fee system had been apparent since at least 1818, when it was discovered that Theron Rudd, the clerk of the District Court for the Southern District
of New York, had absconded with more than $117,000 he had embezzled from the court. The incident exposed the inherent problem of entrusting court administration to fee-collecting clerks supervised
almost exclusively by the judges who appointed them.