Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/34405124/09-08-13-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-3-Dr-Zernik-s-Motions-Vol-i
Timestamp: 2017-02-19 16:51:23
Document Index: 160538826

Matched Legal Cases: ['§473', 'arty 1853', '§128', '§575', '§2071', '§664', '§ 69844', '§ 473', '§575', 'art%20', 'art%20', 'art%20', 'arty 1853', '§124', '§473', '§575', '§ 664', '§1008', '§6250', '§ 69844', 'arty 1853', '§437', '§473', '§473', 'in Fine', '§124', '§6250', 'in Fine', 'in Fine', 'in Fine', 'in Fine', '§ 1219', '§ 2254', '§1983', '§437', '§128', '§575', 'art1', 'art5', 'art5', 'art3', 'art4', 'art1', 'art5', 'art5', 'art3', 'art4', 'art8']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinJoseph H Zernik PO Box 526, LV CA 91750 Tel: (323) 515-4583; Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Pro Se Interested Party
Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US Location: La Verne, California Date: 2009.08.12 06:45:25 -07'00'
) ) ) ) v ) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL ) Defendants/Respondents ) ) and ) ) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ) CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ) ) LOS ANGELES, ) Intervenor ) ____________________________________ ) HAROLD STURGEON, Plaintiff/Petitioner
Case No: BC351286 Honorable James A Richman, Justice of California Court of Appeals, 1st District
{PROPOSED} INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S (I) NOTICE OF REQUESTS FOR INTERVENTION BY U.S. AND CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS GENERAL, (II) NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS: (A) FOR MISTRIAL; (B) ALTERNATIVELY - FOR VACATING JUDGMENTS/ORDERS PER CCP §473; (C) FOR ORDERS ON THE COURT AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO PROVIDE REASONABLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THEIR CONDUCT, (D) FOR ORDERS BY COURT PER THE CAL CODE JUD ETH, 3D(1) & (2) - TO INITIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, & [PROPOSED] ORDERS FILED AS VOL I – NOTICES & MOTIONS, VOL II, III - EXHIBITS
DATE: TO BE NOTICED TIME: TO BE NOTICED DEPARTMENT: TO BE NOTICED
TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE LA SUPERIOR COURT, PARTIES AND COUNSEL IN STURGEON V LA COUNTY:
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 1/63
Pro Se Interested Party Joseph H Zernik (“Dr Zernik”, “Zernik”) files concomitant with instant papers, under separate cover, an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File as Interested Party. Herein, Dr Zernik files Requests for Intervention and Investigations by the U.S. Attorney General and the California Attorney General, together Notice of Motions and Motion for Mistrial, alternatively – Motion To Vacate Orders and Judgment, furthermore –Motions for Orders on the Court and the Clerk of the Court to Provide Reasonable Explanation for Their Conduct, and Motions for the Court to Initiate Corrective Actions pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(1), and (2). Such requests and motions are based on litigation of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), as detailed below, a matter of high public policy interest, where the LA Superior Court demonstrated its practices: Published Rules of Court held no relationship to real operations of the court, and public access to litigation records was denied (Exhibit 1-a), while conflicting, or possibly straight forward fraudulent records were published online by the court (Exhibit 1b,c,d,e,f), albeit – with a disclaimer, from a server that triggers security alerts for carrying a false verification certificate (Exhibit 1-g). Additional evidence is produced to demonstrate that litigation practices, founded on the failure to operate pursuant to published Rules of Court and the routine global denial of public access to public court records allowed pervasive alleged criminality in the courts of Intervenor – LA Superior Court, often in collusion with agencies of Defendant – LA County. Examples are provided from 3 other civil court cases (Exhibits 2a-c, 3a-e, 4a-u), and the ongoing false incarceration of the Rampart FIPs, resulting from corruption at the criminal courts (Exhibit 51f). The computerized case management systems of the court were identified as a root cause (Attachment A). Involvement of large corporations such as Countrywide, now Bank of America was discussed (Attachment C), as well as large law-firms (Attachment D).An approach was proposed to address such problems (Attachment B). These Notices and Motions are based on the Notices and Requests for Interventions, and Investigations, Requests for Incorporation by Reference, Requests for Judicial Notice, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declarations of Joseph Zernik and Exhibits and
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 2/63
Attachments filed and served herewith, as well as the Ex Parte Application and its exhibits filed herewith, the pleadings and documents on record in this case, all matters of which the Court may or must take judicial notice, and on such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing. DATED: August 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H ZERNIK
By: _________________________________ Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Interested Party 1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750 Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I. I. II. III. Table of Contents List of Attachments and exhibits Notices & Requests to Attorneys General A. Requests for Interventions B. Requests for Investigations IV. V. VI. VII. Notice and Motions for Mistrial/Vacate Judgments 16 Table of Authorities Request for Incorporation by Reference Request for Judicial Notice 19 20 21 23 3 4 9
VIII. Memo of Points and Authorities
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 3/63
Declaration of Joseph Zernik Proposed Orders
Volume II-III. XI. XII. Exhibits and Attachments Proof of Service by USPS mail p1-p765
XIII. Certificate of Service by email
II. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS AND EXHIBITS ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vague and ambiguous Rules of Court in re: entry of judgment in LA County, California -
Published rules bear no relationship to reality, and the unpublished rules are both unpublished and out of compliance with California, U.S. and International Law. Attachment B: Concerns & Proposal regarding computers at the courts –
The unregulated use of computers at the courts is identified a root cause, and solution is proposed based on enforcement of state and federal Rule Making Enabling Act, as well as Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). Attachment C: Involvement of Countrywide, now Bank of America Corporation, in alleged criminality at the LA Superior CourtAttachment D: Involvement of Bryan Cave, LLP, Sheppard Mullin and othersThe legal profession in Los Angeles and alleged criminality at the courts.
EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1. STURGEON V LA COUNTY (BC351286) EVIDENCE FOR MISTRIAL -
Credible evidence demonstrates that the LA Superior Court denied and continues to deny access to the true official litigation records – the Register of Actions in Sustain –
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 4/63
a public record by law, and false and deliberately misleading alternative records are published by the court. Exhibit 1-a: July 27-29. 2009 Denial of Access to Court Records -
Exhibit 1-b: Aug 9, 2009 Table of Available Document Images compared to data available in “Case Summary” online – Exhibit 1-c: August 6, 2009 online Case Summary Unofficial, false and deliberately misleading court records. Exhibit 1-d: January-February 2007 & July-August 2009 Justice James A Richman Papers in Sturgeon v LA County-
p43 p53
All of these papers should be deemed of dubious authenticity, or at least as being treated as such by the LA Superior Court. Exhibit 1-e: February 2007–January 2009 – Cal Crt of App, 4th District –
Court of Appeals rulings fail to appear among LA Superior Court records, and it is doubted that the LA Superior Court deems them as effectual. Exhibit 1-f: August 6, 2009 Dr Zernik’s Requests for Verification/Corrections in re: Litigation History – Sturgeon v LA County –
Addressed to Clerk Gregory Drapac and Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, to Judicial Watch, Los Angeles office, and to the office of Justice Richman. No response received so far. Exhibit 1-g: August 10, 2009 Letter to Mr Klunder - IT, and Mr Clarke - the Clerk, in re: Computer systems verification.-
Requesting explanation regarding Google Chrome security warnings regarding the court’s severs, which are found by such programs to bear a false verification certificate. EXHIBIT 2. MARINA V LA COUNTY (BS109420) – EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT FRAUD -
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 5/63
Current, indefinite, real estate litigation at the LA Superior Court, which originated the false jailing of Att Richard Fine though alleged judgment fraud. Exhibit 2-a: March 4, 2009 purported Judgment by Judge David Yaffe –
Exhibit 2-b: July 31, 2009 Letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Court, Terry Nafisi, Demand for Investigation –
Demand is for investigation of credible evidence for tampering with litigation records in custody of the Clerk of U.S. District Court, LA. Exhibit 2-c: July 31, 2009 Letters of Meet and Confer -
EXHIBIT 3. GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC052737) - EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT FRAUD
Alleged courtroom real estate fraud, based on alleged judgment fraud. Combined analysis with Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), a twin case, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the litigation, even prior to the filing of the complaints were almost certainly schemed by judges of the LA Superior Court. Exhibit 3aRequests for authentication -
p216 p222
Exhibit 3b- Evidence for Criminality in the Register of Actions Exhibit 3cAlleged criminality in Conveyance of Title by Att David Pasternak –
Exhibit 3d- Declaration of Darwish Exhibit 3e“Equity Rights” and alleged frauds at the LA Superior Court –
Exhibit 4. SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) – EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT FRAUD 25 26 27 28
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 6/63
Alleged courtroom real estate fraud, based on alleged judgment fraud. Although the case was most likely initiated from the exact same launching pad, and involved some of the same players, the case took a different turn of events.
Exhibit 4-a: Denial of access to litigation recordsExhibit 4-b: Evidence of Criminality in the Register of Actions p 1 –
p244 p247
Exhibit 4-c: Table: Minute Orders in paper court file compared to Minute Orders in Sustain
– p276
Connor, and Order Granting Summary Judgment Motionp289
Jacqueline Connor p297
Exhibit 4-f: August 21. 2007 Minute Order – Samaan’s Ex Parte Application for Entry of
Judgment- by Judge Jacqueline Connor – p307
Exhibit 4-g: August 7-9, 2007 Judgments from the LA Superior Court’s Microfilm Archive
– p314
Appointment papers-by Judge Jacqueline Connor p352
Exhibit 4-i: Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order –Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Connor, and
Fictitious Hearing on Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7 – By Judge Jacqueline Connor – p364
Att Pasternak Receiver – Court Reporter’s transcript – Court of Judge John Segal p378
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 7/63
Writ of Execution and Entry of Judgment” by Judge John Segal, at Att David Pasternak’s request p398
of false Grant Deed by Judge Patricia Collins - at Att Pasternak’s Request p405
David Pasternak – with opinion letter by James Wedick, of “frauds being committed”. P437
Exhibit 4-o: January 30, 2008 Minute Order – Defendant Dr Zernik’s Ex Parte Application
for release of funds held by Att David Pasternak – by Judge Terry Friedman p458
of Judge Terry Friedman p627
Exhibit 4-q: August 21, 2008 – Veteran FBI Agent Jim Wedick’s Email Note – Exhibit 4-r: August –September 2008 – Kenneth Melson – Director, U.S. Dept
of Justice, and Kenneth Kaiser – Assistant Director, FBI - Alleged Fraud in Responses to Congressional Inquiries –
p641-1
Exhibit 4-t: May 13, 2008 pages from complaint filed with US Attorney Office,
Exhibit 4-u: May 30, 2008 The Big Picture – Outline pf Criminality in re:
EXHIBIT 5. RAMPART –FIPS (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) – HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS.
25 26 27 28 Exhibit 5-a: PBS – Rampart False Imprisonments (2001, 2005, 2008) p642 Exhibit 5-b: Chemerinsky, Erwin – The criminal justice system of Los Angeles, California, Guild Practitioner, 2000. p648
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 8/63
Exhibit 5-c: October 8, 2000 LA Times Remarks on Perez by Rampart Trial Judge Raising Eyebrows p662
Exhibit 5-d: November 16, 2000 NYT: 3 of 4 Officers Convicted In Police Corruption Case p670 Exhibit 5-e: December 23, 2000 LA Times- Rampart Verdicts Voided Exhibit 5-f: December 24, 2000 LA Times The Judge’s Decision p671 p675
III. NOTICES OF REQUESTS & REQUESTS FOR INTERVENTION AND INVESTIGATIONS BY U.S. AND CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS GENERAL TO THE COURT AND PARTIES IN STURGEON V LA COUNTY, take notice of requests herein for the Attorneys General of the United States and the State of California to intervene in instant litigation – Sturgeon v LA County – a case of high public policy interest, relative to constitutional questions that the litigation brought to focus. The Attorneys General are also requested to investigate related alleged pervasive criminality at the LA Superior Court – Intervenor in instant litigation, in collusion with agencies of LA County – Defendant in instant litigation - the Sheriff Department and the Office of Registrar/Recorder. Specific counts of alleged criminality are detailed below as part of the evidence providing the foundation for the constitutional questions. Center of interest is two-fold: The Local Rules of Court of LA County, in re: entry of judgments and public access to court records, which are claimed to be unconstitutional on their face, and alleged criminality originating from such Rules of Court. A. REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION IN RE: CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS For the past estimated quarter century, the LA Superior Court is alleged to have maintained published Rules of Court that have no bearing in reality. Instead the Court operated pursuant to unpublished Rules of Court that were and are in violation of Civil Rights in the Amendments: 1st – to publish court papers, 6th – for public trial, and 14th- for Due Process, and Common
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 9/63
Law Right for access to court records to inspect and to copy. At hand is litigation of critical public policy significance, Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), yet public access to litigation records was denied (Exhibit 1a), false records were distributed by the court online (Exhibit 1c), albeit – with a disclaimer – that such records should not relied upon…, There was no way to tell who was the judge and who were the parties, and for that matter, which, if any were authenticated court rulings, orders, and judgments in such litigation (Exhibits 1b,c,d,e). The LA Superior Court installed some 25 years ago Sustain – a case management system of alleged fraudulent design, and which has been accordingly operated ever since. The Local Rules of Court that are allegedly unconstitutional, for reasons including, but not limited to the following: (1) Rules of Court were and are Unpublished and Concealed from the Public: The Court has been operating based on an unpublished Rule of Court, that are concealed from the public, and were never presented for comment and challenge, as required by both State of California and U.S. Rule Making Enabling laws (Cal Code Civ Proc §575.1; 28 USC §2071-77). Operation of such court in an of itself was unconstitutional, violating Common Law rights for access to court records, 1st Amendment rights to publish court records, 6th Amendment rights for Public Trials, and 14th Amendment Rights for Due Process. It also violated the Equal Protection Clause. (2) Unconstitutional unpublished Rule of Court falsely set the Court’s electronic files as “privileged”: One of such unpublished Rules of Court was and is - “Sustain is privileged – for the court only”. Based on such unpublished Rule of Court the Court allowed itself to enter in Sustain rulings and orders with no Notice and Service to parties (examples provided in instant papers). At times the Court also engaged in the opposite practice - it secretly “disposed” of its own rulings
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 10/63
or orders, with no Notice or Service to parties (examples provided in instant papers). Vague and ambiguous and/or false and deliberately misleading Rules of Court in re: Entry of Judgment: The Court has kept on the record for the past 25 years its published Rules of Court in re: maintenance of Book of Judgments and procedures for entry of Judgment (LA Local Rules of Court Rule 3.0, Rule 8.96), which included the maintenance of a Book of Judgment, and a procedure for entry of judgment based on the existence of such book or its equivalent. Such Rules of Court deceptively appeared as compliant with the California Code requirement for maintenance of a Book of Judgment, which was a public record, regardless of what media such Book of Judgments was maintained in: Cal Code of Civ Proc §664, 664.5; Cal Gov Code § 69844.7. However, such published Rules of Court bear no relationship to reality, since the Court eliminated some 25 years ago the paper Book of Judgments, and never implemented in Sustain an equivalent electronic Book of Judgment or Index of Judgments. The Court could possibly keep some unpublished Rules of Court in re: Entry of Judgment. However, such unpublished Rules of Court were concealed from the public. Therefore, in fact the entry of judgment in LA Superior Court has been in fact vague and ambiguous and/or false and deliberately misleading, allowing the court at will to deem judgments as effectual or ineffectual. B. REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGED CRIMINALITY STEMMING FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS LISTED ABOVE. As detailed herein, such conditions allowed alleged criminality to thrive at the court and resulted in abuse of historic proportions of the residents of Los Angeles County. To wit – the office of U. S. Overseer for Civil Rights in Los Angeles, which was established in Los Angeles per Consent Decree of 2001 in U.S. v City of LA et al (2:2000cv11769), was recently terminated after some 8 years of operations. Indeed, during such years, material improvements
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 11/63
were reported in compliance by the LAPD. However, to the best of our knowledge, the Overseer had no authority over the conduct of the LA Superior Court - Intervenor in instant proceedings, nor had it any authority over Defendant - the LA County and its agencies.. Accordingly, not a single one of the thousands that were reported falsely imprisoned since before the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) was released (Exhibit 5a,b). Additional examples, detailed herein, of alleged criminality enabled by such vague and ambiguous court operations, and where investigations are requested include: 1. The alleged false jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (BS109420) (Exhibits 2 a-c). a. Request for investigation of alleged adulteration of U.S. court record that led to perversion of justice and continued false jailing: Appearance of signature of David Yaffe, Judge of the LA Superior Court, dated March 24, 2009, on record that was the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment, while such record was in possession of the U.S. Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle, since March 20, 2009, without consent of the filer, prisoner Att Richard Fine. On or about March 24, 2009, a U.S. court record was adulterated. Such court record was the false and misleading, purported Judge David P Yaffe March 4, 2009 LA Superior Court Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine (Exhibit 2a). On or about March 24, 2009, such record was already in possession of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles and Magistrate Carla Woehrle. The Supervisor of Clerk Operations in U.S. Court, Los Angeles, Ms Sharon McGee informed Dr Zernik that she concurred with his concerns regarding adulteration of such record, and that she raised her concerns before the Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle. Dr Zernik filed a demand for investigation with the Clerk of the U.S. Court, Terry Nafisi, which remained unanswered (Exhibit 2b). b. Request for investigation of conduct of Sheriff Baca, and the Sheriff Department of LA County, who allegedly colluded with Judge David Yaffe in the false imprisonment of Att Richard Fine: Investigation is requested on the following counts:
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 12/63
(i) Relative to the jailing of Att Richard Fine when no effectual Judgment for his jailing existed, and (ii) In the course of the habeas corpus petition - refusal to file a response to the petition, and allegedly collusion in perversion of justice, (iii) Ongoing unlawful jailing of Att Richard Fine, while refusing to respond to Dr Zernik’s request, as part of Meet and Confer, and provide copies of any records in their possession that were and are the legal foundation for the ongoing jailing of Att Richard Fine, i.e. : a. An effectual March 4, 2004 Judgment, and b. The Register of Actions of respective case – Marina v LA County. c. Request for immediate intervention for release of Att Richard Fine while such investigation is underway. It is alleged that such adulteration resulted in the ongoing false imprisonment of Att Richard Fine, through perversion of justice in review of his habeas corpus petition – Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-cv-01914). Therefore, while such investigation is underway, request is for immediate intervention of the U.S. Attorney with the appropriate courts for immediate release of Att Richard Fine. 2. Alleged criminality in the taking of real properties by the LA Superior Court for private use in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) (Exhibits 2a-e), and in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) (Exhibits a-q), through alleged criminal conduct of Att David Pasternak, under false and deliberately misleading pretence of “Receiver”, criminally conferred upon him by Judge John Segal, with no authority at all himself, and under Department of Writs and Receivers, managed by Judge David Yaffe. a. Request for investigation of the conduct of Judge David P Yaffe, Manager of Dept of Receiver and Writs, Judge John Segal, and Att David Pasternak relative to collusion in the alleged criminal taking of property at Yale Street, Santa Monica in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737). Investigation is requested on the following counts:
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 13/63
i. Conduct of Judge John Segal relative to allegedly criminality in proceedings conducted in May 2002 in Municipal Court of Culver City, in which he remained anonymous in the Register of Actions, listed only as “Muni Judge”, and where he allegedly issued a fraudulent judgment for taking the property of Ms Barbara Darwish, while he had no authority to do so. ii. Conduct of Judge John Segal, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David Pasternak relative to the alleged criminality in the appointment of Att David Pasternak as “Receiver” to execute such a judgment. iii. Conduct of Judge John Segal, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David Pasternak relative to the purported sale of the property at Yale Street, Santa Monica, purportedly executed for the court by Att David Pasternak, where the respective Conveyance of Title could not be found at the office of LA County Registrar/Recorder. b. Request for investigation of the conduct of Judge David P Yaffe, Manager of Dept of Receiver and Writs, Judge John Segal, Judge Terry Friedman, and Att David Pasternak relative to collusion in the alleged criminal taking of property at Peck Drive, Beverly Hills in Samaan v Zernik ( SC087400) for private use, with no compensation at all. Investigation is requested on the following counts: i. Conduct of Judge John Segal relative to allegedly criminality in proceedings conducted in November 5, 2007, and November 9, 2007 (Exhibit 4j-n) , in Superior Court of Santa Monica, in which he acted as Presiding Judge, albeit with no Assignment Order, in a case that the Clerk of the Court refused to authenticate as a genuine case of the Superior Court of California, and where he allegedly engaged in criminal conduct relative to the pretense of execution of August 9, 2007 Judgment (Exhibit 4d-i), which he himself did not deem an effectual judgment at all.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 14/63
ii. Conduct of Judge John Segal, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David Pasternak relative to the alleged criminality in the appointment of Att David Pasternak as “Receiver” to execute such a judgment in proceedings on November 9, 2007 (Exhibit 4j-k). iii. Conduct of Judge John Segal, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David Pasternak relative to the alleged criminality in proceedings of November 21,2007 (Exhibit 4-l), where Att Pasternak brought to court approval an order which Judge John Segal approved, and which constituted threat of physical force to displace Dr Zernik from his home and his property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, with no legal foundation at all. iv. Conduct of David Pasternak in proceedings of December 7, 2007 (Exhibit m-n), where he purportedly came for court approval in ex parte application, resulting from what he described as refusal of Senior Escrow officer Liz Cohen (Mara Escrow) to cooperate with the alleged fraudulent conveyance of Title on the Property at 320 South Peck Drive. Specifically, request it for investigation of: (1) Gag orders purportedly issued against Dr Zernik – to prevent him from protected speech in defense of self, (2) An indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow, to induce it to engage in criminal conduct in fraudulent conveyance of title with the court, and (3) An allegedly fraudulent Grant Deed for the property at 320 South Peck Drive which was brought for court approval by David Pasternak and as opined by FBI veteran, Fraud Expert James Wedick as part of “…frauds being committed…” . v. Conduct of Judge Terry Friedman, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David Pasternak relative to alleged criminality in the purported sale of the property at Peck Drive, Beverly Hills on or about December 17, 2007 (Exhibit 4n-op). Such sale was purportedly executed for the court by Att David Pasternak, with no writ of execution, based on a judgment that the court itself never deemed effectual – therefore – with no judgment or any legal foundation at
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 15/63
all. Terry Friedman was holding the court file at that time. However, the Clerk of the Court, Mr John Clarke, refuses to authenticate the case as matter heard before the Superior Court of California, and Terry Friedman had and still has no Assignment Order for such case. Grant Deed, dated December 17, 2007, which was found at the office of Registrar/Recorder of LA County, is different than the Grant Deed which Att David Pasternak purported to have the court approval on December 7, 2007. Each separately, and both together, were opined by veteran FBI agent James Wedick as “frauds being committed..” Conduct of Judge Terry Friedman, Att David Pasternak and Judge David Yaffe, relative to proceedings of January 30, 2008 (Exhibit 4-o-p), where Judge Terry Friedman refused to release any proceeds from the purported sale to Dr Zernik. Such proceeds, or whatever remained from them are still held by the court to this very date, some $350,000, with no legal foundation- proceeds from acts that are explicitly prohibited by law, and in which they continue to engage in various transactions, which in and of themselves are prohibited by law as well. 3. Alleged criminality in re: Conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in Samaan v Zernik(SC087400) in conjunction with conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in litigations that generated the false imprisonments that formed the foundation for the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) and also in conjunction with conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in litigation of the First Rampart Trial and reversing jury verdict (Dec 22,2000). Request is for combined review of the conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in the prosecutions that led to the false imprisonments of the Rampart FIPs, her conduct in the prosecution that was known as First Rampart Trial (October –December 2000) of Sgt. Edward Ortiz and officers Brian Liddy, Paul Harper and Michael Buchanan, and her conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). It is alleged that combined review of
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 16/63
these three sources would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Judge Connor was engaged in criminality in all three instances. 4. Alleged Criminality relative to financial management at the West District of the LA Superior Court, where all payments in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) were listed as “Journal Entries”. Request is for combined review of the conduct of the courts that led to the listing of all fees paid to the court in the case of Samaan v Zernk and the case of Galdjie v Darwish as “Journal Entries”, while other cases showed all such fees listed as “Filing Fees” “Motion Fees” etc. IV. NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS TO THE COURT, PARTIES, AND COUNSEL OF RECORD Pro Se Interested Party Joseph H Zernik (“Dr Zernik”, “Zernik”) files hereby his Notice of Motions and Motions: (1) Mistrial; (2) Alternatively To vacate Orders and Judgments pursuant to CCP § 473, (3) For Orders on the Court and the Clerk of the Court to provide reasonable explanations for their conduct in instant litigation, and (4) For Orders Initiating Corrective Actions pursuant to California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3D(1) & (2), and Proposed Orders. Further notice regarding date and time of hearing would be provided pursuant to further directions by the Court. Dr Zernik alleges that litigation of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), and the conduct of the Clerk of the Court in such case - from inception, generated ambiguity in severe violation of fundamental Common Law, First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and compromised litigation to the point of Mistrial. Such abuse of Civil Rights pursuant to the Amendments is best evidenced by Dr Zernik’s requests for access to court records in instant case, and denial of access, through the Counsel for the Court on behalf of the Clerk (Exhibit 1a). Concomitantly, the Court provided access to an online record titled “Case Summary” which is misleading (Exhibit 1b-c), since it fails to list pertinent records, it includes statements that contradict other records, and it comes with a disclaimer that it is NOT an official Court record and should not be
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 17/63
relied upon. Further evidence for the misleading nature of such record was provided in the July 29, 2009 Court Counsel, Mr Bennett letter (Exhibit 1a). Such record further increases ambiguity regarding instant case. Repeated requests for access, directed to the Clerk were denied. Through such access it would be possible either authenticate or invalidate the registration of instant case of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (“LA Superior Court), the registration of the Assignment of Justice James A Richman as Presiding Judge in instant case and the registration of his Orders and Judgments (Exhibit 1d), as well as the Rulings of the California Court of Appeals, 4th District (Exhibit 1e). Registrations of all of these key elements of instant litigation at present appear questionable at best. There are good reasons to believe that such records were never registered as entered and never deemed effectual by the LA Superior Court either. Needless to say, ambiguity regarding judgments undermines the concept of court litigation in the first place. Request for an Order to allow access to court records was filed as part of the Ex Parte Application for Orders and for Leave to File served and filed herewith. Detailed discussion was provided and evidence that the published Local Rules of Court of the Court included for the past quarter century Rules pertaining to Entry of Judgment that had no bearing in reality (Attachment A). In contrast, what the true unpublished Local Rules of Court were relative to Entry of Judgment remained to be discovered (Exhibit 1c). It was alleged that such vague and ambiguous, misleading Rules, under which the LA Superior Court operated in the past quarter century, combined with the denial of access to public records generated conditions in LA County that amounted to severe abuse of Due Process and other Civil Rights. In short- shortcomings or fundamental defects seen in instant litigation were not unique, but rather typical of substantial number of cases. Accordingly, Orders were requested on the Clerk of the LA Superior Court to provide written Rules of Court pertaining to Entry of Judgment, reflecting the true practice of the LA Superior Court today, if any, and if inconsistent with the
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 18/63
published Rules of Court, to update the Rules in compliance with the California Rule Making Enabling Law (CCP §575.1). As supporting evidence for the Motion for Mistrial and its alternatives, the severe outcome of such ambiguities relative to judgments, as seen in instant case, were demonstrated in further details in three additional cases: (4) Depriving Att Richard Fine of his liberty in Marina v LA County (BS109420) (Exhibits 2a-d), (5) The wrongful taking of the rental property of Barbara Kramar Darwish in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) (Exhibit 3a-d), and (6) The wrongful taking of residential property of Joseph Zernik for private use with no compensation at all in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) (Exhibit 4a-p). Orders are also requested that would initiate corrective actions regarding wrongdoing in the latter three cases. Beyond vague and ambiguous Entry of Judgment, the other features common to all three cases listed above were that such wrongdoing as seen in such cases, could never have been possible absent collusion by LA County agencies – the LA County Sheriff Department and the LA County Office of Registrar/Recorder. Therefore, it is the nature of the relationship between Defendant and Intervenor which is at the root cause of such wrongdoing. It was precisely the same relationship that was the subject matter of instant litigation, through review of payments by Defendant to Intervenor. Through denial of access to records and various other wrongdoings, the LA Superior Court was also the cause of the ongoing incarceration of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) a decade after the true facts in that matter were unveiled, as documented in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report, 2006 (available at the official LAPD site1); and in
Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006), Executive Summary, and Appendices can be viewed at the official LAPD site: http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/RampartReconsidered.html http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Full%20Report.pdf http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered%20Executive%20Summary.pdf http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Appendices%20Final.pdf
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 19/63
PBS Frontline – False Imprisonments in LA, 2001, updated 2008 (Exhibit 5a), and in review titled The Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County, California by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky (2000) (Exhibit 5b). Therefore, the evidence provided herein, on the one hand – supported Mistrial, alternatively- vacating of court actions, in litigation, which was irreparably compromised by Due Process and other Civil Rights violations. On the other hand – such evidence demonstrated the harm already done through collusion in wrongdoing between Defendant and Intervenor in instant case. Party in Interest alleges that permitting payments by Defendant to Intervenor would further cement such harmful relations, which led to substantial abuse of the residents of LA County. Therefore, Interested Party called upon the Court to include also public policy considerations in this matter, to the degree that such consideration can be adequately supported by law.2 DATED: August 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H ZERNIK
By: _________________________________ Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Interested Party 1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750 Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net V. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Pro Se Intrested Party hoped that California law provided same privileges to Pro Se filers as U.S. law, where Pro Se Filer is forgiven when unable to provide full legal theory to support his claims, as long as the facts and the claims are clearly stated.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 20/63
1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified International Law, Articles 2, 7,8,
Nixon v Warner Communications Inc (1978) Fay v Noya (1963) U.S. Constitution, Amendments First, Sixth, Fourteenth Cal Code Civ Proc §124 – public trial Cal Code Civ Proc §473 – motion to vacate judgment Cal Code Civ Proc §575.1 – rule making enabling law Cal Code Civ Proc § 664 et seq – entry of judgment Cal Code Civ Proc §1008 – motion to vacate judgment
10) Cal Govt Code §6250-6276.48 - California Public Records Act 11) Cal Govt Code § 69844.7 – requirement to maintain Book of Judgments 12) California Rules of Court, Rule 1.20 Filing, and 1.21 Service 13) California Rules of Court, Rules 2.500: Chapter 2. Public Access to Electronic Trial
14) Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court, Rule 3.0 – Entry of Judgment and Book of
15) Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court, Rule 8.96 – Book of Judgments 16) Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736,
41 Cal.App.4th 738 – Los Angeles County has no Book of Judgments.
VI. REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Pro Se Interested Party requests that the Court incorporate by reference the records of the following matters: LA Superior Court a. Derwish v Darwish (SC060217) b. Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737). c. Marina v LA County (BS109420)
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 21/63
d. Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) DATED: August 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H ZERNIK
By: _________________________________ Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Interested Party 1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750 Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net VII. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Judicial Notice is requested of the following Court records, only for facts that are universally acknowledged – that such records exist. Pro Se Interested Party Dr Zernik alleges that such records upon review must be deemed false and misleading. Therefore, the Request for Judicial Notice does not include any claim of truthfulness of these record, only their mere existence:
1) In re: Fine Habeas Corpus (at Cal Ct App, 2nd) (B214321)
a. Docket b. Trial Court 2) Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) a. June 12, 2009 Judge Woehrle’s Report and Recommendations
3) Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737)
b. Register of Actions c. Case Summary d. Records by David Pasternak retrieved from Office of Registrar/Recorder
4) Marina v LA County (BS109420)
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 22/63
b. March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Fine by Judge David Yaffe, 3 specimen: i. From Att Fine’s habeas corpus filing, ii. From Att McCormick’s filing on behalf of Judge Yaffe and the LA Superior Court, and iii. From LA Superior Court file. Only face pages and signature pages are shown. All three records are stamped on their faces “FILED” at the LA Superior Court on March 4, 2009. The LA Sup Court copy is signed by Judge Yaffe and dated March 4, 2009, the other two copies are dated March 24, 2009. The Att Fine copy was also part of petition stamped FILED at U.S. Court March 20. 2009. c. March 4, 2008 Minute Order by Judge David Yaffe d. June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendations by Magistrate Carla Woehrle 5) Rampart FIPs a. Blue Ribbon Review Panel: Rampart Reconsidered (2006) 6) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) a. November 14, 2008 Certified Copy of the Register of Actions. b. August 31, 2007 Register of Actions c. August 3, 2009 Case Summary d. November 14, 2008 Certified Copy of Minute Orders from electronic court file e. Minute Orders from paper court file. f. Table summarizing the differences between Minute Orders from paper and electronic court files. g. August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant to Cal Code Civ Proc §437c by Judge Jacqueline Connor h. November 9, 2007 Motion for appointing Pasternak Receiver by Att Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin LLP) i. November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Pasternak Receiver by Judge John Segal. j. November 9, 2007 Transcript of proceeding for appointment of David Pasternak Receiver.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 23/63
k. Objection filed by Dr Zernik to the filing of Case Summary as litigation record at the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, and respective court order. l. Objection and OSC Contempt filed by Dr Zernik following filing of Case Summary as litigation record at the U.S. District Court, LA, and respective order.
a. Case Summary in Courtnet on the web at lasuperiorcourt.org. b. List of available document images on the web at lasuperiorcourt.org. DATED: August 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H ZERNIK
VIII. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1) The Court is requested to schedule a hearing date for instant application
Interested Party, Dr Zernik, initially approached the Court in re: request for a leave to file papers as an Intervenor, alternatively – as Interested Party in LA Superior Court action Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286). Ms Susan Suzanne O’Rourke Scanlon, Judicial Assistant to the Hon. James A. Richman responded on July 27, 2009, by phone and by email, directing Dr Zernik to Mr Gregory C Drapac, senior administrator at the LA Superior Court Office of the Clerk/Executive Officer, who was assigned as the local clerical staff for the case, given that it was not heard in its current phase in any of the standard departments of the Court (Exh 1- July 27, 2009 Email from Ms O’Rourke Scanlon).
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 24/63
Dr Zernik then approached Mr Drapac, who eventually provided by phone (but would not provide it in writing) the directive described below for Dr Zernik to file an ex parte application in such case, which Mr Drapac stated had originated from the court of Justice Richman. The directive was provided by phone only, and repeated requests for written confirmation by email remained unanswered by email, and answered by phone only. Mr Gregory Drapac, directed Dr Zernik to serve instant paper on parties, file the paper at the LA Superior Court, Central District (Room 102), under caption of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), and pay the applicable filing fees. Given that there is no standard department for such caption, Dr Zernik was directed to provide a copy after filing to Mr Drapac (Room 109), who was to forward it to the Honorable James Richman for initial review. Mr Gregory Drapac directed Dr Zernik not to state any time and place for the hearing at the time of filing. Instead, only after decision in the matter by the Honorable James Richman, if leave is granted to schedule an appearance, then Notice would be separately served and filed. Accordingly, service and filing of the paper with no notice of date and time of appearance is planned for Monday, August 3, 2009, and Proof of Service will be accordingly filed in Court and served upon the parties as well. The judge who rules in this matter for the Court, is requested to provide reference to his/her Assignment Order, by date, and by name of authority who issued such Assignment Order, and by location where such order can be found, since it was impossible to decipher the assignment of judges in instant case, as discussed below.
2) Instant application stemmed from abuse of Dr Zernik’s rights for access to court
records. Interested Party Dr Zernik initially approached the court in re: Request for a leave to file papers as an Intervenor, alternatively – as an Interested Party. On July 27, 2009 the court of Justice Richman referred Dr Zernik to Clerk Drapac as the local Clerk for the matter, and Mr Drapac was expected to forward the filing to Justice Richman, who would then decide on whether to hear the request.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 25/63
In order to prepare his papers, Dr Zernik repeatedly requested Mr Drapac allow access to litigation records of instant case pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) (Exhibit 1a). Mr Drapac refused to respond, instead – response was provided by the Counsel for the Court. Such response, as discussed in adjoining ex parte applications was deemed offensive and should be deemed fraudulent by the court (Exhibit 1a). Further review of available records consequently revealed a series of disturbing conflicts pertaining to the key facts about instant litigation. Review of the Register of Actions therefore became imperative, if one is at all to comprehend the nature of transactions taking place. Such transactions may appear one way to a party or parties taking place in such actions, but the definitive record is generated, maintained, and at present – concealed by Intervenor.
3) Motions were therefore filed herein for Mistrial, alternatively –to vacate judgments
and orders per CCP §473 Concealment of litigation records, as seen in instant case, should be deemed sufficient abuse of Civil Rights to support Motion for Mistrial in and of itself. Moreover, in instant case, the unveiled records indicate conflicting records on major points defining the litigation – from the nature of Justice James A Richman involvement, to the effectual nature of judgments, or lack thereof. In short- the LA Superior Court, Intervenor in instant litigation, drove the case into a state where its meaning is ambiguated to the point of meaninglessness. As an alternative, the Court is requested to consider motion to vacate judgments and orders. Cal Code of Civ Proc, §473 says:
473. (a) (1) The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 26/63
upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.
4) The LA Superior Court has been denying access to court records in the past quarter
century, including, but not limited to instant case (Exhibit 1b). Once Dr Zernik was informed by Clerk Drapac of the Court procedure for filing, he requested to access the essential official court records in purported case captioned Sturgeon v LA County, and designated by number (BC351286) (Exhibit 1a). Mr Drapac refused to respond, instead he referred Dr Zernik’s request to Court Counsel Bennett for response. The responses received from Counsel Bennett included a key statement that should be deemed fraudulent – regarding purported availability of the Register of Actions in lasuperiorcourt.org online (Exhibit 1a). To this date, the LA Superior Court has remained adamant in its insistence on denying access to court records in Instant Case Sturgeon v LA County. There is simply no plausible explanation why an honest court would deny any person access to litigation records as required by law. However, in LA County, such denial of access to court records goes back some 25 years – resulting in ambiguation of litigation records in the LA County Courts, and directly enabling wrongdoing by Intervenor LA Superior Court in collusion with Defendant LA County.
5) Denial of access to court records as the defining feature of the justice system in LA
County, California Denial of access to court records is alleged as the key feature in conduct of Defendant LA County and Intervenor LA Superior Court that is routine wrongdoing. The reason is that most of the alleged frauds jointly perpetrated by Defendant LA County and Intervenor LA Superior Court can be classified as “Shell Game Frauds” since the victim is denied the right to see the litigation papers concealed by the LA Superior Court, while through wrongful collusion of the judiciary and executive in LA County, they claim to execute alleged fraudulent judgments, as detailed in examples below.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 27/63
In Sturgeon v LA County, even experienced attorneys and an organization claiming to specialize in monitoring the judiciary, were fooled by Defendant LA County and Intervenor the LA Superior Court, since Judicial Watch was induced to participate in an ambiguous court actions for over three years, at considerable expenditure of funds and resources. In its participation in such litigation, it could only cause harm to the public policy causes that it claimed to be committed to.
6) Sturgeon v LA County was ambiguated to the point of meaninglessness
As stated, the LA Superior Court adamantly, repeatedly denied requests to access the relevant court records of Sturgeon v LA County (Exhibit 1a), Therefore, the true nature of this engagement cannot be clearly defined. However, the unofficial litigation records include various indications that strongly suggest that the affair involved the keeping of contradictory sets of records, as seen in other cases of the Court. Some of the indications found in the available records that suggest that the case is a compromised case of the Court: a. Failure to register an Initial Case Conference b. Failure to register a Trial Setting Case Conference c. Failure to register a Pre-trial Case Conference d. Failure to list the January 9, 2007 Judgment by Court in the Case Summary records. e. Failure to list the October 10, 2008 Ruling of the San Diego Court of Appeals, 4th District in Case Summary records, and its modification. f. Failure to note a Remittitur. g. Listing of Multiple Presiding Judges, , with no adequate documentary evidence to establish the legal foundation of any such appointment/assignment. h. All Minute Orders produced by the Court in relationship to papers issued by the Justice James A Richman, demonstrated credible evidence of alleged wrongdoing in the operation of Sustain by Deputy Clerk Martin Godderz (Dept 1). His conduct resulted in production of Certifications by Clerk where his name failed to appear below the signature line. Such appearance of the Minute Orders
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 28/63
ambiguated their authenticity. Moreover, it is most likely that upon obtaining access to Sustain, additional wrongdoing would be uncovered relative to the production of such Minute Orders and their registration in Sustain, if any.
7) Sturgeon v LA County litigation records were compromised “as you go”.
The online records presented conflicting data (Exhibit 1b-g), which reflect conflicting opinions among the judges who authored the various records regarding the nature of Justice James Richman involvement in instant case: Justice Richman consistently signed with the following designation:
Sitting by Assignment as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
In contrast, the unofficial, online “Case Summary” record, which Court Counsel Bennett misleadingly referred to as the “Register of Actions”, consistently minimizes that role of Justice Richman in the affair, and repeatedly stated regarding his involvement in instant case - “Not Case Assignment” (see also Table 1, below):
i) False listing others as presiding in proceedings where Justice Richman presided: For
certain events that are known to have been presided by Justice Richman, pursuant to Minute Orders, are listed in the Case Summary with others as the presiding judge. E.g., (xi) below, 2/7/2007.
ii) Listing the proceeding, but omitting Justice Richman’s name: For example – see (xiii)
iii) Listing the proceeding, but listing “Reference Judge” as the Presider, and list Justice
Richman by name in parenthesis, see (xiv) below. These false data were related here not only because they reflected dishonesty in the online record, but to point out the level of abuse- litigation records were adulterated “as you go” and posted online. Table 1. Presiding Judges and Proceedings in Sturgeon v LA County As represented in Case Summary online.
Date Judge Event Assign? Parenthetical
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 29/63
5/1/06 5/1/06 7/13/06 7/14/06
Mel Red Recana Court Order - Completed Charles W. McCoy Transferred tp Different Dept. Reference Judge Court makes order Ralph W Dau Telephonic Conference Court makes order Charles W. McCoy Court males order Charles W. McCoy Court's ruling and order Entered Charles W. McCoy Ex parte Motion –granted Charles W. McCoy Motion for Protective Order – Granted Charles W. McCoy Motion for Summary Judgment – submitted Lee Smalley Edmon Ruling on Submitted Matter – Granted Lee Smalley Edmon Court Order - Completed Elihu M Berle Telephonic Conference – Matter continued Reference Judge Motion (TO INTERVENE) – Case Taken Under Submission Reference Judge Ruling on Submitted Matter – - Court makes order Reference Judge Elihu M Berle Reference Judge
Presiding Presiding Presiding (not case assignment) Presiding
8/16/06 9/01/06
Presiding Presiding
10/13/06 10/20/06 11/20/06
Presiding Presiding Presiding ((2) Further Status Conference 10-18-06;To Be Heard by Justice James A.Richman)
1/9/07 2/7/07 2/10/09 3/6/09
Presiding Presiding Presiding Presiding (Not case Assignment)
3/13/09 7/2/09 7/13/09 7/13/09
Presiding (Not case Assignment) (Justice James A Richman) Presiding (Justice Richman) (Not case Assignment) Presiding Presiding (Justice Richman) (Not case Assignment)
8) The data that were likely to be hidden in the Sustain Register of Actions.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 30/63
Interested Party was denied access to Sustain definitive records of the litigation, and therefore, he attempted to project, based on his experiences in reviewing other litigation records, what may be the reason that the LA Superior Court denied him basic Civil and Human Rights. Findings upon inspection of Sustain Register of Actions could include the following: a. Involvement of Justice Richman may be registered as ”off the record” in Sustain. b. Certain proceedings may be listed as “off the record” proceedings, with substantial implications. Party and Counsel who may be present in open court may be fooled to assume that they were participating in a true court proceedings. However, such proceedings, which were in advance designated as “off the record”, will hardly lead to any executable order or any impact on the litigation. i. The 11/20/06 Case Conference: Such proceeding was at high likelihood an “off the record” proceeding. Dr Zernik has not read the records of that proceeding and therefore he cannot even speculate why it deserved such treatment. ii. 2009 Motions for Summary Judgments: Among the three MSJ’s, two were likely registered as “off the record”, leaving only the Defendant’s MSJ and a viable motion. iii. Minute Orders providing authentication by clerk of the Justice James A Martin papers in Instant Case: It is likely that all rulings, orders, judgments pronounced by the Justice James A Richman in Instant Case (Exhibit 1a) were kept “off the record” in Sustain. All Minute Orders produced by the Court in relationship to papers issued by the Justice James A Richman, demonstrate credible evidence of alleged wrongdoing in the operation of Sustain by the Deputy Clerk involved – Mr Martin Godderz. Such wrongful conduct resulted in flawed Certificates of Mailing and Notices of Entry of Order by Clerk for each and every one of the Justice
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 31/63
James A Richman papers, where Mr Martin Godderz’s name failed to appear below the signature line. Such appearance of the Minute Orders not only ambiguated their authenticity, but also made it most likely that upon obtaining access to Sustain, additional wrongdoing would be uncovered, which was related to the production of such false Minute Orders. Such Minute Orders most likely failed to be registered in Sustain in a manner that would be deemed valid by the Court. There is no way that Interested Party Dr Zernik can speculate to what degree the Justice James A Richman was or was not aware of the details of such machinations in Sustain in Instant Case. However, now that he was reliably informed that wrongdoing in at least likely, he is expected to act in compliance with the California Code of Judicial Ethics, initiate corrective actions, and fully inform the public of his actions and their outcome in such matter. On August 4, 2009 Dr Zernik called by phone Mr Gregory Drapac, since he was directed by the Court of Justice James A Richman that Mr Drapac was the local Los Angeles Clerk assigned to the case. Dr Zernik raised with Mr Drapac his concerns that the Minute Orders issued by the LA Superior Court for all papers produced by Justice James A Richman were invalid. Mr Drapac asked Dr Zernik to identify such Minute Orders by date. He then assured Dr Zernik that he reviewed the Minute Orders on the Court’s computer system, and that the Minute Orders at question were valid and adequately authenticated. Therefore, Dr Zernik alleges that Mr Drapac colluded in wrongdoing perpetrated by Mr Godderz, and that Mr Drapac should be included in any investigation that may be undertaken into the alleged wrongdoing in instant case.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 32/63
c. It would also be prudent to check exactly what status was accorded in the Sustain record to Att Paul Orfanedes and his papers, and separately, how the Intervention by LA Superior Court was registered.
9) The Court generated and kept records for itself in its secret notes in the Register of
Actions, which were not accessible to the public and parties. Such records that may be thought by some to be insignificant, carry substantial weightotherwise the Court would not bother to engage in such elaborate double and triple bookkeeping for a quarter century. It matters particularly if Plaintiff considers filing an appeal at the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District. Dr Zernik is informed and believes that the 2nd District Court of Appeals was provided online routine access to Sustain. The outcome was that the Court of Appeal and LA Superior Court shared litigation records that other parties to petitions and appeals did not even know existed.
Based on available records it was impossible to conclude that a valid case of the LA Superior Court Sturgeon v LA County indeed ever existed. The Clerk of the Court should either authenticate or invalidate the case of Sturgeon v LA
County. Orders to disambiguate and authenticate, alternatively – to invalidate matter under caption of Sturgeon v LA County, designated by number as (BC351286); and similarly – to either authenticate or invalidate the Honorable James A Richman’s assignment as a Judge in such case, as his 2007 and 2009 papers bearing titles such as “Order” and “Judgment”.
If Sturgeon v LA County was indeed authenticated as a case – it would still be impossible to conclude based on available records which of the proceedings were deemed valid by the Court. To establish authenticated records in such litigation one must gain access to Sustain, where
each transaction is required to be separately registered, and the respective adjudication explicitly noted. When honestly practiced, the Register of Actions is a tool that could assist in guiding quality administration of justice. However, as noted in analysis of the Registers of Actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), the Register of
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 33/63
Actions in Sustain, as operated today is central to the compromise of litigation records at the LA Superior Court. To give just one example, one may examine the minute orders by Justice Richman: a. Justice Richman’s two (2) January 9, 2007 Minute Orders b. Justice Richman’s two (2) February 7, 2007 Minute Orders c. Justice Richman’s two (2) July 30, 2009 Minute Orders The purported clerk authentication of the Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry remained anonymous in all of them – since Mr Martin Godderz, who Dr Zernik was informed by Mr Drapac generated these records, failed to have his name appear under the signature line. Dr Zernik indeed believed that such Minute Orders were printed out from Sustain by Mr Godderz. However, Dr Zernik believed that such Minute Orders were not the product of honest operation of Sustain and not the product of the uses of the appropriate functions in Sustain for the issuance of Minute Orders that would result in registration of the Minute Orders, as such, in the system. Not only the endorsement of the clerk was typed manually, instead of being automatically generated by the system as part of the Minute Order production procedure, but also the Parties were manually typed. The most plausible explanation is that the Parties were never adequately entered in Sustain, even in the fourth year of instant case. Obviously, such issues may be the true reason why the LA Superior Court is adamant in its refusal to allow Dr Zernik to inspect and to copy the Register of Actions in Sustain.
12) There was no record to demonstrate how the Court entered the Justice James A
Richman 2007 Order and Judgment in order to make them effectual by law; How the Court entered the Justice James A Richman 2009 Order and Judgment from the Motion for Summary Judgment ruled upon July 30, 2009. The procedure that was defined in Local Rules of Court of LA County, and complied with the law, is non-feasible, since the LA Superior Court has no Book of Judgments for the past 25 years (Attachment 1d, and Filipescu V. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 736, 41 Cal. App. 4th 738.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 34/63
Any Rule of Court that was implemented for Entry of Judgments and Appealable Orders, in the manner that such Judgments and Appealable Orders were required to be entered by law in order to make them effectual, were not disclosed to the public. However, it appeared that the procedures implemented by the LA Superior Court were flexible. Additional discussion of such matter was provided in Attachment 1d).
The LA Superior Court precedents - false imprisonments and alleged real estate frauds, based on alleged judgment frauds. The wrongful use of compromised LA Superior Court records in collusion with LA
County agencies is particularly noted in respect to: (a) False Imprisonments - upon review, the case of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) must be deemed an abuse of historic proportion (Exhibit 5af). False imprisonment came back into focus with the alleged fraud in imprisonment by Judge David Yaffe of Att Richard Fine (Exhibits 2a-c), who was instrumental in bringing the issue of the “not permitted” payments by LA County to LA Superior Court judges to public attention. (b) Alleged Real Estate Frauds – LA County was routinely listed in FBI annual crime reports as “the epicenter of an epidemic of real estate and mortgage frauds” – specific examples are provided below from Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) (Exhibits 3a-e) and Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) (Exhibits 4a-p), of alleged real estate frauds in conjunction with litigation at the court, based on compromised Entry of Judgments. (c) The use of sham court actions and sham judgments was believed to be driven by the desire to make such false judgments non-appealable. However, given that there was no valid judgment in such litigations certain difficulties could arise:
1) Wrongful real or implied threat of force by Defendant’s agency – the LA
County Sheriff - to execute allegedly fraudulent LA Superior Court judgments. Instances evidenced here included the false arrest of Att Richard Fine at the LA Superior Court on March 4, 2009, with no authentic, effectual Judgment
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 35/63
record (Exhibit 2a), and also in purported November 21, 2007 Order by Judge John Segal (Exhibit 4j-l) to affect the wrongful taking of Dr Zernik’s property pursuant to an order to the Sheriff to act on such unlawful order “like Unlawful Detainer after Entry of Judgment”.
2) Wrongful conduct by Defendant’s agency – LA County Office of
Registrar/Recorder, which accepted false records from Att David Pasternak, falsely appointed as “Receiver” for the Court (Exhibit 4j-k), as opined by decorated veteran FBI agent, James Wedick (Exhibit 4m-n). Fraudulent conveyance of title by Att David Pasternak is alleged also in the case of Barbara Darwish (Exhibit 4a-c), Numerous other false grant deeds were found in search of the office of Registrar/Recorder, which were filed by Att David Pasternak acting as receiver for the LA Superior Court.
Detailed Review of multiple cases led to allegations of Multi-Tracking at the LA Superior Court (Exhibit 4d). Detailed comparison of the cases of Barbara Darwish and Joseph Zernik reveals
surprising similarities, which would lead a reasonable person to at least entertain the doubt, if not conclude, that such cases, falsely represented as cases of the LA Superior Court, were in fact designed by respective Plaintiffs in collusion with Judges of the LA Superior Court even before the filing of the alleged false complaints (Exhibit 3e). Such similarities included but were not limited to the following: In both such Cases, the complaints were originally based on fabricated claims of “oral modifications of real estate purchase contracts”, and both sought relief per equity rights in specific performance, in both cases claims were made that there was no right for jury trial- based on equity claims, in both Cases various alleged frauds in the respective Sustain registrations were uncovered, in both cases a series of judges presided, none with a valid Assignment Order, in both cases false Sustain registration was uncovered in key proceedings, e.g. – Demurrers pursuant to Statute of Frauds in both cases (since in both cases no contract was included in the complaint). Further discussion of the alleged Enterprise Track of the LA Superior Court is provided in Exhibit 3e.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 36/63
Partnership in wrongdoing was alleged between the LA Superior Court Judges and LA County agencies. Such alleged wrongdoing, or more simply stated - was and is perpetrated through joint
conduct of parties including, but not limited to: (a) Judges of Intervenor LA Superior Court - such as Judge Jacqueline Connor, Judge John Segal, Judge Terry Friedman, and Judge David Yaffe; (b) Officers of Intervenor LA Superior Court - such as Att David Pasternak, former President of the LA Bar Association, who often serves as alleged false Receiver for real estate for Intervenor, under Judge David Yaffe, manager of Intervenor’s Department of Writs and Receivers; (c) Defendant’s LA County Sheriff Department, which is claimed below to be engaging in false imprisonment of Att Richard Fine, and possibly also obstruction and perversion of justice, jointly with Judge David Yaffe and others, in respect to the conduct of litigation in Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-CV-01914) – the habeas corpus petition. Request was filed with the Executive/Clerk of the U.S. Court, LA, for investigation of concerns that on or about March 24, 2009, the record that is the Habeas Corpus petition of Att Richard Fine was adulterated, specifically, by inscribing the date March 24, 2009 on the last page of the March 4, 2009 Judgment record. As described below, the data as a whole suggest that the Sheriff Dept had no valid legal records as foundation for the jailing of Att Fine. (d) Defendant’s LA County Office of Registrar/Recorder, which accepts from Att David Pasternak on behalf of Intervenor, the LA Superior Court, grant deeds such as those in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), which were opined “fraud” by veteran FBI agent, fraud expert James Wedick, who was decorated by U.S. Congress, U.S. Attorney General, and FBI Director.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 37/63
Therefore, additional orders were requested for the safeguard of Civil and Human Rights pertaining to the conduct of Intervenor LA Superior Court in instant case and in all cases of the Court regarding denial of access to court records and “waiver” of notice and service of court orders. a. Orders to restore compliance by Intervenor LA Superior Court with Due Process rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, including but not limited to Notice and Service. In instant case as well there was no evidence that the Court noticed and served parties, as required by law, on all of its Minute Orders. b. Orders to restore compliance by Intervenor LA Superior Court with Common Law, First and Sixth Amendments rights - to allow public access to judicial records to inspect and to copy, to publish such public court records, and for public trial - as re-affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978); c. Orders to restore compliance by Intervenor LA Superior Court with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – ratified International Law - Articles 2, 7, 10, 11, and 12. Articles 2, 7, 10, 11, and 12 say:
Article 2 No distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs. Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 38/63
Article 11 Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
d. Orders to restore compliance by Intervenor with California Law and Rules of Courts prescribing that the courts provide public access to judicial records that are trial court litigation records, including, but not limited to electronic records and digital signatures. California Code of Civil Procedures §124 says:
124. Except as provided in Section 214 of the Family Code or any other provision of law, the sittings of every court shall be public.
California Public Records Act says:
Cal Govt Code §6250-6276.48 …public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the…agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record…, [and to receive] an exact copy of an identifiable record unless impracticable.
California Rules of Court, Rule 1.20 Filing, and 1.21 Service say:
Rule 1.20 Filing Unless otherwise provided, a document is deemed filed on the date it is received by the court clerk. (Rule 1.20 adopted effective January 1, 2007.) Rule 1.21. Service (a) Service on a party or attorney Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must be made on the party’s attorney if the party is represented. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) “Serve and file” As used in these rules, unless a statute or rule provides for a different method for filing or service, a requirement to “serve and file” a document means that a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each party
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 39/63
separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any other person or entity when required by statute, rule, or court order, and that the document and a proof of service of the document must be filed with the court. … (c) “Proof of service” As used in these rules, “proof of service” means a declaration stating that service has been made as provided in (a) and (b). If the proof of service names attorneys for separately represented parties, it must also state which party or parties each of the attorneys served is representing. (Subd (c) adopted effective January 1, 2007.) Rule 1.21 amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1, 2007.
California Rules of Court, Rules 2.500 et seq say:
Chapter 2. Public Access to Electronic Trial Court Records Rule 2.500. Statement of purpose Rule 2.501. Application and scope Rule 2.502. Definitions Rule 2.503. Public access Rule 2.504. Limitations and conditions Rule 2.505. Contracts with vendors Rule 2.506. Fees for electronic access Rule 2.507. Electronic access to court calendars, indexes, and registers of actions Rule 2.500. Statement of purpose (a) Intent The rules in this chapter are intended to provide the public with reasonable access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form, while protecting privacy interests. (b) Benefits of electronic access Improved technologies provide courts with many alternatives to the historical paper-based record receipt and retention process, including the creation and use of court records maintained in electronic form. Providing public access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form may save the courts and the public time, money, and effort and encourage courts to be more efficient in their operations. Improved access to trial court records may also foster in the public a more comprehensive understanding of the trial court system. (c) No creation of rights The rules in this chapter are not intended to give the public a right of access to any record that they are not otherwise entitled to access. The rules do not create any right of access to records that are sealed by court order or confidential as a matter of law. (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007.) Rule 2.500 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as rule 2070 effective July 1, 2002. Advisory Committee Comment The rules in this chapter acknowledge the benefits that electronic court records provide but attempt to limit the potential for unjustified intrusions into the privacy of individuals involved in litigation that can occur as a result of remote access to electronic court records. The proposed rules take into
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 40/63
account the limited resources currently available in the trial courts. It is contemplated that the rules may be modified to provide greater electronic access as the courts’ technical capabilities improve and with the knowledge gained from the experience of the courts in providing electronic access under these rules. Rule 2.501. Application and scope (a) Application The rules in this chapter apply only to trial court records. (Subd (a) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (b) effective July 1, 2002.) (b) Access by parties and attorneys The rules in this chapter apply only to access to court records by the public. They do not limit access to court records by a party to an action or proceeding, by the attorney of a party, or by other persons or entities that are entitled to access by statute or rule. (Subd (b) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as subd (c) effective July 1, 2002.)
Rule 2.501 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as rule 2017 effective July 1, 2002.
Case #1: Wrongdoing was alleged by the Court in collusion with LA County
agency – the Sheriff Department in Marina v LA County (BS109420) There is no plausible explanation based on good faith conduct for explaining the records found in re: March 4, 2009 Judgment by Judge David Yaffe for jailing of Attorney Fine. In a recent review of records in Fine v LA County Sheriff Department - the habeas corpus petition of Att Richard Fine (Exhibit 2c), Dr Zernik found out that the purported Judge David P Yaffe March 4,2009 Judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine, which was stamped FILED by the LA Superior Court on March 4, 2009, and was stamped FILED on March 20, 2009, as one of the exhibits in habeas corpus petition filed on that date at the U.S. District Court , LA, was verified by Judge David Yaffe, with the date of March 24, 2009. on at least 2 of the copies of such purported court record. One might initially consider such false date as a naïve error, but further investigation made it more likely that the case involved false judgment record and alleged alteration/adulteration of court records to affect false imprisonment. Once it was realized that the case of the jailing of Att Richard Fine was yet another Entry of Judgment case by the LA Superior Court, the history of the litigation in the habeas corpus petition in both the U.S. District Court, LA became clearer:
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 41/63
Unusual and extreme conditions of jailing of Att Richard Fine by Defendant’s agency LA County Sheriff Department, were likely induced by the desire to undermine Att Fine’s legal efforts. First – the filing of the habeas corpus petition was delayed and was overshadowed by
concerted efforts by the LA Sheriff Department to prevent Att Fine from filing such petition, by denying him access to paper, to pen, to visitors, to the jail’s legal library. Once one realized that the Sheriff Department, an agency of Defendant LA County, was most likely colluding with Intervenor, the LA Superior Court, in what must be deemed false imprisonment, it made more sense why the need arose to resort to such extreme abusive measures against Att Richard Fine. On that background, it also became obvious why the efforts were made to isolate Att Richard Fine from the outside world- therefore - he would not know what the papers filed under his name looked like on the court’s docket, and people outside would not know what papers Att Fine was served in jail.
Both Defendant and Intervenor in Instant Case refused to respond to the habeas corpus petition of Att Richard Fine in U.S. District Court, LA. . Another unusual feature of the litigation in Fine v LA County Sheriff Department was
that after the petition was filed, neither the Sheriff Department nor the LA Superior Court agreed to respond to the petition. Once one realizes that the jailing was founded on an alleged false judgment record it all made sense – none of them wanted to incriminate himself. At the end, the Sheriff – an agency of Defendant LA County, indeed never filed a response – albeit – he was rightfully named as Respondent, since he falsely held and still holds Attorney Fine. The Sheriff Department claimed that Real Party in Interest – the LA Superior Court should be required to respond. Through Attorney Fontana, the Sheriff eventually filed a motion to dismiss, but without ever filing any records to establish the legal foundation of the jailing of Att Richard Fine. The LA Superior Court – Intervenor in Instant Case – eventually volunteered to respond, albeit, it responded with an insufficient pleading – no declaration was filed by Judge David Yaffe or any other Court officer. Instead, the U.S. District Court of Magistrate
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 42/63
Woehrle was fully satisfied with declaration by counsel only. Moreover, the Counsel, Att McCormick, filed a copy of the Judgment record that was different from the one filed by Att Richard Fine, and yet, like the copy filed by Richard Fine, it showed a March 4, 2009 FILED stamp on its face, and verification by Judge Yaffe dated March 24, 2009 on its last page. Moreover, the Counsel failed to file the definitive record required to establish the legal foundation for such judgment – the Register of Actions in Sustain. In the case of Marina v LA County, it was likely that upon gaining access to Public Record which was the Register of Actions in Sustain, additional flaws in the records by the LA Superior Court would be uncovered. Requests filed with the Clerk of the LA Superior Court to access such records was denied.
Wrongdoing was alleged in collusion by the LA Superior Court and the U.S. District Court LA in habeas corpus petition of Att Richard Fine - Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914) The docket of the U.S. District Court, LA in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914), stated
that the petition of Att Fine was filed on March 20, 2009, including the Judge Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment record. Dr Zernik was reliably informed that Att Fine recently stated that such record that was in his possession and was filed on his behalf with the habeas corpus petition was undated. However, the U.S. docket in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914), further stated that the petition exhibits, filed on March 20, 2009 were modified on March 24, 2009, with no additional details, and with no evidence of consent by Att Fine to such modifications that may have taken place and were noted in the docket. Combined with additional evidence it appeared most plausible that on March 24, 2009, the record in the U.S. District Court was disassembled, and that the necessary page was forwarded to Judge Yaffe for signature, which he truthfully then signed March 24, 2009, only to have the record shipped back to the U.S. Court, and reinserted into the Attorney Richard Fine habeas corpus petition, all without Att Richard Fine’s consent. Dr Zernik raised his concerns with the counsel involved, but none of them responded to Dr Zernik (Exhibit 2d). Dr Zernik also raised his concerns with the U.S. District Court Supervisor of Operations, Ms Sharon McGee, and a week later, by phone, Ms McGee
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 43/63
informed Dr Zernik that she looked into the matter and that she concurred with Dr Zernik’s concerns that there could have been some dishonest conduct involved. She also informed Dr Zernik that she raised the issue before the court of Magistrate Woehrle. Dr Zernik also filed a request for investigation with the Executive Clerk of the U.S. Court, Terry Nafisi. No response was received so far.
No record at all existed of entry or service of March 4, 2009 Judgment for the Jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (BS109420) Of interest, the March 4, 2009 Minute Order in the case that originated the jailing -
Marina v County (BS109420), included no mention of the judgment or entry of judgment. Such March 4, 2009 Minute Order was never noticed or served on the parties either. In short – there is no evidence that any semblance of entry of judgment procedure or any permutation of such procedure ever took place on March 4, 2009. Instead, it appears that Judge Yaffe chose to deliberately rely on a defective, unentered ineffectual judgment for the jailing of Att Fine, and the Sheriff Department went along for the ride. The alleged false March 4, 2009 judgment was of course facilitated by the fact that the LA County did not maintain a Book of Judgments, and therefore did not comply with any legal procedure for entry of judgment. Therefore, there was also no clearly defined way for the public to inspect and to copy records that would definitively ascertain or refute the existence of a March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine. In short – the LA Superior Court created vague and ambiguous conditions relative to judgments that were outside any standards of U.S. Due Process, and also International Law in re: Fair Tribunals.
Inexplicable dishonest review of the allegedly false David P Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (BS109420) was recorded by the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District The case of Marina v County (BS109420), also demonstrates the conduct of the
California Court of Appeals, 2nd District in cases of alleged judgment fraud by the LA Superior Court. Att Richard Fine filed a habeas corpus petition also with the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, based on the same purported David P Yaffe March 4, 2009
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 44/63
Judgment record, with no date in its verification. But the court of appeals DENIED the petition, albeit, the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, online record left the ‘Judgment Date” field incomplete. As noted before, such online dockets of the California Court of Appeals at present fail to include any field where the “Date of Entry of Judgment” would be noted in the record. Such unusual practice by the California Courts of Appeals in their online “Dockets (Registers of Actions)”, in fact, was no different from the online “Case Summary” falsely represented as the Register of Actions by the LA Superior Court.
Case Number B214321
Notes Request for Immediate Stay/1 Volume of Exhibits
03/02/2009 Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed. 03/03/2009 Order denying petition filed. 03/03/2009 Case complete.
Dishonest review of the allegedly fraudulent Judge David Yaffe March 4,2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine was recorded by Magistrate Woehrle’s June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendations in the matter of Att Richard Fine’s habeas corpus petition Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914) Once one realized that the jailing of Att Richard Fine was most likely founded on a
false judgment at the LA Superior Court, the conduct of U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle becomes much easier to understand, albeit – serious concerns were raised regarding her conduct as well. The core standard for review of a habeas corpus petition was spelled out in Fay v Noya (1963), where the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority decision was written by the late Justice Brennan. In a writ of habeas corpus, a U.S. Judge is petitioned “to inquire into the legality of the prisoner's detention”, and the overriding standard of review in such inquiry is: “…if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 45/63
requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release.” (Fay v Noia (1963) pp. 401–402). On June 12, 2009, almost 3 months after Att Richard Fine filed his habeas corpus petition, Magistrate Woehrle filed her Report and Recommendation – that the petition be dismissed with prejudice. Her opening paragraph effectively provided the examination of “the fundamental requirements of the law”:
I. PRESENT PROCEEDINGS The pro se petitioner, Richard I. Fine, is in the custody of the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, at a Los Angeles County jail facility, under a judgment and order of contempt and a remand order (imposing coercive civil contempt under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1219(a)) both issued on March 4, 2009, by Hon. David P. Yaffe, Judge of the Superior Court, in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BS109420. Petitioner challenged the contempt proceeding and sought state court remedies in a habeas petition to the California Supreme Court (No. S170933), which was summarily denied on March 5, 2009. The present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2254) was filed in this court on March 19, 2009 (as docket no. 1). On April 21, 2009, Respondent Sheriff Baca filed a motion to dismiss (docket no. 12), simply arguing that the Sheriff, although Petitioner’s actual custodian, has acted under order of the superior court, and is not the real party in interest. An answer, addressing the merits of Petitioner’s claims, was filed on May 1, 2009 (docket no. 15), on behalf of Judge Yaffe and the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, as Respondents and Real Parties in Interest. Petitioner has filed two responses to the answer (docket no. 22, filed May 8, 2009, and docket no. 24, filed May 14, 2009).
Of note, Magistrate Woehrle failed to even identify the case by name, which may be tied to the question whether there was indeed an authenticated case of Marina v LA County (BS109420). Similarly – Magistrate Woehrle noted Judge David Yaffe as Judge of the Superior Court, but she failed to state that he was Presiding Judge in Marina v County, raising the question of missing Assignment Orders in that case as well. She entirely forgot to inquire about the Register of Actions of the case – the definitive record of the litigation for establishing the foundation for the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment record. Most conspicuous – she failed to state that the March 4, 2009 Judgment was ever entered, instead, she noted that judgment was “issued” March 4, 2009. Finally- she missed the discrepancy in dates between filing and verification of the record.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 46/63
The dishonest conduct of U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle in review of alleged false judgment by the LA Superior Court in re: Entry of Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine – was a repeat of her dishonest conduct in review of alleged false judgment by the LA Superior Court in re: Entry of Judgment in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) a year earlier. None of these deficiencies in the U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle June 12, 2009 Report
and Recommendation could be deemed an oversight or as a naïve error, if only for the fact that she managed in a few short sentences to misrepresent the case of Marina v LA County (BS109420), as if it provided the authentic legal foundation for the jailing, while managing to consistently avoid any valid statement on the matter. Moreover, a year earlier, Dr Zernik was engaged in similar arguments with Magistrate Carla Woehrle relative to yet another alleged false Entry of Judgment by the LA Superior Court – in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). Therefore, there was no doubt at all, that by the time she reviewed the Att Richard Fine habeas corpus petition she was readily familiar with all the nuances of the alleged false judgments at the LA Superior Court. Needless to say, the fact that such cases of alleged false judgments by the LA Superior Court end up in the lap of U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle, combined with the multiple recusals typically seen in such cases, are inexplicable in and of themselves.
Case #2: Criminality in conduct of judges Connor, Segal, and Friedman, among others, was alleged in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Magistrate Carla Woehrle reviewed the LA Superior Court in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) as part of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), where some 10 judges of the LA Superior Court were named as Defendants for allegedly perpetrating real estate false conveyance of title. They were sued for violation of civil rights under the color of law 42 USC §1983, pertaining to the taking of Dr Zernik’s property for private use with no compensation at all. They were also in the unusual position of having no immunity, since they had no Assignment Orders as well. In Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) too, no declaration by any judge was entered. In that case as well, the LA Superior Court attempted to file the online “Case
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 47/63
History” record in lieu of the true litigation record that is the Register of Actions. The same alleged false conduct that was attempted by Counsel Bennett July 28, 2009 Letter relative to instant case, in which he denied access to public court records in instant case. In response to such filing by the LA Superior Court in U.S. District Court in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Dr Zernik filed an objection and also an OSC for Contempt. Magistrate Woehrle simply refused to rule on such filings, claiming that they were not material to the litigation. In fact, the alleged false “Case Summary” record was the ONLY documentary evidence filed by the LA Superior Court and its judges in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550). Magistrate Woehrle also refused to file a Statement on the Record regarding any conflicts, pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics, claiming that as U.S. Magistrate she was not bound by the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
In the same case in U.S. Court - Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - Judge Virginia Phillips issued a March 21. 2008 Minute Order, where she stated twice that judgment was “awarded”, but never mentioned the word “entered”. Dr Zernik filed a request for reconsideration, asking for restatement of that ruling with the word “entered”. Dr Zernik asked Judge Phillips as well for a Statement on the Record in re: conflicts. Judge Phillips denied both requests.
There is no plausible explanation based on honest conduct and effectual August 9, 2009 Judgment by Court in view of the records generated by Judge Jacqueline Connor, Judge John Segal, Judge Terry Friedman, Att David Pasternak, Att Mohammad Keshavarzi in Samaan v Zernik. The evidence provided in Exhibit 4 that are Court records from Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) showed that the judges in this case engaged in alleged criminal conduct. None of them held valid Assignment Order, none of them had any authority by law. They engaged in the taking of property for private use with no compensation at all, under the threat of force.
Case #3: False Entry of Judgment in Galdjie v Darwish () .There is no plausible explanation based on honest conduct and effectual May 20, 2002 Judgment by Court in view of the records generated by Judge John Segal and Att David Pasternak in Galdjie v Darwish.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 48/63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The evidence provided in Exhibit 3 that were Court records from Galdjie v Darwish (SC) showed that the judges in this case engaged in alleged criminal conduct. None of them held valid Assignment Order, none of them had any authority by law. They engaged in the taking of property for private use with no authority at all.
Therefore, additional orders are requested regarding alleged wrongdoing by
Defendant, Intervenor, and others in three named cases of alleged judgment frauds: a. Orders to initiate corrective actions, subject to review of following matters by the Court as part of instant ex parte application: i. The alleged fraud in judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine by Intervenor the LA Superior Court through Judge David Yaffe and Defendant LA County through the LA County Sheriff Department in Marina v LA County (BS109420); ii. The alleged fraud in judgment for taking the real property of Barbara Kramar Darwish by Intervenor the LA Superior Court through Judge John Segal and Att David Pasternak in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), and iii. The alleged fraud in judgment for taking the real property of Interested Party Dr Joseph H Zernik by Intervenor the LA Superior Court through Judge Jacqueline Connor in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), Instant ex parte application reliably informs the Court of such matters, and the California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(1) & (2) prescribes that under such circumstances a California judge such as Justice James Richman initiate corrective action. California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3D(1) & (2) say:
D. Disciplinary Responsibilities (1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority. (2) Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate corrective action.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 49/63
Therefore, additional orders are requested as corrective action regarding vague and ambiguous procedure for entry of judgment and failure to keep a public record that is the Book of Judgments in compliance with the California Code - conditions that enabled the judgment frauds named in (4). Above: a. Orders to create an Electronic Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments in Sustain as a public record;
b. Orders to disambiguate Court procedures for maintenance of Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments in Sustain and entry of judgment in compliance with California Code. c. Orders to update the Local Rules of Court, pursuant to California Rule Making Enabling Act, on any other matter where the rules, as published today, are inconsistent with the practice of the court, including but not limited to the maintenance and access to an Electronic Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments, and procedures for entry of judgment.
Therefore, additional orders are requested as corrective action of the ongoing false incarceration of the Rampart-FIPs: a. Orders to restore public access in the criminal division of Intervenor the LA Superior Court in a manner similar to that listed above regarding the civil division of Intervenor LA Superior Court –public access to court records including but not limited to: Index of All Cases, Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts, Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments, and minute orders in the computerized case management system (name unknown) of the criminal division. b. Orders to restore Due Process by service and notice of all court orders, rulings, judgments in the criminal division of Intervenor the LA Superior Court. c. Order for Intervenor the LA Superior Court to file in instant case digital copy of all court records of the criminal division for the years 1985 (?)-2000, including: Index of All Cases, Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts, Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments, and minute orders with a self-standing functional copy of the criminal division’s case management system. 2 terminals, and manuals.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 50/63
d. Order by the court announcing that it would review proposals that may be filed by any credible not-for-profit organization committed to fairness in the criminal justice system, to undertake review of such records in attempt to expediently free the Rampart-FIPs. DATED: August 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H ZERNIK
IX. DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK
I , Joseph H Zernik, declare as follows: 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein which I know to be true and correct and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify with respect thereto. This declaration is submitted as part of my Motion for Mistrial/To Vacate Judgments in Sturgeion v LA County.
2. I wrote Attachment A: Vague and ambiguous Rules of Court in re: entry of judgment in
LA County, California, except for a paragraph, as marked. The published Rules of Court of LA Superior Court bear no relationship to reality. I am informed that the unpublished rules are out of compliance with the law, if only for being unpublished. 3. Attachment B: Concerns & Proposal regarding computers at the courts – The paper in Attachment B is a true and correct copy of a proposal I submitted to the U.S. Judiciary Committees of House and Senate. In it I identified the unregulated use of computers at
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 51/63
the courts as a root cause for court corruption, and a solution was proposed based on enforcement of state and federal Rule Making Enabling Act, as well as Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
4. Attachment C: Involvement of Countrywide, now Bank of America Corporation, in
alleged criminality at the LA Superior Court- the Attachment refers to true and correct records of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston Texas, which I filed with that court. 5. Attachment D: I wrote the statement regarding involvement of Bryan Cave, LLP, Sheppard Mullin and the legal profession, which I believe is true and correct.
6. EXHIBIT 1. STURGEON V LA COUNTY (BC351286) EVIDENCE FOR
MISTRIAL - Credible evidence demonstrates that the LA Superior Court denied and continues to deny access to the true official litigation records – the Register of Actions in Sustain – a public record by law, and false and deliberately misleading alternative records are published by the court.
7. Exhibit 1-a: included true and correct copies of correspondence of July 27-29. 2009
demonstrating denial of access to court records. 8. Exhibit 1-b: The data in the Aug 9, 2009 Table of Available Document Images compared to data available in “Case Summary” online are true and correct data compiled from the two sources indicated. 9. Exhibit 1-c: August 6, 2009 online Case Summary, unofficial, false and deliberately misleading court records, is a true and correct copy of the case summary, which includes false and deliberately misleading court records, albeit with a disclaimer. 10. Exhibit 1-d: January-February 2007 & July-August 2009 Justice James A Richman Papers in Sturgeon v LA County – includes true and correct papers downloaded from the court’s web site. All of these papers should be deemed of dubious authenticity, or at least as being treated as such by the LA Superior Court. 11. Exhibit 1-e: February 2007–January 2009 – Cal Crt of App, 4th District – includes true and correct papers and dockets downloaded from that court’s web site. Court of Appeals
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 52/63
rulings fail to appear among LA Superior Court records, and it is doubted that the LA Superior Court deems them as effectual. 12. Exhibit 1-f: August 6, 2009 Dr Zernik’s Requests for Verification/Corrections in re: Litigation History – Sturgeon v LA County – includes true and correct copies of letters addressed to Clerk Gregory Drapac and Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, to Judicial Watch, Los Angeles office, and to the office of Justice Richman. Response was received from Judicial Watch only, stating that on July 13, 2009 oral arguments were heard by Justice Richman, and that on July 30, 2009, ruling was issued by Justice Richman.
13. Exhibit 1-g: is a true and correct copy of the August 10, 2009 Letter to Mr Klunder - IT,
and Mr Clarke - the Clerk, in re: Computer systems verification. Requesting explanation regarding Google Chrome security warnings regarding the court’s severs, which are found by such programs to bear a false verification certificate. 14. EXHIBIT 2. MARINA V LA COUNTY (BS109420) – EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT FRAUD – includes true and correct copies of records that provide evidence to support finding of judgment fraud. The case is a current, indefinite, real estate litigation at the LA Superior Court, which originated the false jailing of Att Richard Fine through alleged judgment fraud. 15. Exhibit 2-a: includes true and correct copies of various sources, as indicated, of the March 4, 2009 purported Judgment by Judge David Yaffe . 16. Exhibit 2-b: is a true and correct copy of the July 31, 2009 Letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Court, Terry Nafisi, Demand for Investigation –Demand was for investigation of credible evidence for tampering with litigation records in custody of the Clerk of U.S. District Court, LA. 17. Exhibit 2-c: is a true and correct copy of July 31, 2009 Letters of Meet and Confer, letter sent to parties in preparation for filing a motion for relief from judgment.
18. EXHIBIT 3. GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC052737) - EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT
FRAUD - – includes true and correct copies of records that provide evidence to support
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 53/63
finding of courtroom real estate fraud, based on alleged judgment fraud. Combined analysis with Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), a twin case, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the litigation, even prior to the filing of the complaints were almost certainly schemed by judges of the LA Superior Court. 19. Exhibit 3a- is a true and correct copy of Requests for authentication. 20. Exhibit 3b- is a true and correct copy of pages from the Register of actions that provide Evidence for Criminality in the case of Galdjie v Darwish. 21. Exhibit 3c- is a true and correct statement regarding efforts of Dr Zernik to uncover the Grant Deed purportedly issued by Att David Pasternak in the case of Galdjie v Darwish, and failure to find such record at the office of Registrar/Recorder. 22. Exhibit 3d- is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Darwish.
23. Exhibit 3e- is a record composed by Dr Zernik that includes comparison of features in the
cases of Galdjie v Darwish, and Samaan v Zernik, which would support the finding of “Equity Rights” litigations a the LA Superior Court as alleged frauds at the LA Superior Court . 24. Exhibit 4. SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) – EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT FRAUD – includes true and correct copies of records that would support upon review the finding of fraud and criminality in re: entry of judgment - alleged courtroom real estate fraud, based on alleged judgment fraud. 25. Exhibit 4-a: is true and correct copy of records demonstrating denial of access to litigation records. 26. Exhibit 4-b: provided true and correct copies of variation in the first page of the Register of Actions that would support findings of criminality in the Register of Actions. 27. Exhibit 4-c: provides true and correct data from copies of minute orders obtained from the court, in the form of a table, which supports finding of criminality in operation of Sustain.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 54/63
28. Exhibit 4-d: is true and correct copies of the records titled August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court per CCP §437c, by Judge Jacqueline Connor, and Order Granting Summary Judgment Motion. 29. Exhibit 4-e: is true and correct copy of the record titled August 9, 2007 Minute Order – Motion for Summary Judgment– by Judge Jacqueline Connor. 30. Exhibit 4-f: : is true and correct copy of the record titled August 21. 2007 Minute Order – Samaan’s Ex Parte Application for Entry of Judgment- by Judge Jacqueline Connor, 31. Exhibit 4-g: : is true and correct copy of the records found in search of judgments
dated August 7-9, 2007 from the LA Superior Court’s Microfilm Archive.
32. Exhibit 4-h: is true and correct copies of the records provided on September 7, 2007 by the office of Retired Judge Gregory O’Brien, to support his claim to act as an Escrow Referee Appointed by Judge Jacqueline Connor. 33. Exhibit 4-i: is true and correct copy record titled Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order – Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Connor, and Fictitious Hearing on Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7 -by Judge Jacqueline Connor – 34. Exhibit 4-j: : is true and correct copy of the record titled Nov 9, 2007 Order Appointing David Pasternak Receiver in motion at 4-days notice – by Judge John Segal 35. Exhibit 4-k: : is true and correct copy of the record titled Nov 9, 2007 Hearing on 4day Notice Motion for Appointment of Att Pasternak Receiver – Court Reporter’s transcript – Court of Judge John Segal. 36. Exhibit 4-l: : is true and correct copy of the record titled November 21, 2007 Order “like Unlawful Detainer after issuing Writ of Execution and Entry of Judgment” by Judge John Segal, at Att David Pasternak’s request . 37. Exhibit 4-m: : is true and correct copy of the record titled December 7, 2007 Gag Orders, Indemnity Agreement, approval of false Grant Deed by Judge Patricia Collins at Att Pasternak’s Request.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 55/63
38. Exhibit 4-n: : is true and correct copy of the record titled December 7, 2008 and December 17, 2008 Grant Deeds – by Att David Pasternak – with opinion letter by James Wedick, of “frauds being committed”. 39. Exhibit 4-o: : is true and correct copy of the record titled January 30, 2008 Minute Order – Defendant Dr Zernik’s Ex Parte Application for release of funds held by Att David Pasternak – by Judge Terry Friedman. 40. Exhibit 4-p: : is true and correct copy of the record titled June 22, 2009 Att David Pasternak periodic report – at the Court of Judge Terry Friedman. 41. Exhibit 4-q: : is true and correct copy of the record titled August 21, 2008 – Veteran FBI Agent Jim Wedick’s Email Note. 42. Exhibit 4-r: : is true and correct copy of the record titled August –September 2008 – Kenneth Melson – Director, U.S. Dept of Justice, and Kenneth Kaiser – Assistant Director, FBI - Alleged Fraud in Responses to Congressional Inquiries. 43. Exhibit 4-s: : is true and correct copy of the record titled March 21. 2008 Outline of Racketeering by Countrywide and Judges of the LA Superior Court. 44. Exhibit 4-t: : is true and correct copy of the record titled May 13, 2008 pages from complaint filed with US Attorney Office, LA, and FBI, LA. 45. Exhibit 4-u: : is true and correct copy of the record titled May 30, 2008 The Big Picture – Outline pf Criminality in re: Samaan v Zernik filed with FBI, Los Angeles 46. EXHIBIT 5. RAMPART –FIPS (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) – HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS. Includes true and correct copies of record that support the finding that ongoing false imprisonments in Los Angeles of the victims of the Rampart Corruption scandal are Human Rights abuses of historic proportions. 47. Exhibit 5-a: : is true and correct copy of the record titled PBS – Rampart False Imprisonments (2001, updated 2005, 2008). 48. Exhibit 5-b: : is true and correct copy of the record titled Chemerinsky, Erwin – The criminal justice system of Los Angeles, California, Guild Practitioner, 2000.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 56/63
49. Exhibit 5-c: : is true and correct copy of the record titled October 8, 2000 LA Times Remarks on Perez by Rampart Trial Judge Raising Eyebrows. 50. Exhibit 5-d: : is true and correct copy of the record titled November 16, 2000 NYT: 3 of 4 Officers Convicted In Police Corruption Case 51. Exhibit 5-e: : is true and correct copy of the record titled December 23, 2000 LA Times- Rampart Verdicts Voided. 52. Exhibit 5-f: : is true and correct copy of the record titled December 24, 2000 LA Times The Judge’s Decision. 53. Dr Zernik alleges that litigation of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), and the conduct of the Clerk of the Court in such case - from inception, generated ambiguity in severe violation of fundamental Common Law, First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and compromised litigation to the point of Mistrial. Such abuse of Civil Rights pursuant to the Amendments is best evidenced by Dr Zernik’s requests for access to court records in instant case, and denial of access, through the Counsel for the Court on behalf of the Clerk (Exhibit 1a). 54. Concomitantly, the Court provided access to an online record titled “Case Summary” which is misleading (Exhibit 1b-c), since it fails to list pertinent records, it includes statements that contradict other records, and it comes with a disclaimer that it is NOT an official Court record and should not be relied upon. 55. Further evidence for the misleading nature of such record was provided in the July 29, 2009 Court Counsel, Mr Bennett letter (Exhibit 1a). 56. Repeated requests for access, directed to the Clerk were denied. Through such access it would be possible either authenticate or invalidate the registration of instant case of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (“LA Superior Court), the registration of the Assignment of Justice James A Richman as Presiding Judge in instant case and the registration of his Orders and Judgments (Exhibit 1d), as well as the Rulings of the California Court of Appeals, 4th District (Exhibit 1e). Registrations of all of these key elements of instant litigation at present appear questionable at best. There
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 57/63
are good reasons to believe that such records were never registered as entered and never deemed effectual by the LA Superior Court either. 57. Ambiguity regarding judgments undermines the concept of court litigation in the first place. Request for an Order to allow access to court records was filed as part of the Ex Parte Application for Orders and for Leave to File served and filed herewith. 58. Detailed discussion was provided and evidence that the published Local Rules of Court of the Court included for the past quarter century Rules pertaining to Entry of Judgment that had no bearing in reality (Attachment A). In contrast, what the true unpublished Local Rules of Court were relative to Entry of Judgment remained to be discovered (Exhibit 1c). It was alleged that such vague and ambiguous, misleading Rules, under which the LA Superior Court operated in the past quarter century, combined with the denial of access to public records generated conditions in LA County that amounted to severe abuse of Due Process and other Civil Rights. 59. In short- shortcomings or fundamental defects seen in instant litigation were not unique, but rather typical of substantial number of cases. As supporting evidence for the Motion for Mistrial and its alternatives, the severe outcome of such ambiguities relative to judgments, as seen in instant case, were demonstrated in further details in three additional cases: (1) Depriving Att Richard Fine of his liberty in Marina v LA County (BS109420) (Exhibits 2a-d), (2) The wrongful taking of the rental property of Barbara Kramar Darwish in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) (Exhibit 3a-d), and (3) The wrongful taking of residential property of Joseph Zernik for private use with no compensation at all in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) (Exhibit 4a-p). 60. Beyond vague and ambiguous Entry of Judgment, the other features common to all three cases listed above were that such wrongdoing as seen in such cases, could never have been possible absent collusion by LA County agencies – the LA County Sheriff Department and the LA County Office of Registrar/Recorder. Therefore, it is the nature
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 58/63
of the relationship between Defendant and Intervenor which is at the root cause of such wrongdoing. It was precisely the same relationship that was the subject matter of instant litigation, through review of payments by Defendant to Intervenor. 61. Through denial of access to records and various other wrongdoings, the LA Superior Court was also the cause of the ongoing incarceration of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) a decade after the true facts in that matter were unveiled, as documented in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report, 2006 (available at the official LAPD site3); and in PBS Frontline – False Imprisonments in LA, 2001, updated 2008 (Exhibit 5a), and in review titled The Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County, California by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky (2000) (Exhibit 5b). 62. Therefore, the evidence provided herein, on the one hand – supported Mistrial, alternatively- vacating of court actions in litigation, which was irreparably compromised by Due Process and other Civil Rights violations. On the other hand – such evidence demonstrated the harm already done through collusion in wrongdoing between Defendant and Intervenor in instant case.
I make this declaration under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California and the United States. Signed here in La Verne on the 12th of August, 2009.
_______________________________________ Joseph H Zernik
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 59/63
Pro Se Interested Party PO Box 526, LV CA 91750 Tel: (323) 515-4583; Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) v ) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ) Defendant/Respondent ) ) and ) ) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ) CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ) ) ANGELES, ) Intervenor . ) _____________________________________ ) HAROLD STURGEON, Plaintiff/Petitioner Case No. BC351286 The Honorable Justice Richard A Richman, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District [PROPOSED] ORDERS IN RE: MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL, ALTERNATIVELY –VACATING JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS, AND FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH ZERNIK’S Motions for Mistrial, alternatively for vacating judgments, and for orders to initiate corrective actions came for hearing before this Court on _______ , 2009. Good cause apparent, the orders were granted as follows:
1) Pro Se Interested Party’s request for incorporation by reference is GRANTED. 2) Pro Se Interested Party request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED/ 3) The Clerk of the Court, Mr John A Clarke, shall provide forthwith authentication endorsed
by his own hand, that matter under caption of Sturgeon v LA County, designated by number
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 60/63
as (BC351286) – was and is a case of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, and that the Honorable James A Richman was duly assigned as Judge in such case; Alternatively - The Clerk of the Court shall invalidate the case and all transactions made in it and provide parties records to that effect.
4) Access to Sustain records of Sturgeon v LA County:
The Clerk of the Court shall allow Dr Zernik forthwith access to the Register of Actions of Sturgeon v LA County, to inspect and to copy. The Clerk of the Court shall also provide access to a manual detailing the allowed entries in various data fields (Sustain “Dictionary”).
5) Notice of Court Orders:
The LA Superior Court and the Clerk of the Court shall comply with the law in re: Notice and Service to parties in litigation of court orders, and no further employment of “waivers” shall be allowed.
6) Access to Court Records in general:
The LA Superior Court shall provide public access to all Sustain records that are required to be publicly accessible within 7 days from the date of this order in all court locations.
7) Declaratory Relief: Regarding the jailed Attorney Richard Fine:
The March 4, 2009 Judgment in Marina v LA County (BS109420) for the jailing of Attorney Richard Fine was never an effectual entered judgment, and the LA Sheriff Department shall immediately release Att Fine from jail.
8) Declaratory Relief: Regarding Barbara Darwish’s property at Yale Street in Santa
Monica: The May 20, 2002 proceeding of Galdjie v Darwish in Municipal Court in Culver City could not possibly be the source of an effectual entered judgment in respective case Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).
9) Declaratory Relief: Regarding Dr Joseph Zernik’s property at 320 South Peck Drive,
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 61/63
The August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court by Judge Jacqueline Connor was never the basis for any of the actions of LA Superior Court against Dr Joseph Zernik in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). The taking of his property was out of compliance and in violation of the law. The LA Superior Court and Att David Pasternak shall ensure that the property at 320 South Peck Drive shall be returned to the possession of Dr Joseph Zernik within 60 days from the date of this order, that the false grant deed that was filed at the Office of LA County Registrar/Recorder shall be withdrawn, and all funds remaining as of this date in receivership account held by Att Pasternak shall be released to Dr Zernik, as part of compensation for abuse he endured in the past 4 years.
Declaratory Relief: Regarding conduct of Att David Pasternak as Receiver for the
LA Superior Court: The Clerk of the Court shall report to the Section on Public Integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding findings related to conduct of Att David Pasternak and the Department of Writs and Receivers under Judge David Yaffe, and request their investigation of the matter.
The LA Superior Court shall implement in Sustain an Index of Judgments, and
shall establish Rules of Court for Entry of Judgment in compliance with the law and California Rule Making Enabling Procedure – Cal Code Civ Proc §575.1. The LA Superior Court shall update its Rules of Court so that they reflect the true practice of the court today in compliance with the law.
Orders for corrective action in re: the Rampart-FIPs: e. The Clerk of the LA Superior Court shall allow public access to litigation records of the criminal division of Intervenor the LA Superior Court in a manner similar to that listed above regarding the civil division of the same court.: Index of All Cases, Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts, Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments, and minute orders in the computerized case management system (name unknown) of the criminal division.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 62/63
f. The Clerk of the LA Superior Court shall notice parties of Minute Orders on a regular basis. No waiver of the right to Notice and Service shall be allowed. g. Intervenor the LA Superior Court shall file in instant case digital copy of all court records of the criminal division for the years 1985-2000, including: Index of All Cases, Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts, Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments, and minute orders with a self-standing functional copy and 2 terminals of the criminal division’s case management system, as well as manuals. h. The Clerk of the Court shall advertise in the appropriate legal publications that the Court shall review proposals that may be filed by any credible not-forprofit organization committed to fairness in the criminal justice system, to undertake review of the records of the LA Superior Court Criminal Division, in order to expediently free the Rampart-FIPs.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 63/63
Joseph H Zernik Pro Se Interested Party PO Box 526, LV CA 91750 Tel: (323) 515-4583; Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
IX. PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the Los Angeles County, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the action; my business address is:________________________ On _____________, 2009 , I served the foregoing document described as: (1) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND (2) UNDER SEPARATE FACE PAGE: INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S NOTICE OF REQUESTS FOR INTERVENTIONS BY ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND NOTICES OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL, ALTERNATIVELY – VACATING JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS, AND FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WITH EXHIBITS IN TOTAL OF 3 VOLUMES. The document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in the firm’s mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as noted in the attached mailing list. [x] BY MAIL: I am familiar with processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Beverly Hills, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this declaration. [ ] VIA FACSIMILE: I caused all of the pages of the above entitled document to be sent to the recipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the facsimile number as noted in the attached mailing list. This document was transmitted by facsimile and transmission reported complete without error. [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressees noted in the attached mailing list. [ ] BY EMAIL: Courtesy copy. I sent by email with copy to myself as shown in printouts. Executed on _______________, 2009, Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that the declaration was executed on August __, 2009.
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 64/63
SERVICE LIST (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC 351286)
1) Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq. (Copy was sent to Att Norris only) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 501 School Street, SW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 Fax: (202) 646-5199 Attorneys for Plaintiff STURGEON HAROLD P. 2) Sterling E. Norris, Esq. (by first class USPS) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201 San Marino, CA 91108 Tel.: (626) 287-4540 Fax: (626) 237-2003 jwatch@pacbell.net Attorneys for Plaintiff STURGEON HAROLD P. 3) Elwood Lui, Esq. Brian Hershman, Esq. (by first class USPS) DAY JONES 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-3939 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 elui@jonesday.com bhershman@jonesday.com Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL 4) Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq. (by first class USPS) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Ave Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Tel: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-7520 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com kscolnick@gibsondunn.com Attorney for Intervenor SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 65/63
1) The Hon. James A. Richman (no paper copy was mailed) Associate Justice Court of Appeal, First Appellate Dist., Div. Two 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Fax: (415) 865-7213 "ORourkeScanlon, Suzanne" Suzanne.ORourkeScanlon@jud.ca.gov Trial Judge, sitting by designation CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY EMAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On August 12, 2009 , I served the foregoing document described as: INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS FOR DUE PROCESS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by sending it by email from my account at jz12345@earthlink,net to the parties listed in the foregoing service list at the email addresses provided.
1) Sterling E. Norris, Esq. jwatch@pacbell.net 2) Elwood Lui, Esq. Brian Hershman, Esq elui@jonesday.com bhershman@jonesday.com 3) Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq. tboutrous@gibsondunn.com kscolnick@gibsondunn.com
2) The Hon. James A. Richman c/o "ORourkeScanlon, Suzanne" Suzanne.ORourkeScanlon@jud.ca.gov
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that the declaration was executed on August __, 2009. DATED: August 12, 2009 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 66/63
More From This UserSkip carousel2017-02-14 Ometz v Attorney General et al (‫‪5514‬‬ ‫‪/16‬‬) - petition in the Supreme Court2017-02-06 J. Zernik, Shin-Bet Implicates Central Election Committee in serious computer fraud, Human Rights Alert – NGO (2017)2017-02-14 Inquiry with Dr Matania, National Cyber Bureau2017-02-13 Request for Shin-Bet Head clarification2017-02-12 FOIA on Administration of Courts2017-02-11 Head of Knesset parties are asked to file a criminal complaint against senior Central Election Committee officers // ראשי המפלגות בכנסת התבקשו להגיש תלונה פלילית נגד בכירים בוועדת הבחירות המרכזית2017-02-02 State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17) ) in the Petah Tikvah Magistrate Court – “Post-it Decision” and warning on Request (No 2a) – Response on Jan 31 “Post-it Decision” and Repeat Demand for Duly Signed and Certified records // מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17 בבית המשפט השלום פ"ת – "החלטה בפתקית" ואזהרה על בקשה (מס' 2א) תגובה על "החלטה בפתקית" מיום 31 לינואר, ודרישה חוזרת לכתבים חתומים ומאושרים כדין2017-02-02 State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17) ) in the Petah Tikvah Magistrate Court – “Post-it Decision” on Pro Forma Request (No 3) to inspect Judge Shalhevet Kamir-Wiess's electronic signature data on the January 29, 2017 "Protocol" and “Decision” records, if they exist at all // מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17 בבית המשפט השלום פ"ת – "החלטה בפתקית" על בקשה (מס' 3) למען הסדר הטוב לעיון בנתוני החתימה האלקטרונית של השופטת שלהבת קמיר-וייס על "פרוטוקול" ו"החלטה" מיום 29 לינואר, 2017 בתיק זה, אם הם קיימים בכלל2017-01-31 State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17) ) in the Petah Tikvah Magistrate Court – Pro Forma Request (No 4) to inspect Judge Shalhevet Kamir-Wiess's electronic signature data on the January 29, 2017 "Protocol" and “Decision” records, if they exist at all // מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17 בבית המשפט השלום פ"ת – בקשה (מס' 4) למען הסדר הטוב לעיון בנתוני החתימה האלקטרונית של השופטת שלהבת קמיר-וייס על "פרוטוקול" ו"החלטה" מיום 29 לינואר, 2017 בתיק זה, אם הם קיימים בכלל2017-01-31 State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17) ) in the Petah Tikvah Magistrate Court – Request (No 3) – Repeat Demand for Duly Signed and Certified records // מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17 בבית המשפט השלום פ"ת – בקשה (מס' 3) דרישה חוזרת לכתבים חתומים ומאושרים כדין2017-01-31 State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17)- January 31, 2017 Judge Kamir-Wiess "Post-it Decision" // מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17) - "החלטה בפתקית" של השופטת קמיר-וייס| מיום 31 לינואר, 20170000-00-00 State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17) in the Petah Tikvah Magistrate Court – Index of records and links// מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17) בבית המשפט השלום פ"ת – רשימת כתבים וקישורים2017-01-30 State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17) in the Petah Tikvah Magistrate Court – Notice of Perverted Hearing and Demand for Duly Signed and Certified records // מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17) בבית המשפט השלום פ"ת - הודעה על דיון משובש ודרישה לכתבים חתומים ומאושרים כדיןState of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17)- January 29, 2017 "Commitment Record" // מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17) "כתב התחייבות עצמית" מיום 29 לינואר, 2017State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17)- January 29, 2017 "Protocol" and “Decision” // מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17) - "פרוטוקול" ו"החלטה" מיום 29 לינואר, 20172017-01-28 Request for opinion by Prof Eli Biham regarding email - perverted, suspect fraud - from Israel Police “Spokesman”, re2017-01-28 Urgent request forwarded to Police Commander Mordechai – to confirm or refute existence of “Decree”, prohibiting protests near the residence of AG Avichai Mandelblit // בקשה דחופה שהופנתה למפקד משטרת פ"ת ברק מרדכי – לאישור או הכחשת קיומו של "צו" האוסר מחאה מול ביתו של היועמ"ש מנדלבליט2017-01-27 Request forwarded to Police Commander Mordechai – for immediate service of “Decree”, prohibiting protests near the residence of AG Avichai Mandelblit // בקשה שהופנתה למפקד משטרת פ"ת ברק מרדכי – להמצאה מידית של "צו" האוסר מחאה מול ביתו של היועמ"ש מנדלבליט2017-01-27 Email - perverted, suspect fraud - from Israel Police “Spokesman”, re2017-01-26 Fax from Israel Police ,Central District “Legal Advisor”, re2017-01-25 Second notice and request filed with police commander Mordechai re2017-01-22 First notice and request filed with police commander Mordechai re2016-11-03 Inheritance of Robert Rafael Zernik (87019) - Haifa Magistrate of Inheritances - Request (No 1) for Decree Executing a Will// עזבון המנוח2017-01-02 Inheritance of Robert Rafael Zernik (87019) - Haifa Magistrate of Inheritances - Request (No 3) for extending time for filing response and/or objection // עזבון המנוח2017-01-19 Repeat request for clarifications by Ombudsman of the Judiciary Rivlin regarding “Senior Appointee” Wolf’s letter re
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot useful09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #3- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol i by Human Rights Alert, NGO0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionExecutive Summary Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – J...Executive Summary Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, and others of the Los Angeles Superior Court, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and made false representations of entering judgments in the case.·	Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law. ·	Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case. ·	Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either. The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon.Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered. Requests, which were forwarded to Clerk Clarke and Presiding Judge McCoy to remove false and deliberately misleading court records, published online, were likewise left unanswered.In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286). The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come.Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents.The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 201Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedCity of Los Angeles v Superior Court, No B225082 (Cal Ct App Apr 12 2011)by robert_thomas_509-07-28 to 09-07-30 Correspondence w Bennett Court Counsel Denial of Accessby Human Rights Alert, NGO08-06-10 Beyond Voting Machines - Computers & the Courts - Sustain - CMS of the Los Angeles Superior Court - Abstract and Figures sby Human Rights Alert, NGO10-02-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and Prospects of Future Honest Court Services in Los Angeles County, California sby Human Rights Alert, NGO00-00-01-98-06-12 California Code of Regulations: Title 2. Administration DIVISION 7. SECRETARY OF STATE, CHAPTER 10. DIGITAL SIGNATURES.by Human Rights Alert, NGO12-10-19 Beyond Electronic Voting Machines - Fraud in Case Management Systems of the Courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court - PART IIby Human Rights Alert, NGO09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #4- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part1 p1-98by Human Rights Alert, NGO11-02-14 AOC Adopts All Recommendations of State Audit of CCMS (California Case Management System) - News Release by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courtsby Human Rights Alert, NGO08-12-23 Cal Supreme Court Denies Hearing of Sturgeon v LA County-sby Human Rights Alert, NGO09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #10- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p344-393by Human Rights Alert, NGO09-10-16 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Los Angeles Superior Court -Request for Presiding Judge McCoy - to Access Court Records to inspect and to copy sby Human Rights Alert, NGO09-04-20 Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, directory informationby Human Rights Alert, NGO10-03-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and alleged fraud in the online servers of the LA Superior Courtby Human Rights Alert, NGO10-09-19 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Standard Disclaimer, invalidating the Court's online records, as it appears on the on the Courts web siteby Human Rights Alert, NGO11-03-19 CCMS – the new California Case Management System – a looming danger for the Justice and Human Rights, must be subjected to validation by computer expertsby Human Rights Alert, NGO09-07-26 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Available Document Images sby Human Rights Alert, NGO09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #8- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p307-318by Human Rights Alert, NGO09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #2- Dr Zernik's Motions Exec Summary and Table of Contentsby Human Rights Alert, NGO10-03-05 Request ombudsman guidance Re Complaint on fraud in Los Angeles Superior Court Computersby Human Rights Alert, NGO10-08-19 Shepard Investments v Krage (09C03210) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - Additional Evidence of Racketeering sby Human Rights Alert, NGO09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #6- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part3 p199-243by Human Rights Alert, NGO09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #9- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part4 p319-343by Human Rights Alert, NGO11-02-06 Sustain Technologies - Corruption of the State Courts Has Deep Roots in Los Angeles County, Californiaby Human Rights Alert, NGO10-06-14 New Case Management System (CCMS) of the California Courts - Serious Human Rights Concern sby Human Rights Alert, NGO10-07-15 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), Los Angeles Superior Court Online Case Summary (Not a Formal Court Record) sby Human Rights Alert, NGO10-07-15 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke - for public corruption and deprivation of rights sby Human Rights Alert, NGO10-12-28 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County et al (D056266) in the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Decision Affirming Judgment in Surgeon v LA County et al (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Courtby Human Rights Alert, NGO11-01-03 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Sturgeon v LA County (D056266) in the California Court of Appeals, 4th District - Opined as Elaborate Fraud on the California Courts-sby Human Rights Alert, NGOSimilar to 09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #3- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol iSkip carouselCity of Los Angeles v Superior Court, No B225082 (Cal Ct App Apr 12 2011)09-07-28 to 09-07-30 Correspondence w Bennett Court Counsel Denial of Access08-06-10 Beyond Voting Machines - Computers & the Courts - Sustain - CMS of the Los Angeles Superior Court - Abstract and Figures s10-02-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and Prospects of Future Honest Court Services in Los Angeles County, California s00-00-01-98-06-12 California Code of Regulations12-10-19 Beyond Electronic Voting Machines - Fraud in Case Management Systems of the Courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court - PART II09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #4- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part1 p1-9811-02-14 AOC Adopts All Recommendations of State Audit of CCMS (California Case Management System) - News Release by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts08-12-23 Cal Supreme Court Denies Hearing of Sturgeon v LA County-s09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #10- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p344-39309-10-16 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Los Angeles Superior Court -Request for Presiding Judge McCoy - to Access Court Records to inspect and to copy s09-04-20 Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, directory information10-03-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and alleged fraud in the online servers of the LA Superior Court10-09-19 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles11-03-19 CCMS – the new California Case Management System – a looming danger for the Justice and Human Rights, must be subjected to validation by computer experts09-07-26 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Available Document Images s09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #8- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p307-31809-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #2- Dr Zernik's Motions Exec Summary and Table of Contents10-03-05 Request ombudsman guidance Re Complaint on fraud in Los Angeles Superior Court Computers10-08-19 Shepard Investments v Krage (09C03210) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - Additional Evidence of Racketeering s09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #6- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part3 p199-24309-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #9- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part4 p319-34311-02-06 Sustain Technologies - Corruption of the State Courts Has Deep Roots in Los Angeles County, California10-06-14 New Case Management System (CCMS) of the California Courts - Serious Human Rights Concern s10-07-15 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), Los Angeles Superior Court Online Case Summary (Not a Formal Court Record) s10-07-15 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke - for public corruption and deprivation of rights s10-12-28 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County et al (D056266) in the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Decision Affirming Judgment in Surgeon v LA County et al (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court11-01-03 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Sturgeon v LA County (D056266) in the California Court of Appeals, 4th District - Opined as Elaborate Fraud on the California Courts-s09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #15- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part8b p641-32-67809-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #1- Dr Zernik's Ex Parte Application for Orders for Access Leave to File09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #3- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol i