* "Los Angeles County got the best courts that money could buy". KNBC (October 16, 2008) * "Innocent people remain in prison" LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) * Los Angeles County is "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud." FBI (2004) * “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000) * "Condado de Los Angeles tiene las mejores canchas que el dinero puede comprar".KNBC (16 de octubre de 2008) * "Las personas inocentes permanecen en prisión" LAPD Blue Ribbon Panel de Revisión Report (2006) * Condado de Los Angeles es "el epicentro de la epidemia de bienes raíces y el fraude de la hipoteca." FBI (2004) * "... Los jueces juzgado y condenado a un asombroso número de personas por crímenes que no cometieron." Prof. David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * "Esta es una conducta asociada con los dictadores más represivos y los estados de la policía ... y los jueces deben compartir la responsabilidad, cuando es condenado a personas inocentes." Prof. Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine, la Facultad de Derecho (2000)
Thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) remain locked up more than a decade after official, expert, and media report documented that they were falsely prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in the largest court corruption sandal in the history of the United States...
Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006):
10-10-01 Corruption of the California courts noticed by the United Nations
10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States
Sunday, October 31, 2010
10-10-31 More on elements of computer fraud opined in the online access and case management systems of the US courts - from OAK discussion board
Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 14 hours ago
Computer Fraud Opined in the Online Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts in Paper Submitted for International, Peer-reviewed Law Journal
[for full text of this comment, see:
10-10-30 Computer Fraud Opined in Online Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts in Paper Submitted for International Peer-reviewed Law Journal
Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 12 hours ago
In El Lago County ((nom de plume)) IN, some time back there was a problem with incompatible computer systems wreaking havoc between different offices and sometimes in the same office. Electronic records didn't square with paper or other electronic records until computer systems were replaced and unified. Whether that and California being broke has anything to do with it, I'm in no position to know but only posed the question.
I am also aware of some judges making wrong rulings when they didn't seem to understand the law. An inbecile can make errors on the law and no doubt will, but the errors will be random as the goof will screw up things for both sides in about equal proportion. But when "misunderstanding" of the law tends to beneft politically connected lawfirms and vested interests, that clearly is not random error. As far as intentional violations of civil rights, we have addressed that in correspondence to appropriate government officials who often choose to do nothing, which topic we have also addressed.
The prospect of bias and conflict of interest in the Fine case has received considerable comment and no doubt arose in his pleadings. One would hope that Fine had been released much sooner. The hour is late, and I drone on too long.
Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 8 hours ago
Dear Dr Jackson:
Very interesting stories indeed... A person like me, with no legal training, is a bit surprised by your story spinning discussion style. Let's try to be more structured in our discussion of the matter at hand. How about agreeing first on the definition of fraud and the respective elements of Fraud.
Here are some definitions:
a) Fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation which causes another person to suffer damages.
b) Fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
Therefore, for conduct to be found as fraud, it should include the following elements:
b) Deliberately misleading
c) Intended for gain or to inflict harm on others.
Do we agree so far?
P.S. I used the Richard Fine case only because people were familiar with it. I had by now a whole archive of alleged Fraud on the Court at the US courts, derived from US courts from coast to coast... After I submitted the first manuscript I was asked to cut it down in size 5-fold. Let's see what the reviewers will say about the short version.
Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 10 minutes ago
ELEMENTS OF COMPUTER FRAUD, AS EVIDENCED IN THE PUBLIC ACCESS AND CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS:
It appears that Dr Jackson tacitly admitted that today the online records published by the US courts are false.
2) DELIBERATELY MISLEADING
a) This element requires also the demonstration of "Reliance".
Today counsel, parties, and the public at large effectively rely on PACER dockets and PACER records as their primary, if not exclusive route for access to the US court records. When one goes to the offices of the clerks, and requests to inspect and to copy records, pursuant to First Amendment rights, the clerks routinely refer the public to PACER on computer terminals, which are installed and available in the offices of the clerks. Records, upon request, are then printed off these terminals.
b) The deliberately misleading nature of the system is further demonstrated by the denial of access in PACER to the authentication records (NEFs and NDAs), which are available only in CM/ECF. Therefore, parties, counsel, and the public-at-large, are referred to a system, where they would not be able to distinguish between valid and effectual judicial records, such that command "full faith and credit", and void, not voidable records.
c) Furthermore, as documented in the paper, which was submitted for peer-review, the PACER dockets today hold both types of records. The courts, and counsel who are authorized in a given case, can distinguish between the two types of records. Parties, unauthorized counsel, and the public-at-large cannot.
d) The deliberately misleading nature of the systems is further documented by denial of access, upon explicit written requests to the various US courts and courts of appeals, for First Amendment right to inspect and to copy the NEFs or NDAs in various cases.
e) The deliberately misleading nature of the systems is further documented by the refusal of the clerks to certify the PACER dockets, albeit, without ever admitting or informing the requester that such dockets, in certain cases, are false court records.
f) The clerks of the courts, and also the Chief Judge of the US District Court, Central District of California, refused to correct false and deliberately misleading records, which had been published online in PACER, even after they were reliably informed of the fraudulent nature of such records, in disregard of the Code of Conduct of US Judges.
3) INTENDED FOR GAIN, OR TO INFLICT HARM ON OTHERS
As documented in the paper, which was submitted for peer review, such systems are routinely employed by the US courts from the US district courts, through the courts of appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States to deprive persons of Liberty and the Right for Possession.
Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 1 second ago
Saturday, October 30, 2010
10-10-30 Computer Fraud Opined in the Online Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts in Paper Submitted for International, Peer-reviewed Law Journal
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION CALLING UPON THE UNITED NATIONS TO ISSUE A TRUE AND EFFECTUAL 2010 REPORT ON THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES:
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES?
* "On July 26, 2010, Laurence Tribe, Senior Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, delivered an important speech to the Conference of Chief Justices, challenging them to halt the disintegration of our state justice systems before they become indistinguishable from courts of third world nations."
Prof Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School (2010), per National Defender Leadership Institute
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?
* "Innocent people remain in prison"
* "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
* "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
* "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
WHAT DID THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA?
* "...corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
10-10-26 UCLA Law School, Human Rights Project, Asked to Initiate Debate and Study of Hunan Rights Violations by the Courts and the Legal Profession in Los Angeles County, California
Monday, October 25, 2010
The numbers discussed in conjunction with the recent Wikileaks records were all based on US reports, and were incredibly low. Here are some other estimates.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The War Logs
An archive of classified military documents offers views of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The archive is the second cache obtained by the independent organization WikiLeaks and made available to several news organizations. The Iraq documents shed new light on the war.
Continue Reading Series Introduction »
Friday, October 22, 2010
10-10-21 Ongoing denial of First Amendment/Common Law rights to access court records – to inspect and to copy, and Due Process/Fair Hearings rights - for notice and service – in Los Angeles County, California, are keys to the alleged racketeering at the Courts.
- - - - - - - Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles_
Kenneth Melson_ _ _
Director, USAO_ _ _ _ _ Assistant Director, FBI 10-10-21 Ongoing denial of First Amendment/Common Law rights to access court records - to inspect and to copy, and Due Process/Fair Hearings rights - for notice and service - in Los Angeles County, California, are keys to the alleged racketeering at the Courts.
Los Angeles, October 21 - Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) released records as evidence of Public Corruption and Racketeering by Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG, Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE, Judge JACQULINE CONNOR, and others of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Through deprivation of the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records - to inspect and to copy, combined with denial of the Due Process/Fair Hearings rights - for notice and service, and routine issuance of invalid minutes, orders, and judgments, which were never authenticated by the Clerk, but were nevertheless enforced, the Court routinely conducted pretense litigations. The records also detailed refusal of US Department of Justice to enforce such fundamental Human Rights in Los Angeles County, California - the most populous in the United States, with over 10 million residents. The records, which detailed involvement of Bank of America, and Countrywide before it in alleged racketeering at the courts elaborated on evidence, which was previously provided to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, and led to a statement in its recent report on Human Rights in the United States referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" in California.
The records originated from the caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), however, the practices, which were documented, were pervasive at the Los Angeles courts. [[i]] In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), a group of judges of the Los Angeles Court conducted for almost 5 years (2005-10) a pretense real-estate litigation, the outcome of which was opined as "fraud being committed" [[ii]] by a Fraud Expert - FBI veteran, who had been decorated by US Congress, by US Attorney General, and by FBI Director. The beneficiaries of the opined real- estate fraud and the alleged racketeering included, but were not limited to Countrywide Financial Corporation, and later Bank of America Corporation. ANGELO MOZILO (then CEO of Countrywide), SANDOR SAMUELS (then Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, today- Associate General Counsel of Bank of America), and BRIAN MOYNIHAN (then General Counsel, today - President of Bank of America), were all directly involved in the matter. [[iii]] The US Department of Justice continues to deny Equal Protection in the case, and according to a letter by the Fraud Expert, [[iv]] such denial stemmed from refusal to expose or address the widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California.
1. Denial of access to court records - to inspect and to copy
Defendant in Samaan v Zernik was entirely denied access to the paper and electronic Court files for almost the full first two years of the litigation, regardless of attempts to access the court file through counsel, through legal services, and by personal appearances at the Office of the Clerk. Declarations by legal services providers documented the denial of access to such records. [[v]] [[vi]]
Therefore, on August 31, 2007, Defendant filed at the court of Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG complaint under the caption of Samaan v Zernik, pertaining to abuse at the Court, including, but not limited to the denial of access to court file records - to inspect and to copy. [[vii]]
On August 31, 2007, Judge ROSENBERG therefore conducted an Ex Parte proceeding on the Complaint. [[viii]]
a) Access to electronic court records in SUSTAIN: [[ix]][[x]]
On August 31, 2007, Judge GERALD ROSENBERG denied Defendant's request to access the electronic court file in SUSTAIN - the court's case management system - under the false claim:
Sustain is privileged - for the Court only.
The exact same response, was provided around the same time by staff of the office of then Presiding Judge J STEPHEN CZULEGER, in what should be deemed an unpublished Local Rule of Court, violating both the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records and the Due Process/Fair Hearings rights.
When limited access was gained to SUSTAIN electronic records, in particular - the Register of Actions (California civil docket), litigation records were discovered, which were entirely removed from the courtroom reality. SUSTAIN, where records were maintained out of public view, enabled the Los Angeles Court to retroactively alter the Register of Actions, and to introduce minutes, which were back-dated by days, weeks, or months, and also to enter fictitious notations of the records filed and the proceedings held under the caption:
Of particular note were fictitious, false notations by the court of Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR of records filed by Countrywide Financial Corporation, designated as "Real Parties in Interest" - at the same time that Judge CONNOR in open court denied any interest by Countrywide in the case. [[xi]]
Judge CONNOR, likewise, introduced at least twice fictitious, false notations in the Register of Actions of proceedings, which had never taken place in reality. Of particular note were fictitious, false minutes, which were introduced on September 11, 2007, a day after Judge CONNOR was recused from the case following Disqualification for a Cause. In such fictitious minutes, she falsely recorded a September 10, 2007 hearing that had never taken place in reality, and a ruling that had never been ruled - of no fraud in Countrywide banking records, which were discovered in the case. In contrast, Fraud Expert's opinion supported the allegation of extensive fraud in the respective Countrywide banking records. [[xii]]
Based on review of SUSTAIN records, a qualified opinion was later issued by Prof Eliyahu Shamir, Hebrew University, Department of Computer Science, who made seminal contributions to Computer Science, including, but not limited to the development of fundamental tools in language analysis.
The Prof Shamir April 20, 2009 Opinion states:
Dr. Joseph Zernik produces credible documentary evidence and raises serious
allegations concerning existing, rather old computerized systems in the Los
Angeles courts, both civil and criminal divisions: Material deficiencies in safety
against possible fraudulent actions on records, documents, and data by the court
Such allegations deserve thorough and objective investigation.
We know for fact that the USA has excellent experts able to design, check and
verify the integrity of such systems.
Integrity and public trust of such computer systems are essential for preserving
justice, human rights, and a law abiding community.[[xiii]]
The case as a whole therefore documented the denial of access to electronic court records in SUSTAIN as key to enabling the alleged racketeering at the Los Angeles Court.
The failure of the Los Angeles Court for some quarter century to publish Local Rules of Court pertaining to the operation of SUSTAIN was inherent to the fraud alleged in the operation of the case management system. All US and the state courts in the United States, whose records were inspected, uniformly failed to publish rules pertaining to the operation of their respective online public access and case management systems, in what was alleged as serious violations of Due Process/Fair Hearing rights. Therefore, in recent years, Dr Zernik repeatedly called upon the US Congress to enact such rules instead. [[xiv]]
b) Access to paper court file records:
On August 31, 2007, Judge GERALD ROSENBERG informed Defendant that the paper court file included at that time six volumes, and eventually agreed to permit Defendant limited access - only to three of the earlier volumes.
However, as it later turned out, Judge ROSENBERG deceived Defendant regarding the number of court file volumes held by the Court at the time. The court file in fact held at the time seven volumes. One of them, "Volume IV Continued" - by far the largest court file in the case (over 700 pages) - was discovered only later. [[xv]] "Volume IV Continued" was created out of any chronological order, in disregard of the law, and concealed in it were various particularly incriminating records, including, but not limited to:
i. Large volume of records filed by Countrywide Financial Corporation, which filed papers in the case under the fraudulent party designation of "Non Party", while the Court interchangeably designated it in its records "Plaintiff", "Defendant", "Cross-Defendant", "Intervenor", "Real Parties in Interest", and more, all with no legal foundation at all.
ii. Records pertaining to a pretense August 9, 2007 Summary Judgment proceeding conducted by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR.
2. Physical harassment and intimidation:
At the end of the August 31, 2007 proceeding, Judge GERALD ROSENBERG demanded that Defendant withdraw his Complaint, which was stamped "FILED" by the Court, and which served as the basis for the ex parte proceeding, which he conducted. When Defendant refused to withdraw the papers, two armed Sheriff Deputies engaged in physical harassment of Defendant in an empty courtroom, in attempt to plant the papers on his body, in what Defendant at the time perceived as a life-threatening incident. Through passive disobedience Defendant managed to safely exit the Court without accepting the papers. [[xvi]]
Defendant consequently filed a complaint with Presiding Judge J STEPHEN CZULEGER regarding conduct of Judge GERALD ROSENBERG in the matter. Presiding Judge CZULEGER referred the complaint to Assistant Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY, who in turn referred it to Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG for review. Supervising Judge ROSENBERG found that the complaint was based on vague facts and [is] unsupported by even the smallest shred of evidence. [[xvii]]
3. Denial of the Due Process/Fair Hearings right for notice and service
No minutes were ever served or noticed by the court of Judge GERALD ROSENBERG for the August 31, 2007 proceeding, as was the practice of the court throughout under the caption of Samaan v Zernik.
Of note, on September 5, 2007, Defendant appeared before Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR in an Ex Parte Application for Enforcement of the Due Process right for Notice and Service. Judge CONNOR promptly denied the Application.
4. Conduct of off the record court proceedings:
Later it was also discovered that Judge ROSENBERG failed to create any record of the August 31, 2007 ex parte proceeding - it was in fact conducted as an off the record, off the calendar court hearing. [[xviii]]
Review and analysis of the Register of Actions in the case showed that a large number of the proceedings, which were conducted in open court, were in fact registered in the official docket of the Court in a deliberately invalid manner, with no adjudication at all. However, litigants, counsel, and the public at large, who are routinely denied access to the Registers of Actions of the Los Angeles Court, cannot discern such conduct of the Court. [[xix]]
Of particular note in this regard was the July 6, 2007 proceeding, which was conducted by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR under the guise of Ex Parte Application for "Protective Order" by Countrywide Financial Corporation. The application, which in fact should have been deemed a request for an abusive gag order, [[xx]] was later found to have been conducted in a dark courtroom, off the calendar and off the record. It was recorded by Judge CONNOR in the Register of Actions with the notation "Proceeding not recorded". [[xxi]]
5. Denial of Access to National Tribunals for Protection of Rights
Records, which were previously released, documented the effective denial of access to the US courts in efforts to protect Human Rights in the matter at hand, from the US District Court, Central District of California, through the US District Court, Washington DC and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States. [[xxii]]
6. Refusal of US Department of Justice to enforce the law.
Starting 2008, Dr Zernik filed with US Department of Justice requests for Equal Protection of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California. The requests alleged racketeering by the judges of the Los Angeles Court, and claimed that enforcement of the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records, in and of itself, would be sufficient to put an end to such conduct.
US Department of Justice refuses to this date to enforce the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records - to inspect and to copy - in Los Angeles County, California, even after inquiries by US Congress. Moreover, responses on the matter, which were provided by senior US Department of Justice Officers, KENNETH KAISER - FBI Assistant Director for Criminal Investigations and KENNETH MELSON - then Director of US Attorneys Office, to the US Congress, were alleged as fraud on the US Congress. [[xxiii]]
A series of complaints were separately filed with US Department of Justice regarding the conduct of judges, officers of the court, and/or financial institutions in particular cases of the Court. [[xxiv]] US Department of Justice continues to refuse to acknowledge receipt or respond on the complaints. Such refusal of US Department of Justice and FBI to provide Equal Protection explained in the August 21, 2008 letter by Fraud Expert and FBI veteran James Wedick in their reluctance to expose the widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California. [[xxv]]
7. Conditions in Los Angeles County, California, may be extreme, but are not unique at all.
The case at hand was part of evidence, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations as part of the first ever, 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States. Consequently, Staff report of the HRC later noted "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" in California. [[xxvi]]Likewise, in a July 2010 keynote address to the Annual Conference of Chief Justices of the state courts, Prof Laurence Tribe, in his capacity as Senior Counsel, US Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, warned that the state courts in the United States might become indistinguishable from courts in "third world" nations. [[xxvii]]
8. "Corruption of the courts" is tightly linked to abuse of Human Rights and failing banking regulation.
The case at hand also documented the tight linkage between corruption of the justice system, abuse of Human Rights, and failing banking regulation in the United States.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.
[[i]] Records released herein pertained to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). However, the denial of access to court records at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, is pervasive. Of particular concern was the denial of access to the Registers of Actions (California civil dockets), for example, in the following two cases, also claimed as pretense litigations of the Court:
a) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) � a case pertaining to the taking by judges of the Court of �not permitted� payments (�bribes�), which required the enactment of �retroactive immunities� (�pardons�) for all judges of the Court. The conduct of Sturgeon v LA County was claimed to undermine any prospect of honest court services at the Court in years to come. See [xxiv] (g), below.
b) Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420) � including, but not limited to pretense ancillary proceedings, which led to the imprisonment under solitary confinement for 18 months of former US prosecutor, 70 yo Richard Fine with no warrant and no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered. Incredibly, the Court refused to release the Register of Actions of the case throughout the purported review of the habeas corpus of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Central District of California, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. See [xxiv] (e), below.
[[ii]] 07-12-17 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, David Pasternak�s Grant Deeds in re: 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, opined fraud expert and FBI veteran as fraud by James Wedick.
In pertinent parts, the James Wedick�s Opinion states:
Accordingly, based on above observations MR. WEDICK opines an immediate investigation should be instituted in an effort to ascertain the circumstances behind any fraud being committed so that appropriate local, state, and federal authorities can be notified, including the appropriate court.
See also [iv], below.
[[iii]] ANGELO MOZILO and SANDOR SAMUEL, both Officers of Countrywide at the time, were named among Defendants in 27 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California. See details regarding their involvement at:
08-05-27 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt # 062: First Amended Complaint:
[[iv]] August 21, 2008 informal letter by fraud expert and FBI veteran James Wedick, informed Dr Zernik that FBI Special Agent, who was assigned to the case agreed with Mr Wedick that the case involved real estate fraud. However, Mr Wedick�s letter expressed the concern that FBI would not provide Equal Protection in the case, since it would involve addressing widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California.
08-08-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Email letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, regarding refusal to Investigate FBI to provide Dr Zernik protection against real estate fraud:
[[v]] Attempts to access the Court file in Samaan v Zernik were conducted through counsel, through legal services providers, and in person. On August 6, 2007, Mr Alex Rodriguez, Office Manager of DDS Legal Services, Los Angeles, California, provided a declaration pertaining to denial of access to the Court file.
The August 6, 2007 Alex Rodriguez Declaration states:
I, Alex Rodriguez, do declare as follows:
1. I am the Manager for the Los Angeles office of DDS Legal Support.
2. A DDS client, law Offices of Deborah R. Bronner, requested
that copies of certain documents from the court file in Samaan v.
Zernik Case No. SC087400. These requests were made numerous
times between March 2007 and July 2007.
3. After each request, I directed an Attorney Service runner to fulfill
the client's order and make the requested copies. However, each time,
the DDS Attorney Service runner was told by the clerk in the clerk's
office that the file was not available.
4. On Monday August 6, a DDS representative picked up copies from
Volume One and Volume Two. However, the DDS representative was
informed that Volumes Three and Volume Four are not available.
Executed this 6th day of August, 2007 in Los Angeles, California.
I declare under penalty of the perjury of the law of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
07-08-06 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Declaration of Alex Rodriguez, Office Manager, DDS Legal Services in re: Denial of Access to Court file.
[[vi]] The Office of the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court, likewise, to this date, refuses to provide certified copies of minutes, orders, judgments, docket. Attempt to obtain such certified copies were made through counsel, through legal services, and in person.
On February 13, 2008, Jose Salazar, Manager, Court Services, at DDS Legal Services, Los Angeles, provided a declaration in the matter.
The February 13, 2008 Jose Salazar Declaration states:
I, JOSE SALAZAR, hereby declare as follows:
1. Tam an employee of DDS LEGAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS, and
MANAGER, COURT SERVICES. .As such, 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 at the request of Joseph Zernik.
2. A request for certification of certain court file documents in Samaan v
Zernik (SC08400) was first delivered by DDS Legal Support Systems to
Debbie Witts, Court Manager, Civil Unlimited, Los Angeles Superior Court,
West District, on Peb 1, 2008.
3. Almost every other day after that DDS Legal Support Systems attempted to
retrieve the documents requested for the certification and/or the certificates
themselves from Ms Witts herself, or from other court employees at the
Clerk's Office, Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, Santa Monica.
4. As of this date, no documents and no certificates were ever obtained from
the court. Normally, such certificates are obtained the very same day or
within a few days. In 7 years that I have worked as employee of DDS Legal
Support Systems, I have never encountered a case where DDS Legal
Support Systems asked for such certificates on behalf of a litigant or a
counsel and certificates were delayed this long and/or denied.
I make this declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California. Signed here, in Los Angeles, California, February 13, 2008.
MANAGER, COURT SERVICES
DDS LEGAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS
08-02-13 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - denial of access to court record: Declaration of Jose Salazar, DDS Legal Services
[[vii]] The Common Law right to access court records � to inspect and to copy - was re-affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) as inherent in the First, Sixth, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
[[viii]] 07-08-31 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Ex Parte Appearance before Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG, in re: Complaint filed by Defendant regarding denial of access to court file records, and declaration regarding physical harassment at the proceedings:
See also [xiv], below.
[[ix]] Of note, SUSTAIN, the case management system of the Superior Court of California, is produced and maintained by The Daily Journal � the largest daily legal newspaper in California. Today it is used by other state courts as well, e.g. in the State of Georgia.
[[x]] SUSTAIN was implemented at the Los Angeles Court around 1985, at a time that California Supreme Court Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE served in leadership positions at the Los Angeles Court. Ronald George refuses to answer on any questions on the subject. The system must be deemed fraud in both its design and its mode of operation by the Court. See also [xiii], below.
[[xi]] 08-04-17 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #046: Inexplicable under Assumption of Honesty - Sustain Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, page 1
[[xii]] Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) - fictitious minutes introduced by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR after Disqualification for a Cause, pertaining to a hearing that was never heard and a ruling that was never ruled regarding fraud in Countrywide banking records. See under:
Complaint against Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR pertaining to her conduct at both the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
[[xiii] ] 09-04-20 Prof Eliyahu Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Opinion Letter regarding electronic records of the Los Angeles Superior Court in Sustain - the case management system of the Court:
[[xiv]] 01-07-31 Human Rights Alert�s Request for the Judiciary Committees to Establish Case Management and Online Public Access System of the US Courts by Law:
[[xv]] 07-11-20 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Court file - "Volume IV-Continued" - evidence of Judicial Fraud on the Court and Racketeering:
[[xvi]] October 10, 2007 Declaration of Joseph Zernik re: Harassment and Hostile Environment in Court, filed as part of complaint against Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBEG:
In parts pertinent to events of August 31, 2007 at the court of Judge GERALD ROSENBERG regarding Dr Zernik�s request to access court file, the Dr Zernik�s Declaration states:
41. �A bit later the supervising judge came in and Ruth presented to him the envelope. He opened it and started reading, and he was visibly upset. The main issue was access to Court File.
42. He angrily said to me he will show me that it was easily accessible. He called a few places, but seemed to have no luck. After that he said to me: �now I will show you hand on management� still in an angry tone. And he left the Courtroom, apparently searching for the file. Eventually, he came back, with only 3 out of 6 volumes. He was visibly even angrier than before when he came back.
43. He tossed the volumes on the table in the well in front of bench, and told me to mark the pages I wanted to copy, then the Clerk�s room will arrange the copying. I told him that I wanted to copy it all. He said fine. Then said that my understanding is that the copies will not be done on the spot, and I wanted to be able to compare the original and the copies at the time I pick up the copies.
44. He got even more upset with me. He said something to the effect that I was implying that they were going to cheat. I said that it was standard procedure, if later I had to declare that this was a full and complete copy. He then agreed, but was visibly very upset. Then before he was going to leave the room, he tossed at me my complaint and said that now, that he got me the court file, I could take my complaint back.
45. I refused to take it. I said that it was the copy that I filed with the court. And he said something like: are you trying to tell me that there is more there than just getting you to copy the file. And I said: yes, there are a number of issues. He then got more and more upset, and said I had to take it back, and I repeated my position.
46. Immediately, the two armed guards in the courtroom approached me, and tried to force me to take the complaint back. I was fearful. I did not know these two particular guards. I also did not even notice them as individuals, it was just persons trying to force me to do something against my will. I was not going to yield. But I immediately raised my hand to my head. I was very fearful that somehow they will fake an incidence of Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse violence on my part and shoot me. I slowly retreated from the courtroom, with my hands
all the time still up to my head.
47. I was walking to the Clerk�s Office to ask them to copy the file. I was still with my hands up on my head. And the two sheriffs were still around me all the time, trying to plant the complaint on my body, but I was no longer afraid, since there were people around us.
48. At the clerk�s office (Room 102) they left that brown envelope on the counter, next to me, and left the room. I finished my business, and then left that room as well. I left the brown envelope behind me. Within seconds, Darlene was running behind me, asking me to take the envelope. I told her that it was not mine, that it belonged to Dept A.
07-08-31 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Ex Parte Appearance before Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG, and declaration regarding physical harassment at the proceedings
[[xvii]] October 15, 2007 Response by then Assistant Presiding Judge McCoy and Supervising Judge ROSENBERG on complaint against Supervising Judge ROSENBERG:
a) In pertinent parts, the Assistant Supervising Judge Charles McCoy October 15, 2007 letter states:
I have referred your most recent letter to the Honorable Gerald
Rosenberg, Supervising Judge of the West District.
I have asked Judge Rosenberg to review your letter and respond directly to you after
he has had an adequate time to consider your request.
b) In pertinent parts, the Judge ROSENBERG October 19, 2007 response on the complaint for physical abuse at his court states:
Dr. Zernik, your references to willful misconduct, subversions of justice, fraud,
deceit, venal corruption, the concealment of abuses, and the manipulations of entry of
court data are based on vague facts and are unsupported by even the smallest shred of
I have witnessed first hand your unsupported allegations when you claimed that
you had no access to the court files�
[[xviii]] Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Sustain. No mention is found of the August 31, 2007 ex parte proceeding before Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG for Access to Court Records:
10-01-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Register of Actions (California civil docket) with a preface:
[[xix]] The Court routinely denies access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) and other court records. Therefore, litigants, counsel, and the public-at-large must resort to reliance on records, which are provided by the Court in its online public access system. However, the online records are published by the Court with disclaimers, which make it clear that such records were never deemed as true and valid court records by the Court itself.
In pertinent parts the standard online Court Disclaimers states:
"COURT disclaims all warranties, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of... accuracy and fitness for a particular purpose..."
"COURT and the County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this web site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis, does not constitute the official record of the court and cannot be used as evidence in court."
"COURT and the County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this web site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis, does not constitute the official record of the court and cannot be used as evidence in court."
"In no event shall COURT, Los Angeles County or any other governmental agency, entity or body or any vendor or service provider associated with any of our online efforts be liable for damages of any nature based on any theory of liability, including but not limited to contract, negligence or other torts (including intentional torts)..."
10-09-19 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Standard Disclaimer, as it appears on the on the Courts web site
[[xx]] The July 6, 2007 Countrywide�s Ex Parte Application for Protective Order sought to prohibit Defendant from any communications with persons �associated� with Countrywide and its then Chief Legal Counsel SANDOR SAMUELS. Conduct of Defendant, which was listed in the Application as justification for the request for �Protective Order�, included, but was not limited to Defendant�s communications with a retired Judge, with a rabbi � in his Chambers, and with a Senior Countrywide Underwriter, who had been dismissed a couple of years earlier from her job. The record of the Countrywide July 6, 2007 Application was later eliminated from the paper court file records under the caption of Samaan v Zernik.
07-07-06 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Countrywide: Ex parte application for a Protection/Gag Order
[[xxi]] Samaan v Zernik (SC08700) - Register of Actions entries by Judge JACQUELINE CONOR pertaining to the July 6, 2007 �Non-Party� Countrywide�s Ex Parte Application, which was recorded with the notation: �Proceeding not recorded�
[[xxii]]10-10-20 The US Courts established a policy excluding any papers pertaining to judicial corruption from the First Amendment right to file petitions:
[[xxiii]] 10-03-04 Dr Zernik's Complaint Filed with US Department of Justice Inspector General against KENNETH MELSON and KENNETH KAISER for fraud on the US Congress:
[[xxiv]] US Attorney Office, Central District of California, refuses to acknowledge receipt, or provide any answer on any of the complaints below.
a) 10-06-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Complaint against David Pasternak � for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law Pursuant to US Law, and Deprivation of Human Rights Pursuant to Ratified International Law:
b) 10-06-28 Complaint against Los Angeles County Sheriff�s Department and the Los Angeles Superior Court � for public corruption, deprivation of civil rights under the color of law, and deprivation of human rights through large-scale false imprisonments, including, but not limited to the ongoing imprisonment of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Person).
c) 10-07-04 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and the California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George � for public corruption, deprivation of civil rights under the color of law � Pertaining to Habeas Corpus Petition of 70 Year Old Former US Prosecutor Richard Fine.
d) 10-07-06 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Complaint against Brian Moynihan, Bank of America, and Attorneys Jenna Moldawsky and John
Amberg - for public corruption and financial institution fraud, relative to their conduct in at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles:
e) 10-07-07 Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420) - Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Los Angeles Superior Court, and Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and others � for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights:
f) 10-07-12 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Complaint against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and others at the US District Court, Central District of California � for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights:
g) 10-07-16 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Complaint for Public Corruption against James A Richman � Justice of California Court of Appeals, Charles McCoy � Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke � Clerk, of the Los Angeles Superior Court in RE: Conduct of pretense litigation:
h) 10-07-18 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) Complaint for Public Corruption against John Segal � Judge, John A Clarke � Clerk, Attorney David Pasternak and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, RE: Conduct of pretense litigation � alleged real estate fraud by the Court.
i) 10-07-22 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - Complaint for Public Corruption against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, RE: Conduct of three pretense appeals � alleged real estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts.
j) 10-08-09 Complaint for Public Corruption and racketeering against Judge Jacqueline Connor and Others at both the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
k) 10-08-13 RE: Karimi v Mithawaila (BD518503) - Complaint against Attorney David Pasternak and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and racketeering in pretense receiverships at the Court.
l) 10-08-22 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) - Complaint against former Judge Patricia Collins, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Attorney David Pasternak, Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI) and others - for public corruption and racketeering by judges, financial institutions, and large law-firms in pretense proceedings at the Court.
[[xxv]]08-08-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Email letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, regarding refusal to Investigate FBI to provide Dr Zernik protection against real estate fraud
[[xxvi]] 10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States - "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" in California
[[xxvii]] 10-07-26 Prof Laurence Tribe's Keynote Remarks at the Annual Conference of Chief Justices s
Please Sign Petition - Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición - Liberar a Richard Fine
Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.
Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine -