1) Joseph Zernik wrote
2) G wroteDate: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:47:46
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: You Name ‘Em, We’ll Shame ‘ Em
More on the subject....
1) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)Mr Carrizosa was the person who communicated with me, and inadvertently created the incriminating record regarding false engagement of Attorney Kevin McCormick to appear in Fine v Sheriff - the Habeas Corpus of Richard Fine - on behalf of Judge David Yaffe, where McCormick filed false declaration, false records, etc, to affect continued holding, alleged false imprisonment, of Richard Fine.
Request that was filed with Chief Justice Ronald George to initiate corrective actions remains unanswered...
2) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)In Zernik v Connor et al, where Zernik filed complaint against 10 judges of LASC, detailing conduct that should be deemed as racketeering, it is alleged that the California Judicial Council, chaired by Ronald George, engaged in the same pattern of conduct - engaging Attorney Sarah Overton (Cummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates) to falsely appear on behalf of the judges, "with no communication with clients". Attorney Overton filed false declarations, false records, to affect continued conduct, alleged racketeering, by the LASC judges.
However, after the experience of correspondence regarding the engagement of McCormick in Fine v Sheriff, Mr Carrizosa and the California Judicial Council refused to respond at all on the subject...
Consequently, conduct of the California Judicial Council and Chief Justice Ronald George were subject of a complaint with the US Attorney's Office of Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28645522/10-03-19b-Richard-Fine-Dr-Zernik-Mr-Carrizosa-s-Correspondence-on-behalf-of-the-California-Judicial-Council-in-re-Case-Caption-in-engagement-of-Attorney Kevin McCormick
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28821400/10-03-23-Richard-Fine-Request-Chief-Justice-Ronald-George-Investigation-Corrective-Actions-in-Conduct-of-Attorney-Kevin-McCormick-on-Behalf-of-the-California Judicial Council
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29956509/10-04-14-Mr-Carrizosa-and-California-Judicial-Council-refuse-to-respond-regarding-engagement-of-Attorney-Sarah-Overton-by-the-Council-under-Zernik-v-Connor et al
3) Joseph Zernik wroteAt 07:36 PM 2/6/2011, G wrote:Joseph:
In '94 or '95,  filed a cert petition in the USSC, In the Matter of the Verified Accusation [VA] of Attorney GARY L. ZERMAN vs. Attorneys R. BROWNE GREENE and MELVIN M. BELLI, Case No. 94-1704, which raised two (2) issues: 1) the CSC systematically summarily denying VAs, in total disregard of statutory law (B&P Codesections 6108, et. seq., particularly sec. 6109)[ and, 2) ignoring a disqualifying conflict of interest re issue no. 1, above.
As par for the course, the USSC issued two words: Petition Denied.
 put in the cert petition, that  spoke with a Mr. Philip Carrizosa, who has reported on the CSC for the LA Daily Journal for 15-years, and he stated that he had seen and reviewed "hundreds" of VAs filed in the CSC over that time, but had "never" seen the CSC grant "even one", yet "many" appeared "to have merit". Petitioner asked Mr. Carrizosa (twice) to provide a declaration to support this petition; he declined stating "my editor won't let me."14
14 Mr. Carrizosa made the same statement to attorney John DeRonde, regarding VA, S037043, that he filed against attorney Thomas Pfalzer in the CSC, which also was summarily denied despite indisputable serious attorney misconduct. Also see Va S042880 against attorneys Donna Peizer and Sandra McNabb, which was filed in October 1994, there CSC has not acted yet, as required by sec. 6109. Seeattorney Discipline and the California Supreme Court: Transfer of Direct Review to the Courts of Appeal, (1984) 72 C.L.R. 252, 258, ft 47, which references a 1983 article by Mr. Carrizosa on the CSC."
The last I knew, Mr. Carrizosa was working for the Cal. Judicial Council. .
4) G wroteDate: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 06:29:09 +0200
Subject: Re: FW: You Name ‘Em, We’ll Shame ‘Em :
You get into an interesting question: The ownership/control of the Daily Journal. Per hearsay, the Daily Journal is controlled by the California Bar. A few years ago, I communicated in writing and by phone with the Editor in Chief of the Daily Journal.
However, after I discovered and published the fact that the Daily Journal is the whole owner of SUSTAIN, maker of the case management system of the LA Superior Court (opined as fraud). Nobody in Daily Journal agreed to talk with me again.
Do you have any documents regarding the presumed control of the Daily Journal by the California Bar?
5) R wroteAt 08:17 PM 2/2/2011, you wrote:
- Check out the article in the below link, re the proposed rule by the Florida bar.
- As they say, it's not so much what you know, but who you know. And moreover, those in power want to keep us out of the know - as in the dark to their back room brokered corrupt power deals.
- Have you seen any of the info re the Dole case (mentioned in the below article), where Girardi, Lack and Miller filed a brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that was found to be fraudulent? Girardi was serving on the Judicial Council, chaired by Chief Justice Ronald George when that occurred. Miller was the Cal State Bar president and was or is an editor at the Daily Journal (legal paper of record for LA & many other Cal cities). George was/is on the advisory board of the California Lawyer magazine, which is owned by the Daily Journal. G.
- Subject: You Name ‘Em, We’ll Shame ‘Em:
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:19:08