Petition filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on Wed June 25, 2008, in San Francisco
EMERGENCY PETITION brought before this Honorable Court, on its face concerns claims that by issuing a May 15, 2008 Minute Order (DOC #57) that prohibited Petitioner from filing any papers in Court, and by failing to rule on a Petitioner’s request for reconsideration in the subsequent June 6, 2008 Minute Order (DOC #63), the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles effectively set a gag order on Petitioner – designated Plaintiff in the District Court action - which was and is in defiance of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, such gag order and other measures by U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, together with acts that were meant to appear as human errors or accidents, had one clear intent – to derail legal action by Petitioner in such Court in Zernik v Connor et al (CV-08-01550-VAP-CW) and allow expedient dismissal of such action, where the LA Superior Court, Supervising Judge of the West District and several Judges of same court, together with Countrywide and two of its officers, Mozillo and Samuels, are designated Defendants.
Such gag order was also meant to prevent Petitioner from filing any additional papers and claims, typically filed under seal. Therefore, Petitioner brought with him such claims and papers that he was prevented from filing in the U.S. District Court in LA, and is therefore presenting them to the 9th Circuit Appellate Court in San Francisco.
Such papers set forth claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (Civil RICO) against the LA Superior Court, the Supervising Judge of the West District and several Judges of same court, against Countrywide, Mozillo, and Samuels. Such claims stem from conduct of that Court and Countrywide in Samaan v Zernik, matter heard in the LA Superior Court, West District. Additionally, such papers include claims based on the Federal False Claims Act against Countrywide, and claims of violations of the Federal Rule-Making Enabling Act by the LA Superior Court. The claims assert that Countrywide engaged in racketeering in relationship to the underwriting of government-backed residential loans, and in legal action related to the underwriting of such loans. The claims assert that the LA Superior Court engaged in racketeering in relationship to the Local Rules of Court, Books of Court, Registers of Actions, and Indexes of All Cases, which deprived millions of their Due Process rights daily, for many years. The claims also assert collusion in such racketeering by the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District. Evidence suggests that the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, knew at least about certain parts of the scheme for some years, and in certain ways either provided tacit approval, alternatively – failed to act upon its duties pursuant to California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(1) – upon being reliably informed to take action to stop such conduct by other members of the Judiciary. Combined – the claims describe what may be deemed upon review widespread public corruption per 18 U.S.C. § 666 (2007).
In both Countrywide and the LA Superior Court, large computerized database management systems – Edge in Countrywide, and Sustain in LA Superior Court, which first became popular in the 1980’s, played a central role in enabling the racketeering schemes.
The claims raise substantial public policy issues:
1. Ongoing need for reform of Government in the Los Angeles County, California.
2. Failure of the political system that allowed such conditions in the LA Superior Court to emerge and prevail for about quarter of a century so far.
3. Failure of the legal community in Los Angeles, including two top 20 law schools (USC and UCLA), to prevent emergence of such conditions, or alarming appropriate authorities.
4. Urgent need for legal/regulatory framework for periodic review of large database management system that were installed starting in the 1980’s, particularly – systems that are in public institutions.
5. Urgent need for legal/regulatory framework relative to the funding, construction, installation, and maintenance of such computerized systems – with approval of specifications, logic verification, fidelity of digital signature and date data, and long term security and integrity of the code being critical issues to be address and be opened to public scrutiny.
6. Urgent need to review methods to enforce quality assurance and compliance with docketing rules, which emerge as an area prone to abuse by the judiciary.
7. Urgent need for legal/regulatory framework relative to the funding, construction, installation, and maintenance of such computerized systems in courts. Petitioner holds that such framework exists within the Rule-Making Enabling Law, but that the courts ignore such law. Of immediate concern is the currently initiated installation of the CCMS by the California Judicial Council, and compliance, or lack thereof, with the Rule-Making Enabling Law in this respect.
8. Urgent need to generate a U.S., alternatively California road map for transitioning certain segments of the financial and real estate communities, probably other parts of the markets into the routine use of digital signatures as part of fax transmissions.
The Petition also includes an urgent request for Petitioner’s protection from harassment/intimidation/retaliation of victim/witness/informer.