Los Angeles Superior Court: Access to Public Records, or Lack Thereof

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:01:32-0700

To: [redacted-jhz]
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Executive Summary of conditions relative to court records and public
access

Hi [redacted-jhz]:

In response to request by an NGO, executive summary was produced of my findings
and opinions relative to public records and access at the LA Superior Court.

Joe Zernik

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:02:53 -0700
To: [redacted- jhz]
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Conditions relative to court records and public access

March 31, 2009

Hi [redacted-jhz]:

Thanks for the direct response and clear request for information.  Here is
my attempt to answer, please let me know if this is an adequate response.

Joe Zernik

LA Superior Court: Public Access to Court Records, or Lack Thereof

Data are detailed on the civil courts, limited on the criminal courts, but
the situation appears to be similar in both.  The current situation in
both stems from introduction of computerized case management systems around 1985.  Until that time, the records were all on paper, and public access to the records was allowed.  Even today, one can access these older paper records in the archive.  

Once the records were computerized, the court adopted an unpublished rule of court: "Sustain is privileged - for the court only" - Sustain being the civil computer system.  Such unpublished rule of court is in violation of the law in my opinion.

A) CIVIL

1) Paper Court File:

a)  Access is often, but not always allowed.  I was denied access to my court
file for two years (declarations by legal services available).  I am still
denied access to Caldjie v Darwish, critical case in investigation of alleged
Enterprise Track of the court.

b) The court adopted an unpublished rule of court: "Judges of the court may waive the right for notice and service of court orders, rulings, judgements".  The California Commission on Judicial Performance perennially denounces this conduct, but it goes on.  Denial of notice and service in fact undermines access.

2) Computerized Court File:

No direct access to inspect and to copy is allowed at all, ever.

a) Register of Actions:

Conditions vary from courthouse to courthouse (my data also show tampering with the software, and material differences in the software among the courthouses, which must never be allowed). 

- In Central District (Downtown) - no access is allowed even to printouts,
ever.  Data indicate massive fraud in the registers.

- In West District (Santa Monica) - I am allowed to purchase copies for $0.50 per page, which means some $100.00-200.00 expense anytime I want to inspect the records.  Data indicate retroactive changes and massive alleged fraud in the registers of actions.

b) Minute Orders:

No access is allowed to the electronic copies of the Minute Orders, and data
indicate massive alleged fraud in the minute orders, they are materially
different from the ones in the paper court file.

c) Calendar of the Courts:

No access is allowed to the true calendar. Data indicate massive alleged fraud - proceedings conducted "off the calendar".

d) Index of All Cases: 

No access is allowed to the true Index.  Data indicate massive alleged fraud
- cases heard that are "off the index" - the alleged Enterprise Track
of the court.

e) Book of Judgments: 

No access is allowed at all.  It does not exist either, although the law and
the Local Rules of Court suggest otherwise.  Massive alleged fraud
relative to entry of judgment.

Regarding (a) through (e) above: (e) does not exist. Period.   But in my
opinion also (a) through (d) in fact are invalid, since public records, where no public access is allowed are invalid public records.

f) Payment data:

No access is allowed routinely.  Access may be gained in West District by
purchasing copies of the register, but the data is inconsistent.  The data
from West District includes strong credible evidence suggesting alleged financial mismanagement and embezzlement of funds.  All payments are defined as "Journal Entry" instead of the correct sub-account categories.  It is claimed that the lack of definition of source of funds is related to the operation of the alleged Enterprise Track.

B) CRIMINAL

My data is limited, based on discussion with 3 offices, two of them leading LA offices, one of national acclaim: 

·     None of them had access to court records such as minute
orders and registers of actions.

·     All of them insisted that they could have gained access
to the paper court file, if they so wished, but there is no need for that.

·     All of them insisted that such issues are
insignificant. 

·     None of them gets notice and service of Minute
Orders.  Two of the offices claimed that they could gain access to minute orders, if they wished to, but they don't. 

·     One explained the lack of interest by the fact the
their job anyway is an art-form, not science based on paper records...

·     None of them had any knowledge about the criminal
computerized case management system. 

·     One office insisted that such system did not exist at
all...

·     All three offices seemed to be unfamiliar with the
concept of Register of Actions.

_________________________________________________
Please support our petition:
Calling upon President Obama: 
Open the Books of LA Superior Court - to Free the 10,000
Rampart-FIPs.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
Best reference on how they
got falsely convicted, and why they are still imprisoned: LAPD Blue Ribbon
Report (2006):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
One reference for our low,
conservative estimate of 10,000- PBS Frontline (2001):
http://inproperinla.com/01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
________________________________________________
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD
<jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cell: 310 435 9107
No voice mail; IM, Page- OK
No ID- No response