Multiple-track operation at the LA Superior Court includes:(1) Authentic Track of the Court, and (2) alleged Enterprise Track of the Court
IN CONCLUSION:
.
1) The Courts involved in the matter reviewed above, under the various captions were: (a) LA Superior Court, (b) CA Court of Appeals, 2nd District, (c) U.S. District Court LA, and (d) U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
.
2) The conduct of none of these courts in the matter can be viewed as involving "Furtherance of Justice" or "Doing Substantial Justice".
.
3) Review of the conduct of the courts in the matter would lead a reasonable person to conclude, or at least entertain the doubt, that all of the above courts were fully aware that they were not engaging in "Furtherance of Justice" or "Doing Substantial Justice" in their conduct in the respective matters.
.
4) Review of the conduct of the various courts in the matters as well as the matters of Zernik and Darwish in the various courts, would lead a reasonable person to conclude, or at least entertain the doubt, that all of the above courts were fully aware that the LA Superior Court had been engaged for some 25 years in a scheme that must be deemed of criminal nature, relative to the entry of judgment in real estate litigations that were likely to be deemed part of the "Enterprise Track of the Superior Court".
.
5) Review of the conduct of the various courts in this matter as well as the matters of Zernik and Darwish in the various court, would lead a reasonable person to conclude, or at least entertain the doubt, that all of the above courts held the opinion that covering up the conduct of the LA Superior Court relative to entry of judgments and the "Enterprise Track of the Superior Court", was a worthy cause that justified their conduct relative to the cases of Fine, Zernik, and Darwish.
.
6) The analysis provided above is consistent with the disregard that Judge David Yaffe accorded to the various disqualifications by Att Richard Fine. Such disqualifications were irrelevant, or MOOT, since Judge David Yaffe had never held a true and authentic, due Assignment Order as Presiding Judge in Marina v County at the LA Superior Court in the first place.
.
7) The analysis provided above is consistent with the issuance of an invalid judgment on March 4, 2009 - no valid authentic judgment of the Superior Court of California can be issued in matters that are administered through the Enterprise Track of the Court.
.
8) The analysis of the conduct of the various courts, presented above, is consistent with the refusal of both the Sheriff Department, Judge Yaffe, and the LA Superior Court to state a clear and unambiguous response to the Habeas Corpus Petition of Att Richard Fine.
.
9) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the refusal of Judge David Yaffe or any other officer of the LA Superior Court to file a declaration in the response to the habeas corpus petition, and the filing of an insufficient pleading as response, instead.
.
10) The analysis, above, is consistent with the refusal of the Clerk of the LA Superior Court to authenticate the litigation records. as requested, in the three cases listed above - Samaan v Zernik, Galdjie v Darwish, and Marina v County.
.
11) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the failure of the Sheriff to file an opposition to either the Habeas Corpus or the Ex Parte application - and instead filing an unsubstantiated, insufficient pleading in the form of Motion to Dismiss.
.
12) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the deliberate invalid legal terms used by MJ Woehrle in reference to both the case of Marina v County and the March 4, 2009 judgment in her June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendation. Such usage was likely to be perceived by her as limiting her liability in this case. Had she used definitive legal terms, she would have been more likely to be deemed as engaging in fraud and perversion of justice.
.
13) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the need felt by the LA Superior Court, the Sheriff and the U.S. District Court to engage in alleged Extrinsic Frauds relative to the denial of pen and paper to Att Richard Fine, denial of access to the jail's library, and severe limitations on visitations and communications with the outside world during the period that he was expected to file his petitions.
.
14) The analysis, above, of the conduct of the various courts, is consistent with the opinion of Dr Zernik that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, treated both the petition of Fine and the petition of Zernik as invalid "Frivolous Prisoners' Petitions". Such opinion was originally reached based on analysis of the records shown on the docket online alone. Through the alleged designation of the Petitions as "Frivolous Prisoners' Petitions" the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal deemed itself exempt, a priori, from true review of the cases, which would have required entirely different actions by that court.
.
15) The courts of LA County, California, as reflected in such cases, are likely to be deemed in severe violation of Human Rights of the 10 million residents of LA County pursuant to International Law [32] upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction.
.
16) Dr Zernik's opinion is that Judge David Yaffe is officiating in Marina v County (BS109420) with no assignment order and no authority at all (even before any disqualification).
.
17) Dr Zernik's opinion is that in officiating in Marina v County, Judge David Yaffe is engaging in conduct that is not part of his judiciary responsibilities, and therefore, such conduct is not covered by any immunity, limited, or absolute, in any manner.
.
18) Dr Zernik's opinion is that the conduct of Judge David Yaffe, in officiating in Marina v County, must be deemed of criminal nature upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction.
.
19) Dr Zernik's opinion is that upon investigation and discovery, it is very likely that conduct of criminal nature would also be found relative to specific events that led to the appearance of the two copies of the March 4, 2009 Judgment, and that such likely criminal conduct would be attributed to: Judge David Yaffe, MJ Carla Woehrle, Law Clerk Donna Thomas, and Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer.
.
20) Dr Zernik's opinion is that upon investigation and discovery, it is very likely that conduct of the Executive Officer/Clerk of the LA Superior Court, Mr John A Clarke, would also be found of criminal nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome... especially any tips regarding corruption of the courts in Los Angeles. Anonymous tips are fine. One simple way to do it is from internet cafes, etc.