09-11-05 LATEST DRAFT:Request for Appointment of Special Counsel to Restore Public Access to Court Records in Los Angeles County

ERIC HOLDER

U.S. Attorney General

__________________________________

Please notice that concerns regarding Human Rights and compliance were augmented with concerns pertaining to integrity the legal profession, and integrity of financial institution.

Major changes were introduced in paragraphs B. 2, 5, 6; C. 3, 4, 5.

Seeking immediate comments and suggestions on the DRAFT below, particularly from indivuals and other parties named below. Much of the evidence was posted or linked in blog http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

Joseph Zernik

__________________________________

TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

We respectfully request that Attorney General Eric Holder, on behalf of the Government of this Country, perform its duties pursuant to ratified International Law, and also pursuant to international accords, to which this Country and its Government claim to be parties in good faith.

A. Our Rights are deprived. We allege:

1) Deprivation of our Human Rights –

For Liberty (Article #3), Security of Person (Article #3), Equal Protection under the Law (Article #7), Effective National Tribunals for Effective Remedy of Acts Violating Human Rights & Rights Granted by the Constitution of this Country and its Amendments (Article #8), Not Be Subjected to Arbitrary Arrest (Article #9), Fair and Public Hearing by an Independent and Impartial Tribunal, in the Determination of our Rights and Obligations and of any Criminal Charge against us (Article #10).

2) Deprivation of our Common Law Right –

To Access Court Records to Inspect and to Copy.

B. Such alleged deprivation of Rights is affected by those who were charged with the protection of our Rights. We allege:

1) Ample, credible, material evidence documents the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles judges’ conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity -

Which the Government of the State of California is not ready, willing, or able to address, involving the following judges, retired judges, and Commissioners of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles:

a) Jacqueline A Connor;

b) Gerald Rosenberg, Supervising Judge – West District

c) Terry Friedman – in Samaan v Zernik and in Hanks v Woods

d) David Yaffe in Marina v LA County (BS109420), and in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

e) Murray Gross - Marina v LA County (BS109420)

f) John Segal – Samaan v Zernik, Galdjie v Darwish

g) Flynn

h) Patricia Collins – Samaan v Zernik , Galdjie v Darwish

2) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was documented, at least back to the Rampart Scandal (1998-2000) and its aftermath -

Including, but not limited to:

a) The massive Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) - which ended with no final report;

b) The First Rampart Trial (2000) - which was derailed;

c) The ongoing false imprisonment of the victims - many thousands, almost exclusively Black and Latinos, who were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - through framing of false evidence, through torture to extract of false confessions, and through routine false testimonies;

d) Official reports - the latest of which - the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) documented the role of the judges in preventing the release of those who had been falsely imprisoned by them, called for an “External Investigation” - which was never instituted, and singled out the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - as requiring “Examination.”

3) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was more recently documented in secret payments to all judges, by the County of Los Angeles, for over a decade, which were ruled “not permitted” and labeled “bribes” (1990s – present) - and in the judges’ conduct after the matter was exposed -

Derailing of the litigation in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which stemmed from this matter, and enactment of a law, which passed through the efforts of a high-priced lobbyist, in violation of the California Senate’s rules of debate, and which pardoned all judges for past transgressions, and was designed to circumvent the ruling of the California Court of Appeals relative to future transgressions.

4) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was more recently documented in a collection of individual cases –

Most of which were real estate-related, with wide-range, established collusions of judges, attorneys, financial institutions, and law-enforcement, including, but not limited to banking regulators. Each of these cases may initially appear legitimate, but detailed review soon documents judges and referees presiding with no Assignment Orders and Appointment Orders, and sequences of false on their faces orders and judgments that were issued by judges, filed by clerks and executed by referees and judicial officers nevertheless:

a) In Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) – Defendant Ms Barbara Darwish appeared for trial – marked in the Register of Actions as Jury Trial at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in a matter of real estate dispute. She was then deceived by judges and attorneys to proceed to the Municipal Court of Culver City, where a person, who remained anonymous in court records – listed only as Muni-Judge purported to conduct a “bench trial” to affect a judgment to take her 6-unit Santa Monica rental property. He is now identified as Judge John Segal.

b) In Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) – Judge John Segal purported to appoint Attorney David Pasternak as Receiver to execute such false and deliberately misleading judgment. Attorney David Pasternak then proceeded to purport to convey the title to the property, but no Grant Deed for such conveyance can be found in the office of Registrar Recorder of the County of Los Angeles today.

c) In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – Judge Jacqueline Connor purported to issue a judgment for the taking of the Beverly Hills residence of Defendant Joseph Zernik, and later issued false and deliberately misleading minute order purporting that such judgment was entered, while Plaintiff’s Counsel – Sheppard Mullin, LLP (the Presiding Judge’s former law-firm) stated on the record in open court, and as documented in transcripts, that such judgment was neither served, nor noticed, and that he was in fact pressing for the execution of an “entered oral judgment” based on an “understanding”, reached through a “dialog” between Judge Connor and him.

d) In Samaan v Zernik (SC097400) based on such facts and such arguments, Judge John Segal, colluding with Sheppard Mullin, LLP, and Attorney David Pasternak, issued a false and deliberately misleading Order Appointing Receiver, which bears a false and deliberately misleading Proof of Service, but was never the less filed, and certified by Clerk John A Clarke, and which neither the Clerk, nor the Presiding Judge, would agree to take any corrective action on.

e) In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) then proceeded to issue Grant Deeds, two of them, entirely different, both were opined as fraud by acclaimed fraud expert, each separately, and the two as a pair.

f) In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Att David Pasternak, when Defendant refused to cooperate with his conduct, opined as fraud – had Judge John Segal issue yet another false on its face order- for the Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County to take actions to remove Defendant from his residence, as if it were after entry of judgment.

g) In Marina v LA County -to be completed

h) In Sturgeon v LA County – to be completed

i) In Hanks v Woods – to be completed.

5) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise, pertaining to collusion with corrupt elements in U.S. financial institutions, large and small documents unreasonable risks to financial systems at home and abroad –

Credible evidence through records filed in court under the false caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), includes, but is not limited to:

a) A false and deliberately misleading December 7, 2007 “Indemnity Agreement” - for future criminalities – purported to be approved by the court through the joint efforts of counsel: On behalf of Plaintiff - Sheppard Mullin, LLP (former law-firm of the Presiding Judge, which engaged under the same caption in various alleged frauds, of which the Presiding Judge was routinely informed); On behalf of Mara Escrow Company - a subsidiary of Old Republic Title Holding Company, Inc – Buchalter Nemer, PLC, and on behalf of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles itself - Attorney David Pasternak.

b) A false and deliberately misleading December 7, 2007 “Grant Deed” – to be employed by Mara Escrow Company, for the execution of conveyance of title, which was opined by fraud expert – arguably the most decorated FBI veteran alive - “fraud being committed”, and in regards to which recommendation was also issued that “investigation be immediately instituted” – which was never implemented by law enforcement, including FBI itself, for reasons, which were also detailed by the same decorated fraud expert – not to expose the alleged widespread corruption of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles.

c) A large volume of false and deliberately misleading court records, which were filed over the past 2.5 years through routine false appearances of Counsel (while not authorized as Counsel of Record) by Bryan Cave, LLP, on behalf of a subsidiary of Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC), and later - to this date - on behalf of Bank of America Corporation (BAC), under a false, fabricated, self-applied party designation of “Non Party”, while the judges interchangeably designated these two financial institutions as “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Cross-Defendant”, “Intervenor”, “Real Party in Interest”, “merely a witness”, and more… all with no legal foundation at all;

d) The same court records, filed by Bryan Cave, LLP, provide detailed documentation of alleged obstructing and perversion justice, continuing to this date, by BAC - the largest consumer bank in the U.S., through the employment, false outside counsel - diametrically contradicting BAC’s published Outside Counsel Procedures, and diametrically contradicting BAC’s published Code of Ethics, while Officers of BAC, who were repeatedly noticed (Office of Kenneth Lewis, President of BAC, even responded) signed periodic certificates of no fraud, pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002).

e) The production of thousands of pages of false and deliberately misleading banking/legal records of CFC in legal subpoena, and later – refusal of BAC and its Audit Committee to review complaints filed pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), which provide:

(i) A fine detail picture of the operations of the Underwriting and Legal Departments, as well as a Wholesale Branch of the Countrywide Home Loans, Inc – the sub-prime division of CFC from 2004 to this date working in concert to obstruct and pervert justice;

(ii) Fully documented loan applications opined as fraud by a nationally acclaimed fraud expert, their respective, detailed, retroactively fabricated underwriting histories, which are misrepresented by CRC and BAC to this date;

(iii) Full documentation of the employment of “Edge” - an underwriting case management system, as a corrupt tool that portrays compliance with Regulation B of the FRB, but permits non-compliance with the law;

(iv) Full documentation of the employment by CFC and later BAC at the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to this date, of litigation practices similar to those which were previously documented and rebuked in courts in Texas and Pennsylvania, but on a grander scale; Of such litigation practices the Honorable Jeff Bohm, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Houston, Texas, stated in his March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion in Borrower Parsley (4-05-bk-90374) : Countrywide and its outside counsel “have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system” (p8);

(v) Close collusion of CFC and BAC with outside counsel, regulators, and law enforcement – in alleged obstruction and perversion of justice at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, under the guidance of judges of the court;

(vi) The filing by Bryan Cave, LLP, through false appearance on behalf of CFC, and also on behalf of Sandor Samuels, former Chief Legal Officer -CFC, and today Associate General Counsel – BAC – of a false and deliberately misleading “Notice of Person in Interest”.

f) Full collusion in the fraudulent conveyance of title – as opined by fraud expert by other financial institutions as well – Union Bank and USC Credit Union, and alleged breach of fiduciary duties to depositor/borrower – such financial institutions executed transactions in account holder funds with no authorization and with no legal records to support their conduct. USC Credit Union further engaged in the production of various false and deliberately misleading banking records and in thei misrepresentation of such banking records in the aftermath.

6) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise, documents the alleged corruption of the legal profession in the County of Los Angeles in law-firms large and small –

The false appearances and false and deliberately misleading conduct of law-firms large and small, as well as individual attorneys who had held significant professional distinctions, in collusion with judges, or on behalf of financial institutions, or law enforcement, including, but not limited to:

a) Attorney Aaron Fontana – on behalf of the Sheriff Department, County of Los Angeles

b) Attorney David Pasternak – former President - Los Angeles County Bar Association – opined as committing real estate fraud, ongoing to this date - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);

c) Attorney John Amberg – Bryan Cave, LLP - former Chair, Los Angeles County Bar Association - Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee, - in case that was opined as real estate fraud - Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)

d) Attorney Frederick Bennett – Counsel for the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – issued letter that were false and deliberately misleading to affect the denial of access to court records.

e) Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham – falsely appearing as Counsel of Record on behalf of Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court – in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914);

f) Bryan Cave, LLP – falsely appearing as Counsel of Record on behalf of CFC and later BAC – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud –in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)

g) Buchalter Nemer, PLC – Counsel for Mara Escrow – subsidiary of Old Republic Title Company, Inc – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud – in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);

h) Ezer in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737);

i) Green & Marker, LLP – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud – in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737);

j) Jeff Modisett – Bryan Cave, LLP - former Attorney General, State of Indiana – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).

k) Joshua L Rosen – Counsel for Del Rey Joint Venture and Del Rey Joint Venture North – in affecting the false arrest and jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v LA County (BS109420), and in derailing the habeas corpus petition in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914);

l) Legal Department, BAC – Timothy Mayopoulos, Ed O’Keefe, Phil Wertz, Carolyn Johnson - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);

m) Legal Department, CFC – Sandor Samuels, Sanford Shatz, Todd Boock - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);

n) Rhonda Walker – in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737);

o) Sheppard Mullin, LLP – Counsel for Plaintiff – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

p) Ukon Loritz, LLP – Legal Counsel – USC Credit Union - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400);

7) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise, is documented in the most notorious of these individual cases – the ongoing false jailing of Attorney Richard Fine –

With only false and misleading records to form its legal foundation, but no valid, effectual records at all, where Lee Baca - Los Angeles County Sheriff to this date refuses to correct false and deliberately misleading arrest and booking data - which his department posted online, refuses to allow access to the arrest and booking records, public records by California law – which are evidently non-existent, and refuses to put an end to what is by now evidently false jailing - which originated from the derailed litigation in Marina v LA County (BS109420), and where corruption and/or criminal conduct of judges, attorneys, and law enforcement is alleged.

C. We are readily familiar with the causes of such conditions in the County of Los Angeles, California. We allege:

1) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was enabled by the Court’s computerized case management systems -

First installed ~1985, including, but not limited to “Sustain”, which must be deemed upon review as fraud on the people, which the Court falsely established as “privileged”- through false unpublished, unauthorized Local Rules of Court, and to the records of which the Court falsely denies public access for the past quarter-century.

2) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was facilitated by elimination of the public records of the Court –

Which are prescribed by California law, including, but not limited to:

a) The Book of Judgments;

b) Index of All Cases;

c) Calendar of the Courts, and

d) Registers of Actions (California dockets).

3) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was facilitated by inadequate and/or false and/or missing Local Rules of Court –

Defects which the Presiding Judge and the Clerk of the Court refuse to address, including, but not limited to:

a) False unpublished rules which established the court’s computer records as “privileged”;

b) False unpublished rules pertaining to the Entry of Judgment – which the Court refuses to disclose, and

c) False published rules pertaining to routine Assignments and Referrals in the Central District, which were intended to circumvent the Law, where Assignment Orders and Appointment Orders are required.

4) We allege that conduct of such judges was routinely founded on false on their face orders and judgments -

With mismatching dates and signatures, missing proofs of services, which could be deemed by a naive observer as "errors", but which a reasonable person, upon review of the data as a whole must conclude were no "errors" at all. Such false court orders and judgments which are void, not voidable are routinely filed, and even certified by John Clarke, the Clerk of the Court, and both the Clerk and the Presiding Judge of the Court refused to take corrective actions when such records were explicitly brought to their attention.

5) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that what is now represented as two litigations of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, are in fact public displays, which are produced with no legal authority at all, and which are intended to undermine the justice system of the County of Los Angeles for the foreseeable future -

a) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - Which was the direct cause of the false jailing of Attorney Richard Fine, and where the judges are trying to enforce their false claim to the right to preside in legal proceedings with no Assignment or Appointment Orders, and

b) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) – Where the judges purport to establish their right to take payments from Los Angeles County, which were ruled by court “not permitted”, which were shown to affect serious bias, and which were labeled by media “bribes”.

6) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that the judges’ conduct of an enterprise is enabled by the Sheriff Department’s computerized case management system -

Which allows to deprive persons of Liberty with no legal foundation, while generating the false representation of compliance with the law.

7) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was was enabled by the Sheriff Department’s denial of access to records that are public records by California Law -

Such as the arrest and booking records of inmates held by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department.

D. Our requests for help, previous to your term in office, were frustrated. We allege:

Responses on this matter, provided in August-September 2008 by senior U.S. Department of Justice Officers to U.S. Congress – to the Honorable Diane Watson and the Honorable Dianne Feinstein - were false and deliberately misleading.

E. Therefore, we respectfully request the help of your good offices:

By immediately appointing a Special Counsel pursuant to 28 CFR §600 for a limited time, limited mandate, to guarantee, through investigation - and prosecution - if needed:

1) Public access to court records, to inspect and to copy;

2) Integrity in operations of the offices of the Clerk and the Presiding Judge of the Court, with honest, published Local Rules of Court, and

3) Integrity of the case management systems of the Court and the Sheriff Department.

Conditions in Los Angeles County, California are extreme, but we hear the plight of the People everywhere in this Country. We pray that repair of the Justice System in Los Angeles County, California, will set a new course for Justice all over these United States, faithful to the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.