The list below was not composed based on any knowledge of receipt of bribes, or bias in judicial actions. The list below was composed based on participation of these judges in sham court actions - Kozinski Fraud - to pervert justice, to deny individuals of property and/or of liberty. Moreover, it was alleged that Kozinski Fraud were made possible through Ronald George Computer Systems at the courts.
For the past three years FBI Los Angeles and US Attorney Office, Los Angeles have refused to investigate complaints regarding widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles. The complaints were originally only against judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and then again - less than 10 judges.
The only reasons provided for the refusal to investigate were the following:
1) Steven Goldman - Chief - FBI White Collar Crime, Los Angels:
"If what you are saying is true, it is widespread public corruption, and well above my head."
2) Michael Wilner - US Prosecutor, Los Angeles:
"You named too many names".
Los Angeles Superior Court
The Clerk of the Court - John A Clarke, the Counsel for the Court - Frederic Bennett, together with Judge Jacqueline Connor, are considered the key figures of the LA-JR (alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket).
Judges against whom conclusive evidence was available:
- Collins, Patricia L (ret)
- Connor, Jacqueline
- Czuleger, Stephen
- Finkel, David B
- Flynn, Paul G
- Friedman, Terry
- Goodman, Alan
- Haber, Alan B
- Hart-Cole, Lisa
- Letteau, Robert M.
- McCoy, Charles
- Niedorff, Robert (ret)
- O’Brien, Gregory (ret)
- Reid, John H.
- Rosenberg, Gerald
- Segal, John
- White, Elizabeth
- Yaffe, David
- The court's computer systems (Case Management Systems) were demonstrated to be false and deliberately misleading.
- The court refuses to disclose its Local Rules of Court, even on central procedures such as entry of judgment.
- The Court denies for years access to public court records such as Index of All Cases, Calendars of the the Courts, and Registers of Actions (California dockets)
- The Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) documented false imprisonments of many thousands. Yet - the latest report (2006) documented that the victims were never released, and that the judges are among those who prevent their release.
- The evidence documented numerous real estate fraud cases by the Court, which propelled LA Count to the "epicenter of the epidemic" according to FBI.
- The Court was documented engaging in corruption in collusion with COuntrywide, and later - with Bank of America Corporation.
California Court of Appeal, 1st District
California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
- Richman, James A
California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
The Clerk of the Court, Joseph Lane, and the Chief Deputy - Danny Potter, are likely to be found to be key to corrution of the court:
California Court of Appeal, 2nd District is an integral part of the LA-JR. Evidence of corruption is available against:
- Curry, Daniel
- Epstein, Norman
- Hastings, J Gary
- Vogel, Charles
California Supreme Court
- George, Ronald
US Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles & Riverside
US District Court, Los Angeles, includes several judges who were demonsrtated to cover up corruption of the LA Superior Court through the perversion of litigations at the U.S. Court. The Clerk of the U.S. Court, Los Angeles - Terry Nafisi, is considered key figure in corruption of that court.
- Larson, Steven (ret)
- Parada, Oswald -magistrate
- Phillips, Virginia
- Warner, John
- Woehrle, Carla - magistrate
U.S. District Court, Washington DC
The Chief Deputy Clerk of the U.S. Court, Washington DC - David Scott, is considered key figure in corruption of that court. Judges against whom evidence of corruption is available:
- Leon, Richard J
- Walton, Reggie B
US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
- Berzon, Marsha
- Kozinski, Alex
- Paez, Richard
- Reinhardt, Stephen
- Smith, Dilan
- Tallman, Richard
Jacqueline Connor
III. The Usual
![[]](http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:tJIOVxx1NSKSkM:http://www.spamtacular.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/300px-US-CourtOfAppeals-9thCircuit-Seal.svg.png)
![[]](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:zjS4lUNdCkM-vM:http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00506/Alex-Kozinski_280_506474a.jpg)
IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!
![[]](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:-APIxfXOIPfk_M:http://scrapetv.com/News/News20Pages/usa/images-2/US-Department-Of-Justice-Seal.jpg)
![[]](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:zJjcjfjt0qE7WM:http://valleywag.com/assets/resources/2008/04/robert_mueller_fbi_hearing.jpg)
"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.
IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!
"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.
At 06:55 30/11/2009, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteDr. Zernik,
Re: Richard I. Fine, and the notion that the L.A. Judiciary is corrupt and that a lot of it seems to be centered in and around Marina del Rey, and also the evil doings of one Bruce Mitchel who is currently in charge of the Summa case...
Sir, I am again urging you to take a look at a court case titled Summa Co v. Cal State Lands Comm:
SUMMA CORP. V. CAL. STATE LANDS COMM'N, 466 U. S. 198 (1984)
It seems that the state of California and City of Los Angeles simply ignored an Order of the US Supreme Court that was not in their favor.
The Summa case went to the US Supreme Court in 1984; it dealt with the issue of weather a state (in this case CA) could claim land for the public trust (under the Equal Footing Claus of the U.S. Constitution), in lands that had been granted out prior to their becoming a state. In this case; lands given out pursuant to the Mexican American War Treaty - the Hildalgo Guadelupe treaty. The ruling of the U.S. High Court reversed a ruling of the CA Superior Court and basically said that the land where Marina del Rey is now was never properly acquired by the state or L.A. city -- and that it is still in private ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case back to CA, ordering that they finish out the case in ways not inconsistent with their ruling and order. ie: serving all the interested parties would be a nice start. The High Court Ruling went against CA and L.A. and on remand it went to the CA Supreme Court who remanded it back to the CA Court of Appeals, who remanded it back to the trial court where it was put under the control of Bruce Mitchell in Dept 59. Get the picture?
2.
ReplyDeleteWAKE UP ZERNICK! THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR!!!
THIS IS A MULTI BILLION DOLLAR HIEST TAKING PLACE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
THE US SUPREME COURT HAS MADE A RULING AND BRUCE MITCHELL IS SITTING ON IT AND NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT. ALSO THE SUMMA CASE IS A CASE THAT REQUIRES "ORIGINAL JURISDICTION" SINCE THE RULING WAS BASED ON FEDERAL QUESTIONS. THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MOVED TO FEDERAL COURT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NOT GIVEN TO A CITY COMISHIONNER (BRUCE MITCHELL) AS THE CITY AND STATE OF CA ARE BIASED PARTIES IN THE CASE!!!! THEY LOST, YET THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF CARRYING OUT THE ORDER AGAINST THEM... NO THIS CANNOT BE. THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IF YOU REALLY WANT TO BRING THESE FUCK FACES TO THEIR KNEES.
I urge to wrap your mind around this Dr. I have read and enjoy what you write. You are capable of understanding this. Because this was an Order of the US Supreme Court that was ignored by L.A. and CA (state), I feel that this (once properly exposed) should be enough to turn the tide.
PLEASE READ ON GOOD DR. ZERNICK (CHAMPION OF JUSTICE) I truly believe that you will not be disappointed.
3.
ReplyDeleteUnder normal conditions when a state joined the Union the following would take effect under the equal footing doctrine of the US Constitution:
All the tideland within the area that is to become a new state becomes a part of that state's Public Trust. Tidelands are any land (near the ocean) that is covered by salt water marshes or estuaries, and/or lands with water that ebbs and flows (effected by the ocean's tide). These Public Trust lands extend inward to the point where the sea water is met with fresh water coming down from the land. Upon admission to the Union all these lands are given to the state, to be held in trust by the state, for the use of the people of all states.
There are few exceptions to this rule. The only exception to states getting all such lands would seem to be based in lands that had been granted out prior to the state joining the union, and/or lands that were parted out prior to the time of statehood as a result of an overriding Federal issue such as a war treaty.
Near the end of the Mexican American war, as an enticement to help ensure Mexico's surrender, and perhaps as a means to help heal the wounds of that war, an offer was made to the then (Mexican) governor of what would become California. The Hildalgo Guadalupe treaty was successful in that it brought and end to the war - Mexico surrendered. In exchange for their surrender, the United States agreed that any current private owners of all the land that had been granted by the king of Spain or the Governor of Mexico would remain the property of the current owners. The treaty went on to say that these already granted out lands would be given inviolable respect - the same respect that is given to any piece of land that is privately held by any U.S. citizen - that this respect would not be violated.
4.
ReplyDeleteThe case discussed here [Summa Co vs. California] dealt with lands that were part of the Rancho Balona (a Mexican Land Grant) which covered a huge area of West L.A. coastal property, including a swampy area which became the building place of the Marina del Rey - the worlds largest man made marina. From the onset it seemed that the parties in the case were only arguing over a few acres of abandoned land. In fact the case would end up controlling tens of thousands of acres. Many people still have no idea the implications of the ruling.
Notes re: Public Trust Properties:
In addition to tidelands, any lands that are covered by Navigable waters which are connected to the sea are also included in the public trust. This would include any natural harbors, inlets or bays, rivers, or any arms of the sea.
High Courts have held the following re: Public Trust Properties:
Navigable waters are waters that are navigable in fact... if it is deep enough to float a log on it then it can be considered navigable.
States may not lawfully divest the public's interests therein.
The public has a right not to be encumbered by private interests therein.
Any private land that becomes navigable automatically becomes part of the public trust; however, the owner retains the right to bring the land back to it's original non-navigable status.
Rancho Balona was huge; about 14,000 acres. It's boarders ran (roughly) from the ocean at Playa del Rey beach, eastward along the cliff towards LMU, continuing east to Howard Hughes Center, then northward along a line just east of where the 405 is now to Pico, and then westward down Pico back to the ocean. This was a mega property. If one were to try to put a value on this property today one would want to have a very good calculator capable of handling large numbers. I would estimate the value to be roughly 25 billion dollars, plus or minus 10 billion (again this is only an estimate).
5.
ReplyDeleteOne sad side note to the history of Mexican Land Grants in the United States is what happened to many of these lands after they were properly conveyed into private ownership. It seems that an entire industry quickly sprang up that was based solely on ways to rip off and/or cheat the owners of these lands out of their land. While there were several techniques employed by those trying to unscrupulously acquire the land, the most deceitful and dishonest, yet most effective way to "steal" the land was by initiating a bogus lawsuit that had something to due with something in the land, but that did not actually have anything to do with the title to the land. The bogus lawsuit would be designed to confuse the true owner into the erroneous belief that he had lost his ownership interest in the land.
The portion of the Rancho that the government was trying to seize for the public trust would have been about 2000 acres or about 1/7th of the entire rancho. The problem with the state's intent was that the U.S. Supreme Court had long since shut the door on this ambitious effort by the state of CA. Through a series of cases heard by the US Supreme Court several decades prior to this case it had already been settled that Mexican Land Grant Lands were in a special category -- States could not assert public trust servitudes in these areas. Due to the fact that the Mexican Land Grant Lands were granted out prior to the actual time of statehood, and due to the language of the treaty regarding "inviolable respect". Any attempt by a state to assert public trust claims in Mexican Land Grant Lands would have to fail. Furthermore, the state of California should have known that this was prohibited as one of the prior cases that set the president came out of San Diego.
6.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that somebody had committed a large oversight with respect to the construction of Marina del Rey. Marina del Rey is on land that was tideland and that normally would have been part of the public trust. Apparently it was assumed by somebody high up in the California government that the land of Marina del Rey was Public Trust lands and that the state could take this area without compensating the true owner(s). It seems that the mistake was not realized until after the construction of Marina del Rey Harbor was completed. Rather than compensating the owner(s), they instead tried to conceal their mistake, and they seem to have done a good job of doing just that for about 45 years so far.
When the case got before the US Supreme Court the US Solicitor General made accusations that the entire case was a fraud. In an amicus curie brief the Solicitor General wrote a scathing critique of the CA high court and of the parties involved.
He wrote among other things, "The City of Los Angeles and the State of California nevertheless asserted the right to dredge the lagoon, construct sea walls, make other improvements therein, and open it to public navigation, fishing and recreation, all without exercising the power of eminent domain, and instituted judicial proceedings in state court
to vindicate these claims."
When Summa v Cal State Lands was originally filed it was titled: Venice Peninsula Properties v. Los Angeles. Venice Peninsula Properties was actually owned by Hughes which changed it's name to Summa Co. The city of Los Angeles was replaced by the state of California due to the issue being public trust which required the CA attorney general's office to become involved. The case was originally filed in 1965.
7.
ReplyDeleteThe US Supreme Court overturned the CA Supreme court and then remanded the case back to the state ordering that they finish up the case in ways not in conflict with the US Supreme court ruling.
Important to note, that as soon as the high court made their ruling; essentially that it was a war treaty with Mexico that was the trump card in the matter and that is was controlled the case and not the public trust doctrine. As a result of that ruling it would mean, as I see it, that the case from that point onward would or should have been a case of "original Federal Jurisdiction" In other words the California courts no longer had jurisdiction. Further they are not impartial either.
The case was never bumped up to Federal Court as it should have been. Instead the case was remanded all the way back down to the trial level where it was given to a commissioner Bruce Mitchel. As far as I can tell they just swept it all under the rug and never did that which the US Supreme Court ordered.
I believe that this is where you will find something that you can cause some serious uproar about. You see, an entire industry sprang up in the west having to do with ways to cheat Mexican Land Grant Recipients out of their land. The best way being through litigation that is not relevant to title but is designed to look like it is; or designed to trick the true owners.
I feel it is more than likely true that neither party in that case really had any legit claim to the title.
Isn't Bruce Mitchell the same guy who started the BS against Fine?
Well, Bruce Mitchell is in contempt of the US Supreme Court.
Why aren't you on this? I hope you are.
This is, I feel, the root of much of this. I think that Fine knows about Summa and this is the real reason they are keeping him down, or trying to.
8.
ReplyDeleteAgain, look at the entire Summa case especially after 84 - the last entry is like 97 and they still haven't done anything they were supposed to do.
You can blow the lid off the Summa heist! This is a crime that the FBI will have to investigate because it is a Supreme Court Ruling. BTW, who is it that is supposed to enforce the orders of the US Supreme Court?
Keep up the good work Doc, and good luck to you! Hey maybe when this is over you can look at a tooth of mine for me.
9.
ReplyDeleteFrom: joseph zernik
To:
Subject: Re: [SPAM]Bruce Mitchel is in contempt of US Supreme Court
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:44:56 -0800
Hi Bryan:
Thanks for the message. I figured out what you are talking about the first time around. However, I have difficulty figuring out how the subject would be accepted by the wide readership. My focus at present is on human rights violations - thousands who are falsely imprisoned in LA, Richard Fine is only one of them. Anybody with 8 years of education, more or less, can understand what false imprisonment is.
Joseph Zernik
At 22:31 10/12/2009, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteYes I understand what you are saying but please give me just a little more of your time so I can explain why I think that this can be a good start.
I would agree that anybody with 8 years of education, more or less, can understand what false imprisonment is. I also feel that any eighth grader should be able to recognize there is a major problem in L.A. and perhaps all or most of California in terms of, well, the government here to put in in one word. When I look at the Richard Fine situation it spells out to me clearly that not only is something wrong, but that also there is a good chance that some very corrupt force or entity or whatever is pulling the strings. Why has the Richard Fine story not received national attention yet? It is obviously an interesting and compelling story. Also, when Fine was awarded the Certificate of Appealability and it was ruled that "a reasonable jurist would find the lower courts decision debatable", why didn't that court and/or the court holding him (Yaffe), why on earth didn't they let Fine out on his own recognizance so that he could and can prepare for the court dates where all this will be fairly decided? Fine is not a flight risk - obviously - if that was the case he could simply give in, give the asset info they want, and then split. Something is very wrong here. BTW wasn't Fine charged with a crime - this is still unclear.
11.
ReplyDeleteIt should be clear to all that Fine is determined to prove a point, and in many ways his point has been proven. When the appeals court determined that his issue is worthy of debate, well doesn't that at least make a pretty damn good defense (for Fine) on the issue of fictitious litigant or the moral turpitude? I would say so. Also Fine worked for the D.O.J. and he is the Ambassador to Norway (or whatever). It would seem to me that in the spirit of the American way, the Const, and Bill of Rights, not to mention statues designed to protect whistle blowers, under any other similar circumstance in any other court of any civilized place, it would seem to be a matter of professional legal courtesy and/or good sportsmanship, and in the interest of the furtherance of justice that they should've and should release Fine and let the him ready his arguments with the full wherewithal of his normal office and usual and familiar routine for such things. The fact that he has not been released to me is bizarre. Withstanding the above, it seems to me that there is a very evil or corrupt or (I can't imagine) force involved here.
The evil doers may have such a lock on this city/state that it is going to take something very big to cause everyone to finally take notice and take sides and get this story (or these stories) out in front. Really all these things cases/abuses seem to be related - I already know you've noticed that.
12.
ReplyDeleteSo why do I think that exposing the Summa Case (1984 Supreme Court ruling against L.A. and CA) would be helpful in turning the entire shithouse, if you will, upside down? The answer is simple... for now I will assume that you have a full understanding of the Summa Case -- that is; in a nutshell - the County of L.A. does not really own Marina del Rey, but they are trying to take it based on a theory of adverse possession while at the same time the true owner has been duped into the incorrect assumption that his interest was lost long ago. The answer is: Boats, Yachts, the good life, Yacht Clubs, -- everybody likes boats and everybody likes to see stories about the good life and what they really like to see even more, for some reason, is when it all goes to hell - right down the shitter. When you pull the cork on Marina del Rey, then the entire house of cards will fall. BTW did you know that Marina del Rey was built with Federal dollars and it is supposed to be for the use and enjoyment of everyone? Did you know that there is a Federal Anchorage area in the marina that the county has simply shut down? Did you know that the Yacht clubs are using the federal anchorage area at the exclusion of others? If all the BS that has gone on in Marina del Rey at the hands of L.A. County were public it would cause quite a stir, I imagine. But understand what I am trying to tell you sir. That yes all the BS has happened or whatever, it really doesn't even matter, because underneath it all is the fact that the County of L.A. doesn't have the legal authority to put in a gumball machine in Marina del Rey and the United States Supreme Court said as much in 1984!!! - nevertheless they still are running the place! How can this be?
The case was started in 1965 right about when the Marina was finished and they must have realized at that time that they had fucked up. So according to the US Solicitor General they started the Summa case to try to vindicate their fuck up.
13.
ReplyDeleteEveryone loves the boats, oh and everyone knows somebody who knows somebody who has a boat -- you see. This is the common denominator.
I could never understand why the coalition to save the marina didn't fight for the boats. There was so much already decided high court ruling to protect the boats and boaters. Once this is secure, the rest is easy... at least I would think.
BTW boating is a Constitutional Right
Members of the Public have a right not to be encumbered by private interests in a Navigable waterway... hence only the Congress of the U.S. can regulate boating.
The County of L.A. has about a 40 page section of laws they have that regulates boating and they are all 100% illegal, and in violation of CA Const Article 11 sec. 7 and the US Constitution having to due with ports. BTW, did you know that boating is the reason that the US Constitution was ever even started in the first place? It's true.
I may be wrong, but I may not be wrong. My writing skills are not up to par to be able to delineate this, but yours are.
I will be happy to send you any info you may want like copies of the court rulings that were ignored, etc
What do you think about the common denominator aspect and of boats?
14.
ReplyDeleteDate: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:56:43 -0800
To:
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re:Bruce Mitchel-in contempt of US Supreme Court
If you had any business with the Los Angeles Superior Court, I am interested in reviewing your Register of Actions from each and every case, alternatively - review evidence that you were denied access to the Register of Actions of your own case. Absent one of these two, I consider any discussion futile.
Likewise, if you appeared before the US Court, LA, or US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, please provide case numbers.
Joe Zernik
--- jz12345@earthlink.net wrote:
Subject: Re: Request for the House Judiciary Committee to initiate corrective actions regarding evidence of widespread corruption of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice System.
ReplyDeleteTo: joseph zernik
X-ELNK-Received-Info: spv=0;
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
Hi Joe:
Very good. I think such a narrow and specific request has more chance of some success.
However, perhaps you could also include various reporters, bloggers etc. in your emails. I would think that because of the relatively great competition for news stories, that some would pick it up.