Wednesday, December 9, 2009

09-12-09 Sharon Stone; Beyonce; Richard Fine; December 10, 2009 US House Judiciary Committee hearing on disqualification of judges;

Sharon Stone - knows more than most attorneys about disqualifications and corruption at the Los Angeles Superior Court

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:55:24 -0800
To: jeffandmary@ozarkopathy.org
From: joseph zernik
Subject: (1) Sharon Stone, (2) Beyonce, (3) Richard Fine, (4) December 10, 2009 US House Judiciary Committee hearing on disqualification of judges, (5) Integrity of the US judiciary and financial institutions - or lack thereof... Alternatively - why Alex Kozinski must resign!
(1) Sharon Stone, (2) Beyonce, (3) Richard Fine, (4) December 10, 2009 US House Judiciary Committee hearing on disqualification of judges, (5) Integrity of the US judiciary and financial institutions - or lack thereof... Alternatively - why Alex Kozinski must resign!

What's new:
This message is forwarded to the Honorable John Conyers and members of the Honorable Hank Johnson Subcommittee, as my opinion for the December 10, 2009, hearing at the House Judiciary Committee in re: Recusals and Disqualifications of Judges. Opinion is offered that the true issue beneath failure of judges to disqualify was the presiding of judges in sham court actions, where they consider themselves bound by no law at all! The issue was inseparable from the failure of the US to establish publicly accountable validation/logic verification of large computer systems in the courts, in correctional facilities, in financial institutions, and in public corporations. The corruption of such major systems was reflected in human rights violations of historic proportions in Los Angeles County, California, and also in the Economic/Integrity Crisis, now engulfing the country, where Los Angeles County was recognized as the "epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud".

 Background:
1) Atty Richard Fine was abducted at the end of a sham proceeding where he attempted disqualification
 Obviously, Atty Richard Fine should be subpoenaed, He was abducted by the Los Angeles Sheriff in open court, with no warrant, on March 4, 2009, at the end of a sham proceeding, where Atty Richard Fine was trying to disqualify Judge David Yaffe. Unbeknown to Richard Fine, such sham sentencing proceeding failed to be listed as part of the litigation record. Richard Fine has been "hospitalized" ever since, with no warrant at all. [1] The true facts in the matter of Richard Fine were covered-up by the Kozinski Fraud - a sham June 30, 2009 Order [2] of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, unsigned, unauthenticated, which was served on both Atty Richard Fine in jail an on this writer - Joseph H Zernik, as Party in Interest. However, the Kozinski Fraud, in and of itself, was particularly abhorrent, since it was meant to cover up criminalities of much larger scale.

Therefore, my opinion on this matter differs from Richard Fine's, I believe that Richard Fine was wrong both on the facts and on the applicability of the law regarding disqualifications! With all due respect, I am not lawyer, not even by a long shot, while he was a very able attorney - claimed to have cost the California treasury over $1 billions in refunds to taxpayers, or funds that were not permitted to be taxed. However, I managed to disqualify twice Judge Jacqueline Connor - alleged to be the head figure of the LA-JR (Los Angeles Judiciary Racket).

2) You cannot disqualify a judge who is presiding in sham proceedings in a non-case of the court
 In his disqualification efforts, which entirely consumed him before, and after the abduction, Richard Fine failed to comprehend the fundamentals: You could not disqualify a judge, such as David Yaffe - who had never held any due assignment order, and who was presiding in sham proceedings all along - under a sham case caption. It was for such reason that David Yaffe ignored Richard Fine's disqualification efforts. Judge David Yaffe probably also chuckled from time to time, when nobody was watching.

 Richard Fine's abduction was falsely attributed to ancillary proceedings on contempt in Marina v LA County (BS109420). Such caption was never a true case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. It was a major real estate case. Real Parties in Interest were two large, privately held development companies. Defendant was Los Angeles County itself - the payer of the "not permitted" payments to the judges. It would have been entirely unreasonable for Judge David Yaffe to leave such a case under the California Superior Court Track. From the start it was diverted into the Equity/Enterprise Track of the LA-JR (Los Angeles Judiciary Racket). Most attorneys, apparently including Richard Fine, could not distinguish between the two tracks, since access was denied to Registers of Actions, Index of All Cases, Calendars of the Courts, etc.

3) State and US Court records were seriously compromised due to the lack of validation of computer systems
 The best proof of what I was just writing above, came from none other than Sharon Stone. In April 2009, media realized that a litigation involving Sharon Stone and her former attorney (who were in this case Defendant and Plaintiff, respectively), failed to ever appear in the sham Index of All Cases offered by the LA Superior Court online. [3] Albeit - the sham online Index came with a disclaimer - that it was not a true Index of All Cases.

4) Celebrity power must be recruited for the corrective actions - US government appeared unable to address the issues.
 Nothing in this country would ever move, unless for some celebrity involvement. Therefore, if anybody wanted to generate awareness of the corruption of the judiciary and financial institutions in the US, its scope, and to have every media outlet represented in the hearing, standing room only, all that needed to be done was to have Sharon Stone and her former attorney subpoenaed.

Consequently, maybe Sharon Stone would be even willing to commit to the cause of freeing the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) and Richard Fine. In fact, it is the cause of habeas corpus and the right to access court records - which were connected at the hips.

[]

Hips by Beyonce - habeas corpus and the right to access court records were connected at the hips!

Both of these rights were of late medieval origins, but we, who live in Los Angeles County, California "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud" find ourselves forced to fight for these rights all over again. The effects of the deprivation of such rights were of medieval nature as well - in the false imprisonments of historic proportions - as seen in the cases of the Rampart-FIPs and Richard Fine, and the Integrity/Economic Crisis now engulfing the country.

This message is also forwarded to the agents of Sharon Stone and Beyonce asking if they would be interested in serving as spokespersons for such causes. These two ladies, combined, or each on her own, could make a bigger difference than all others, by lending their smiles to the cause. In fact - the true cause was publicly accountable validation/logic verification of large computer systems in the courts, in correctional facilities, in financial institutions, and in public corporations. But that sounded too technical.

Anyway, whatever Sharon Stone and/or Beyonce would call it, I would just say "Yes, Ma'ams"!
No arguments at all...

Dated December 9, 2009
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California Joseph H Zernik
By: __/s/Joseph H Zernik__
 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
 PO Box 526, La Verne,CA 91750
 Fax: 801 998 0917
 Email:

_________________________________________
I. Linked Records:
[1] Atty Richard Fine: Abduction and forced purported hospitalization of an anti-judicial corruption activist
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/12/09-12-08-abusive-medical-practices-by.html
Detailed review of the false records:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Short overview for the attorney reader:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/12/09-12-06-in-defense-of-courts-in-view.html
[2] Sham June 30, 2009 Order by Judge Alex Kozinski, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf
[3] Actress Sharon Stone: The mystery of missing court records of her litigation at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-index-of-all-cases-stone-sharon-april-24-2009-case-sealed.pdf
_______________________________
Copied at the bottom of this message is my recent letter to Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, on a related matter at the U.S. Court - CM/ECF and NEFs. You can find much more on CM/ECF on my blog, by searching the term "CM/ECF", or use quick reference index at top right of the blog as well.
http://www.blogger.com/
_________________________________________


_________________________________________

_________________________________________
II. CC
  • Prof Richard Posner, University of Chicago Law School - as a request for the initiation of corrective actions.
  • Law school faculty
  • James C Duff, Director, Administrative Office of the US Courts
  • Glenn A Fine, Inspector General, US Dept of Justice - as an addendum to complaint about wide-spread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles County, and refusal of FBI and U.S. DOJ senior officers to accord Equal Protection, providing instead fraudulent responses to inquiries by U.S. Congress.
  • Other Inspector Generals - as an addendum to complaints about widespread corruption in Los Angeles County, and refusal of US government to enforce the law.
  • Mark J. Sullivan, Director, US Secret Service: As a request for investigation, pursuant to the US Secret Service mission statement and primary investigational jurisdiction - in safeguarding the integrity of the financial system - particularly - large computer systems.
  • NavanNaethem Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
  • Nout Wellink, Chair, Basel Accords Committee
  • Lee Baca, Los Angeles Sheriff, as a repeat request to access the warrants of RF and NR1 - to inspect and to copy.
  • Sharon Stone's agent
  • Beyonce's agent
III. The Usual
[][]
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.
Posted by at

2 comments:

Human Rights Alert (NGO) said...

Received by email:
PART I/II

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? WAKE 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. Under 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.

December 9, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Human Rights Alert (NGO) said...

Received by email:
PART II/II

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. The case discussed here [Summa Co vs. California] dealt with lands that were part of the Rancho Balona (a Mexican Land Grant) which covered a hugh 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 incumbered 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).

December 9, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)