10-01-02 Hey Ron - the Sheriff shows that you got off on $0.00 bail. Is it really so?

 
Hips by Beyonce'

Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:58:02 -0800
To: "Ron "
From: joseph zernik  

Subject: Re: FW: Read: The sheriff web site shows as if you got out on $0.0 bail

Hi Ron:

This is what I dubbed the "Quartet in Concert" of Los Angeles County, California:

1) SUSTAIN, the fraudulent case management system of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, was used to fraudulently create the appearance of conducting Richard Fine's "Sentencing Proceeding" on March 4, 2009.  In fact, it was an "off the record" proceeding.  It also allowed the fraudulent appearance of issuance of a judgment against Richard Fine. In parallel - the court denied access to the Register of Actions (California Docket) - and to Book of Judgments (Index of Judgments) to conceal the fraud.

2) INMATE INFORMATION CENTER, the fraudulent case management system of the Sheriff was used to fraudulently hide the fact that there was no warrant and there was no conviction/sentencing - by fraudulently posting that Richard Fine was arrested by the non-existent San Pedro Municipal Court. In parallel - the Sheriff denied access to California public records which were the arrest and booking records - both in your case and in the case of Richard Fine -  because they did not exist at all...

3) PACER & CM/ECF, the fraudulent case management systems of the US District Court - were used to create the fraudulent impression that a habeas corpus petition was reviewed and denied at the US District Court, Los Angeles, through the alleged criminal conduct of Magistrate Carla Woehrle, Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas - acting as Deputy Clerk - with no authority at all,  and Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer. Add to that Judge John Walter - and you got the deprivation of liberty by the US District Court.  In parallel - the US Court denied access to the habeas corpus petition paper records in Fine v Sheriff, and to my own case paper records in Zernik v Connor - I alleged that the paper records were adulterated in both cases. The US Court also denied access to the NEFs  - which I alleged were invalid and ineffectual - in both Zernik v Connor et al and in Fine v Sheriff.

4) PACER & CM/ECF - the variant of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit was used to create the fraudulent appearance of review by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Emergency Petition of Richard Fine.  Just the same as Justice Sonia Sotomayor did in 2004 in the appeal of Scott Huminski, and just as Berzon, Reinhardt, and Smith did in my case. In parallel - the US Courts of Appeals of the 2nd and 9th Circuit denied access to the NEFs of the respective actions - which I alleged were all invalid and ineffectual.

In short:
1) Denial of access to Public Records in my case, in Scott Huminski's case, in Richard Fine's case, or in your case, is not a personal/private matter. It is a public matter. Public Records are essential for the safeguard of the rights of all who live in the United States, not only of the individual(s) who may be named in any given record.
2) The basic claim was that the large-scale fraud in the computers of the justice system in the United States (including state courts and correctional facilities), was connected at the hips to the denial of access to Public Records...

Our rights to access public records and our liberty and other fundamental Human Rights were all connected at the hips!

   
 Hips by Beyonce'  

Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of sharon stone, beyonce knowles, and charlize theron,
To be added soon- deep house music!

P.S.
What is q.t.?  I myself have no business with the Sheriff.  However, surely, as an attorney, you realize that the matter of false and deliberately misleading public records propagated by the Sheriff on his fraudulent case management system must be of concern to all persons who care for their own liberty.

At 19:05 02/01/2010, Ron wrote:

I posted bail for $559,000 using real estate as collateral. Cost me $44,000 PER YEAR bail bond premium to the bonding company. They tried to revoke my bond based on your communications to Sheriff Baca Richard Fine. It cost me $15,000 to fight their fabricated charges to revoke my bail. I will fill you in if you telephone me at 1-310-476-3197. The DA & Baca falsely believe I am representing both you and Richard Fine on the q.t but not as attorney of record.,Please do not include my name on any more of your emails especially to law enforcement or Judges.

---

From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 6:25 PM
To: Ron
Subject: Re: Read: the sheriff web site shows ad if you got out on $0.0 bail

so did  you get off on $0.0 or some hundreds of thousands in bond,  based on bail with real estate collateral, as you stated by phone?
I would appreciate a clarification.

At 16:55 02/01/2010, Ron wrote:

Your message

    To:  Ron
    Subject:  RE: the sheriff web site shows ad if you got out on $0.0 bail
    Sent:  12/29/2009 8:19 AM

was read on 1/2/2010 4:44 PM.
Reporting-UA: roadrunner.com; Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Final-Recipient: rfc822;gov4@roadrunner.com
Original-Message-ID:
Disposition: manual-action/MDN-sent-manually; displayed

10-01-02 Re: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Evidence for Fraud and Deceit in Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFs) as served on Plaintiff by the US District Court

Data were compiled below from Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFs) in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) demonstrating alleged fraud and deceit at the US District Court, Los Angeles, in a matter where racketeering by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Countrywide/Bank of America Home Loans is alleged. Such alleged fraud and deceit at the US District Court was enabled through fraud in design and operation of PACER & CM/ECF – the case management systems of the United States courts. The data presented below were meant to complement data previously provided – to the same effect, based on partial access to records, gained on December 29, 2009 – to copies of NEFs of court papers in the same case. Public policy implications were noted relative to alleged widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, and failure of United States banking and financial markets regulation.

Contents

1. Allegations of corruption of California state judges

2. Allegations of corruption at Countrywide/Bank of America Home Loans.

3.  The role of US District Court in permitting such conditions in Los Angeles County

4. Public Policy Significance

a.      Alleged Large-Scale Fraud in PACER & CM/ECF

b.      Failure of US Banking and Financial Markets Regulation

5. Table 

6. Notes  

7. Linked Records

1. Zernik v Connor et al pertained to allegations of corruption of California state judges

Complaint in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) was filed March 6, 2008 against 10 judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, pursuant to Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law - 42 USC §1983. The central allegation was of a scheme for real estate fraud under the guise of litigation, which was routinely practiced in that court.  Real estate fraud by the court in this case was opined by a highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, who had been decorated by US Congress, by FBI Director, and by US Attorney General. [1]

2.  Zernik v Connor et al pertained to allegations of corruption at Countrywide/Bank of America Home Loans.

It was further alleged that conduct of such judges and others, in collusion with Countrywide and Bank of America Home Loans amounted to violation of Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) 18 USC §1961-1968. 

3.  Zernik v Connor et al documented the role of US District Court in permitting such conditions to prevail in Los Angeles County, California.

Data from papers served on Plaintiff Joseph Zernik by the United States Court, Central District of California [2] and their authentication, or lack thereof, was compiled in the table below. Not a single one of the papers below included a valid NEF. [3]  Therefore, none of these papers was an honest, valid, and effectual court order or judgment. Instead – they were papers that were issued and served by the court, deliberately and misleadingly intended as void, not voidable. The data from papers served on Plaintiff were partially confirmed when partial access to court records at the US District Court, Los Angeles was finally gained on December 29, 2008. [4][5][6]

4. Public Policy Significance

        a. Alleged Large-Scale Fraud in PACER & CM/ECF
Data in the table below reflected the allged large-scale fraud in the design and operation of PACER & CM/ECF at the United States Courts. Alleged fraud and deceit as documented in these data was likely to be common in any US Court across the country today.  Moreover, such alleged fraud and deceit was routinely associated with denial of access to court records - the NEFs -  in US Courts across the country – in apparent violation of Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) and First Amendment rights. The US Courts in each and every district that was examined were operating PACER & CM/ECF with no authority founded in either the law or Rules of Court.

b. Failure of US Banking and Financial Markets Regulation

It was further alleged that the case demonstrated the tight link between lack of integrity at the US courts, lack of integrity at US banking regulators, lack of integrity at US financial institutions – and the current integrity/financial crisis:

i.                     Complaints against Countrywide were first filed with FBI and banking regulators in January 2007. To this date such agencies refused to investigate the case.

ii.                   Complaint against Bank of America (BAC) - recipient of some $200 billion in bailout funds, was filed with US Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) on September 29, 2009 (case #00971981). It is pending before OCC.  OCC claimed that review of the case had been twice “escalated” since it was filed. However, BAC to this date has never filed a response, in disregard of the stated 20 business days response time requirement.

iii.                  Complaint were filed with Glenn A Fine – Inspector General of US Dept of Justice against Kenneth Melson – Director of US Attorney General Office, and Kenneth Kaiser – Assistant Director of FBI, pertaining to alleged fraud by the latter two US officers in responses they provided to US Congress on this matter in August-September 2008.

iv.                 Complaint was filed and is pending with David Kotz - Inspector General of SEC, regarding failure of SEC to investigate the matter in the past three years.

v.                   Complaint was filed and is pending before Eric Thorson – Inspector General, US Dept of Treasury, for failure of Office of Thrift Supervision and Office of Trade Commission to investigate complaints on this matter in the past three years.

vi.                 Notice was filed with the Basel Accords Committee regarding failure of US government to act as a good faith party to such accords, aimed at reducing risks to financial markets, and setting basic standards for integrity in international banking regulation.

5. Table  

Zernik v Connor et al  (2:08-cv-01914) – compiled data regarding NEFs and RSA-encrypted digital signatures in papers served on Plaintiff by the court 

#	Dkt #	Date	Title	NEF [Y/N]	RSA- Digital Sig. [Y/N]
1.	14	3/21/08	Civil Minutes – by Judge Phillips Denying request for TRO, finding that: ·        there was no constitutional right for unbiased judge; ·        Judgment at the Superior Court was “awarded” (but not entered) ·        There was a requirement for exhaustion in 42 USC §1983	N	N/A
2.	27	3/21/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Ordering Plaintiff to serve invalid summons, adulterated by Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer.	N	N/A
3.	33	4/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle (1st copy) RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
4.	33	4/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle (2ndcopy) RE: Motions to dismiss	N	N/A
5.	37	4/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle (1st copy) RE: Denying Pro Se access to CM/ECF	N	N/A
6.	37	4/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle (2ndcopy) RE: Denying Pro Se access to CM/ECF	N	N/A
7.	48	4/24/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Finding request to continue moot	Y	N
8.	57	5/15/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Plaintiff ordered not to file anything in court	N	N/A
9.	63	6/6/09	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of 5/15/08 Minutes is moot.	N	N/A
10.	70	6/20/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
11.	72	6/30/08	RE: Unsigned Order received from US Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit, that US District Court refusal to issue valid summonses did not amount to a case that justified intervention through the extreme measure of mandamus.	Y	N
12.	77	7/2/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
13.	80	7/9/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
14.	81	7/16/08	Notice of Discrepancy – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Plaintiff’s filing of request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s request for assistance by US Congress – to bring back Los Angeles County into the fold of the US Constitution.	Y	N
15.	84	7/17/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Denying Plaintiff’s request to compel LA Superior Court to allow Plaintiff access to his litigation records in the State Court pursuant to First Amendment rights, so that he may answer the motions to dismiss.	Y	N
16.	86	7/18/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Denying Plaintiff’s request Dkt#85 for honest docketing at the US District Court, and an end to dishonest manipulations of his filings.	Y	N
17.	93	7/31/08	Service of unrelated Civil Minutes from an unrelated case.	Y	N
18.	94	7/31/08	RE: Notice of Clerical Error Signed by Donna Thomas, who to the best of Joseph Zernik’s knowledge was not a Deputy Clek.	Y	N
19.	96	8/4/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Motions to dismiss	Y	N
20.	97	8/5/08	Civil Minutes – by Magistrate Woehrle RE: Denying Plaintiff’s requests for Statements on the record in re: Conflicts if any, pursuant to California Code of Judicial Ethics.	Y	N
21.	102	3/18/09	Order – by Judge Phillips (1st Copy) RE: Denying Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Magistrate Woehrle for a cause – dishonest manipulations of Plaintiff’s papers filed in court, and eliminating papers from the docket with no record at all, based on no process or procedure, and refusal to file statement in re: conflicts if any.	Y	N
22.	102	3/18/09	Order – by Judge Phillips (2st Copy) RE: Denying Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Magistrate Woehrle for a cause.	Y	N
23.	103	4/3/09	Report & Recommendation – by Magistrate Woehrle (1st copy) Recommending dismissal with prejudice.	Y	N
24.	104	4/3/09	Report & Recommendation – by Magistrate Woehrle (2nd t copy) Recommending dismissal with prejudice.	Y	N
25.	106	4/24/09	Order – by Judge Phillips RE: Order adopting Report & Recommendation.	Y	N
26.	107	4/24/09	Judgment – by Judge Phillips RE: Dismissal with prejudice.	Y	N

6. Notes  

1.       In Zernik v Connor et al, Plaintiff Zernik filed a complaint at the US Court against 10 judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, pursuant to 42 USC §1983 – Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law.

2.      Furthermore, Plaintiff claimed that conduct of these judges, in collusion with Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels – officers of Countrywide, and later – in collusion with Bank of America Home Loans, amounted to racketeering.

3.      US District Court refused to issue valid summonses in this case.

4.      US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit denied a petition, albeit – in an unsigned, unauthenticated order, which claimed that the refusal of US District Court to issue summonses did not amount to a matter that required intervention by the extreme measure of mandate.

5.      US District Court – likewise – never issued a single honest, valid and effectual order in this case.  None of the papers served on Plaintiff included an honest valid and effectual NEF.

6.     Both US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, covered up alleged racketeering by the judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Countrywide, and Bank of America Home Loans, through the alleged perversion of justice at the US Court – engaging Plaintiff in false and deliberately misleading sham court actions.

7.      The conduct of the US Courts in this case is almost an exact copy of the conduct of the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit in the case of the jailed Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914). However, in Zernik v Connor the US Court colluded with the Superior Court in alleged deprivation of property.  In Fine v Sheriff the US Court colluded with the Superior Court in alleged deprivation of liberty.

8.      In both Zernik v Connor and Fine v Sheriff, dishonest conduct at the US District Court was primarily by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas – acting as if she were Deputy Clerk, and Pro Se Clerk – Chris Sawyer. Complaint filed with FBI against the three of them. Claim is that they colluded in both cases in racketeering by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles judges.

9.     Newspaper reports also tied the former Presiding Judge of the neighboring San Bernardino County Superior Court to numerous real estate fraud cases. Most likely racketeering at the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, was routinely practiced as well.  However, in either counties, FBI and US Dept of Justice have not engaged in any enforcement action in the past 25 years, based on published reports of Public Integrity Section of the US Dept of Justice.

10.  In both Zernik v Connor et al and Fine v Sheriff, the US District Court, Los Angeles denied access to court records at the US Court. Even to this date, only partial access was gained, on December 29, 2009, to printout of key NEFs in Zernik v Connor et al, which confirmed that no order and judgment was issued by the US Court with a valid NEF in this case.

7. Linked Records

[1] Opinion of fraud expert, decorated FBI veteran James Wedick:

http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opinion-s.pdf

[2] Minutes, orders, report & recommendation, and judgment in Zernik v Connor et al, as served on Plaintiff by mail.

http://inproperinla.com/10-01-02-zernik-v-connor-minutes-orders-judgment-as-served-by-court-s.pdf

[3] Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFs) at the United States Courts

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2010/01/10-01-01-notice-of-electronic-filing.html

[4] Request to access court records, and NEFs as received from Records Supervisor Dawn Bullock on December 29, 2009.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681508/09-12-29-Request-n-Response-Records-Us-Crt-La-s

[5] Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re; visit to US District Court, Los Angeles on December 29, 2009 – to access court records to inspect and to copy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24680732/09-12-29-Declaration-in-re-Gaining-access-to-NEFs-Notices-of-Electgronic-Filings-United-States-District-Court-Los-Angeles-Zernik-v-Connor-et-al

[6] Table summary of NEFs received on December 29, 2009.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24681397/10-01-01-Table-Summary-of-Nefs-in-Zernik-v-Connor

The Usual

 

 

IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!

 

                                 

"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.