IN PRO PER IN L.A. // בעצמו, בלתי מיוצג: 2010/02/02

X-BeenThere: lawsters@googlegroups.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:37:49 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart
scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)
X-ELNK-Trace: 4747f65194a8dec2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52e5d4a5e9cb8b5ddb4443534e568a6a42350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 71.104.189.21

Dear John:

Regarding election of George W Bush as a factor in the litigation of US v City of LA et al: Your question is not within the realm of fact-based discussion, but more on the hypothetical side. Moreover, your question failed to correlate with the dates in this matter: Bush was inaugurated January 20, 2001. Consent Decree was purported to be entered: June 15, 2001.

If there was no interest in the litigation after the inauguration of George W Bush, surely there were various options for the prosecution and for the court to terminate it honestly. However, such honest options did not include the pretense of entering a Consent Decree, but failing to do so, then failing to enforce the unentered Consent Decree, then failing to dismiss the case.

Otherwise, I do not believe the change of Presidents was of significance. The critical corrupt decision was made during the Clinton administration in 1998: After discovery of the largest corruption scandal in US History, and false imprisonment of many thousands, the US Department of Justice, and Office of the US Attorney, Central District of California, where Alejandro Mayorkas was the senior officer, allowed the corrupt justice system of Los Angeles County, California, to investigate, prosecute, and judge itself. After such approach ended with a predictable fiasco, the litigation in US v City of LA et al was employed, for all practical purposes -- as stage two in the cover up.

Presiding in such cover up was US Judge Gary Feess. What was not mentioned in any of the previous messages, and one reason that I was surprised that Brad brought up Judge Gary Feess and the Rampart Scandal as an example of an upright US judge, was the fact that Judge Gary Feess was a former judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. It was the widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California which was and is the core problem that the litigation of US v City of LA et al was covering up. In other words: Even if Judge Gary Feess, during his years as judge of the Superior Court of California, was never involved in any of the corrupt conduct that was the subject matter of the litigation, there was no way that he was not aware of the facts in the matter from outside the litigation records. In other words - Judge Gary Fees should have recused himself from presiding in US v City of LA et al.

Otherwise, Scott claimed that he checked the litigation records and determined that Defendants appeared and were honestly represented. I challenge him to indicate where he found in the records that Counsel for Defendants filed the required certifications as Counsel of Record. Again, the mere appearances of a counsel is no evidence to such effect, as was clearly described in the 72 page March 2008 Memorandum Opinion of US Judge Jeff Bohm. In that opinion Judge Bohm described the routine fraud in false appearances by Counsel for Countrywide/Bank of America Corporation, as counsel, who was not counsel of record, and who was employed with "no communications with client" clause.

Joseph Zernik

At 03:45 AM 2/2/2010, John wrote:
To JZ: Could the Rampart case represent a problem different from a judicial fraud and conspiracy problem. From all that you know, could the way the case was initiated (which I don't find all that curious) and the failure to follow-up with vigorous prosecution of the consent decree, actually represent a problem caused by change of policy and priorities and change of DoJ leadership from the Clinton to the Bush administration.

I'm not here trying to undermine the scope of the problem that you've described, but rather to get a better idea of the context: What happens to a politically charged litigation in the change of political and doj leadership?
__________________________
Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:49:19 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)

Scott:

The case we are talking about was of the highest public policy significance. It dominated public life in LA for almost a decade!
It was supposed to govern the police and law enforcement. It was supposed to protect us, who live in Los Angeles, against abuse by our own government. This was a case that was reported in news media repeatedly for almost a decade.

The dispositive paper here was supposed to be the Consent Decree, but it was never entered. Alternatively, if we accept Brad's explanation, then following compliance with the Consent Decree, the case had to be dismissed. But neither ever happened, and key provisions of the Consent Decree were never enforced, because police, who purportedly had consented to it, simply said they were no willing to comply. In short - the way it was later treated confirmed my claim - that it was never deemed a valid court paper by Defendants.

jz

_____________
Scott wrote
At 06:19 PM 2/1/2010, you wrote:
No. No relevance to the invalidity of the initiation of lawsuit that you claim. Another alternative, the case never reached final judgment. I had a case that flounder for a decade with inactivity and no final judgment. It is not impossible that the parties had no interest in seeking final judgment and the court never realized the case never came to a conclusion. Seen it first hand. -- scott

Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:08:38 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)
Did you check to see that the Consent Decree was entered?
Obviously Brad Heschel checked, and concurred with my opinion, therefore he came up with this convoluted explanation of "deferred judgment". Only problem is that the case at hand, US v City of LA et al is by now a decade old. If the explanation of Brad were to be valid, it had to be dismissed. However, it was not dismissed either. It is simply a NON CASE.
jz
At 04:39 PM 2/1/2010, Scott wrote:
You have to ask the particular us attorney why. There may have been a reason or a strategy in place, such as ongoing negotiations with the defendants prior to filing of the complaint. In any case, your attack upon the validity of the case based upon defficient service and filing of summons is misplaced. You need to dig elsewhere. -- scott

Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:09:00 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)
Why would office of the US Attorney initiate a case with no summons?
And would office of the US Attorney and the court end the case without entering the Consent Decree?
If it were to be enforceable, it should have been entered...
And why is there no dispositive termination to the case?
At 03:06 PM 2/1/2010, Scott wrote:
Went to PACER and checked the first 2 months of docket entries in usa v. la. ... LA participated in hearings, declarations and motions. They consented to jurisdiction and waived any objection to jurisdiction via their extensive participation in the proceedings. Less than a week after complaint filing (not even allowing the U.S. to serve the complaint and summons) they jointly participated in the consent decree and jointly filed a memorandum with the Plaintiff in support of the consent decree. The timing of filings suggests the consent decree was being worked out simultaneously with the filing of the complaint. The record suggests neither party was worried about formal service, as it was clearly being waived.

Any suggestion of a jurisdictional problem with this case is frivolous.
-- scott

Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 13:08:24 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)
Scott:
Please notice addendum to my response, aiming to clarify the potential error in automatically assuming that counsel for Defendants in US v City of LA et al, was counsel of record, and that Defendants made appearances in that court case.
Addendum:
Since most people on this list are interested in the Richard Fine case, I should have also included an example of fraud in false appearance of counsel, who is not counsel of record, from the Richard Fine NON-CASE:
Note: If you have not read the complete Judge Jeff Bohm Memorandum Opinion regarding litigation practices of Countrywide/Bank of America, you should be aware that an integral part of the fraud in appearance of counsel who is not counsel of record, is in employment of counsel with a clause of "no communications with client".
In Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), the NON-CASE of Richard Fine's habeas corpus petition, the following facts should be noted:
a. Sheriff was rightly named as Respondent, since he is holding Richard Fine.
b. Sheriff refused to respond [because Fine is held with no legal foundation].
c. US Magistrate Carla Woehrle refused to release Fine, who filed ex parte application for his own release following refusal of the Sheriff to respond on a Habeas Corpus petition.
d. Eventually, Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court purported to respond in lieu of the Sheriff, albeit - they were never named Respondents by Richard Fine. They were not the ones holding him.
e. Purported appearances for Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court were by Attorney Kevin McCormick from Ventura County, a relatively young attorney, of no significance, but relatively far away...
f. Kevin McCormick failed to file the required certifications for appearance as Counsel of Record for David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court. Regardless, Magistrate Carla Woehrle allowed him to appear.
g. Kevin McCormick filed briefs with Declaration by Counsel - himself, not a competent fact witness in this case at all. No declaration by any of his clients was ever filed.
h. Kevin McCormick filed false records as evidence, with no authentication at all.
i. None of the records McCormick filed originated from his purported clients.
j. Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge Yaffe, and the LA Superior Court refused to respond to repeated inquiries to ascertain that McCormick was appearing as Counsel of Record for such clients under the respective caption.
In short - there was no evidence in the court file that Kevin McCormick had ever communicated with Judge David Yaffe or the LA Superior Court.
Needless to say, no order or judgment were ever entered in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).
Such NON CASE for the habeas corpus of Richard Fine, and such appearances by false counsel were used to affect deprivation of Liberty.
jz
________
Scott:
Let's try to keep this fact-based:
a) [Defendants] "had adequate and competent representation by counsel" -
How did you establish that in US v City of LA et al Defendants were represented by Counsel, or for that matter, that Defendants appeared at all?
Fraud in US courts regarding appearances by counsel who was not counsel of record is pandemic, especially when dealing with government, large corporation, and very large law firms. Please see for example a 72 page Memorandum Opinion on the matter by US Judge Bohm, Texas, pertaining to Countrywide/Bank of America litigation practices.
How did you establish that the counsel were counsel of record in the first place in US v City of LA et al?
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-countrywide-08-03-05-case-of-borrower-parsley-outside-counsel-scheme-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke--s.pdf
b) In such NON-CASES, Defendants have no reason to oppose. As seen in the case of US v City of LA et al, at the end, no order or judgment were entered, and the key provisions of the Consent Decree were never enforced:
(i) Narcotic officers were NOT required to provide periodic financial disclosures.
(ii) The justice system was NOT required to allow access to secret databases.
Why should defendants oppose a sham court action when it is merely a display that is intended to achieve nothing at all, except for appeasing the public clamor for justice against Defendants?
The NON-CASEs in the courts, where government and big corporation are defendants, are created for the benefit of Defendants, not against them.
c) I believe that you basic error is in assuming that NON CASE are adversarial litigations. They are not. The case of SEC v BAC in NYC was a perfect example of that. SEC and BAC appeared in court following public clamor for tough action against baking institution officers who were involved in the current mega-heist. SEC and BAC appeared in court in perfect coordination of positions - the complaint was filed, for securities fraud, albeit, no individual was named defendant. Therefore, there were no implication to individuals. With the filing of the complaint they filed a proposed settlement - for $33 million, where Bank of America never admitted any fault. For bank of America it was probably a fraction of its monthly legal bills. And yet it was reported by news media across the nation as SEC getting tough with the banks.
JZ
At 07:50 AM 2/1/2010, Scott wrote:
If a complaint is filed and a defendant files a responsive pleading without noting a jurisdictional defect or fails to note the jurisdictional defect in a timely manner, the defendant has waived formal service and personal jurisdiction is established. It would appear that the case cited by jz had adequate and competant representation by counsel, yet they failed to move for dismissal for a lack of jurisdiction (a rudimentary motion of first resort along with various other Rule 12 dismissal motions).

It seems like JZ believes he would have been a more adequate defense team than the defense attorneys of record in usa v. la that he examines in his email. Congrats JZ.

-- scott

It is well settled that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction can be waived, see Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703-05 (1982), and, as to a defendant appearing in an action, the defense is deemed waived if not raised by motion before trial, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1).

Joseph Zernik wrote:
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 02:50:29 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)
The current thread concerned a specific judge - Gary Feess, and a specific case - US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769), which was of the highest public policy significance, where no summons was issued, and likewise, no dispositive court order/judgment was entered. In short - a case that had no commencement and no termination - the hallmarks of sham court actions in courts across the United States.
Of interest in this thread would be your response to John, who initially stated that summons was not optional, but a must, and later provided the opposite opinion - that summons was irrelevant to the commencement of court action. His former opinion corresponded to yours, and his latter opinion contradicted it.
1) What would you say regarding summons in civil action at the US courts? Is it just an optional instrument that is irrelevant for commencement?
2) What would you say about a US court action where no dispositive judgment or order were ever entered (either deferred or non-deferred) ? Was it irrelevant for termination?
3) How would you distinguish a case at the US District Court, like US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769), with no valid commencement and no valid termination form NON-CASE at all?
jz
P.S.
QUINTESSENTIALS OF THE NON-CASE:
NON-CASES - the cornerstone of judicial corruption in the United States today, in both state and US courts, are surely another subject that is never taught in law school. Therefore, let me offer you the overview:
1) Commencing records must be defective
2) Termination records must be defective as well.
3) No valid commencement of jurisdiction may be entered (no valid assignment to a judge, no valid reference, etc).
4) No valid dispositive order on jurisdiction may be entered (no valid order on disqualification, either denying or granting it).
5) All executable orders that may be issued by the court during the course of a NON-CASE must be defective, and none must be entered, which explains the plethora of unsigned orders and judgments in the US today.
6) No court fee may be collected, where any mention is explicitly provided that such fees were for court services.
7) Public access to court records that would provide definitive evidence of the racketeering by the judges must be denied - today - often achieved through implementation of fraudulent case management systems at the courts.
The basic claim is that both US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) was a NON-CASE.
The evidence suggests that SEC v BAC is likewise a NON-CASE
Another example: On top of all other characteristics, the US Court of Appeals 9th circuit refunded Richard Fine for his Emergency Petition in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692). That was one reason I knew it was a NON-PETITION from day one. Therefore, I filed in that case (Dkt #2) a request similar to that which was filed in Huminski v Corsones. Fine v Sheriff ended with the original Kozinski Fraud - an unsigned, unentered order, for the same reason - since no dispositive order/judgment could be entered in a NON-PETITION.
Most relevant to the issue of Richard Fine: Marina v LA County (BS109720), where Richard Fine was purportedly arrested in the ancillary proceedings, was a NON-CASE as well. Review of the case demonstrated eight (8) consecutive orders, judgments, and writs, all without exception were defective and invalid. The odds of such series as a chance occurrence at the courts, are very close to zilch. However, in NON-CASES, it is the rule. You may recall that Commissioner Murray Gross pretended to appear as a "Debtor Examiner", but had no Appointment Order at all. Refusal of Richard Fine to accept the authority of Murray Gross, and refusal of Judge David Yaffe to issue an Appointment Order, is in fact what keeps Richard Fine in jail. What Richard Fine has never figured out was that Judge Yaffe had no way to issue a valid Appointment Order for Murray Gross in Marina v LA County, since it was a NON-CASE. That is also the reason that Richard Fine was subjected to a warrantless arrest, and is kept in a hospital, with no booking papers at all - you could not enter a warrant in a NON-CASE.
Sturgeon v LA County was likewise a NON-CASE, Justice James A Richman presided for years, with no Assignment or Appointment Order, and deemed himself "Sitting as Judge by Assignment", while the court (doubling as the clerk, tripling as Intervenor) deemed him "Presiding by Reference", and Judicial Watch inexplicable recent papers deemed him "Presiding by designation". All attorneys who were involved in Sturgeon v LA County, including, but not limited to Judicial Watch, should therefore be deemed in collusion.
The fact Gary Feess, a judge that you considered one of the more decent on the LA bench, had no difficulty in engaging in a NON CASE in a matter of the highest public policy significance, is a gauge of the state of the judiciary and the legal profession today.
________________
At 01:51 AM 2/1/2010, Brad wrote:
Joe - There are a number of procedures used by courts that have the effect of a dismissal. For instance, in Calif criminal courts we have a DEJ procedure. It's called Deferred Entry of Judgment. A judgment is established or PLEA. That PLEA or Judgment is not entered IF the defendant performs some type of act designated by the court/DA. The acts are usually some community service and/or restitution. If the defendant performs those actions he returns to court, like in the case of the consent decree, and the judge then dismisses the case.
   Most of these type of procedures are found in the Rules of the Court, which most pro pers and many attorneys do not read. They operate to provide procedures not found in Title 28 of the US Code or the Criminal Procedures of a States Penal Code.
    As for your deference to attorneys, they are not actually taught much law in law school. Law students are taught how to find the law, apply facts to legal elements to a case, how to write and conduct legal research. A tiny portion is spent teaching oral advocacy.
    The primary value of an attorney is his or her experience in practice. In fact many civil attorneys of great experience are worse in criminal cases, usually, than pro pers, because they THINK they know the law, when they don't. One civil attorney in LA, a few years back, committed extortion while negotiating a civil tort case, without realizing he was committing a criminal act. He was charged with extortion. It is more common for Civil Attys not to know Criminal law than the other way around, but criminal attorneys are notoriously ignorant of most civil law and it's excruiating amount of unnecessary hearings, discovery motions and status conferences.
    There are specialists in Calif in various types of law. I know a very successful civil appeal attorney specialist who refuses to take criminal appeals on the basis that he doesn't know criminal law and it's huge list of reasons for reversal of a criminal conviction.
     The basic idea, which is seldom accomplished, is to take complex legal issues and explain them in a paragraph. You begin with the type of proceeding.
     I refer you to the Quo Warranto page of the Calif Atty General's website. It explains how you remove an officer of a corporation, board, a government office, such as mayor, supervisor, controller, Governor, etc. by using the writ of Quo Warranto. I can guarantee you that not 1 out of 1000 attorneys know that this writ even exists, let alone have experience in having such writ issue from a court.
     But it is a fascinating Writ, which you have to get the AGs permission to file in a court. So as you can imagine it has to be highly fact based and supported by almost irrefuteable evidence. I recommend you read about it as an educational exercise and to help focus your aim at government corruption. An effective tool if you will, that like all powerful tools must be used carefully. I think you will find it as interesting as I find it, as a tool to stop tyranny. - Brad

NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.
____________
Joseph Zernik wrote:
From: joseph zernik
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, January 31, 2010 1:32:48 PM
Subject: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) Re: Who or what is authoritative (was: FACT BASED DISCUSSION)
Dear Mr Roland:
As previously stated, I am no attorney, not even by a long shot. In case you are qualified (and please make it clear in your response) to evaluate the various claims, I invite you to provide your opinions on the matters at hand:
a) Significance, or lack thereof, of issuance of valid Summons by the Clerk of the Court in commencing of honest, valid, and effectual action in United States courts.
b) Significance, or lack thereof, of entry of judgment or another dispositive court paper, in termination of an honest, valid, and effectual action in United States courts.
c) Significance, or lack thereof, of attestation by Clerk of the Court, in establishing court orders, judgments, and other dispositive papers, as such that require "Full faith and Credit" pusuant to the US Constitution Article IV 1.
d) Significance, or lack thereof, of NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) as such attestations by Clerk of the US Court under operations of United States courts today.
e) Legal foundation, or lack thereof, for denial of access to United States court records, which are the paper copies of dispositive records, and both electronic and paper copies of the NEFs in a case that was never sealed.
Truly,

Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!
At 12:37 PM 1/31/2010, Jon wrote:
Nonsense. Opinions on this or any other topic need to be evaluated on their merits, the argument and evidence, not on who makes the claim. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I know many members of the bar who are clueless about the law, and others, who are historians or philosophers and who have investigated and thought deeply, whose understanding is much greater.
As for the summons issue, there is more than one way to establish that due notice has been given, and the mere absence of service of a summons is not dispositive of the question of whether in personam jurisdiction has been established. One has to look at all the alternatives. However, a summons is the most common way to do it, and there is usually a summons filed with the court even if it hasn't been served to the respondant (who may or may not be a "defendant"). One needs to look at whether the summons needed to have been "issued".
By the standard of other subjects I study, law is not a particularly deep field, but it seems to be deep enough for more laypersons not to get it without a lot of study and reflection. Law school is one way to begin that process, but it is far from sufficient, and most lawyers and judges never get very far toward a deep understanding.
One of the great sources of tragedy for the human condition is that it takes human beings so long to learn important things, and that it is so difficult for those who do learn to convey their learning to subsequent generations. Many solutions to our most serious problems will be elusive unless or until we find ways to educate more people much better and far faster.
-- Jon
On 01/31/2010 01:55 PM, joseph zernik wrote:
I therefore suggest that in a situation where we face two opposite opinions, one by a licensed attorney, and the other by a non-attorney, we defer to opinion by a licensed attorney on such matter.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawsters" group.
To post to this group, send email to lawsters@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawsters+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawsters?hl=en.

IN PRO PER IN L.A. // בעצמו, בלתי מיוצג

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

10-02-02 Requesting Los Angeles District Attorney, Sheriff, and the California Attorney General for input regarding Human Rights abuses in Los Angeles County, California

10-02-02 More on Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)