10-03-05 Request for guidance regarding complaint procedures pertaining to operations of allegedly fraudulent computer systems of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in collusion with County of Los Angeles // Solicitud de orientación sobre los procedimientos de queja relativos a las operaciones de los sistemas informáticos supuestamente fraudulenta de la Corte Superior de California, condado de Los Ángeles, en connivencia con el Condado de Los Angeles

Charles McCoy
Presiding Judge

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:43:51 -0800
To: "Stephanie Maxberry"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Request for guidance regarding complaint procedures pertaining to operations of allegedly fraudulent computer systems of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in collusion with County of Los Angeles
Cc: "1st District:   Gloria Molina" , "2nd District Mark Ridley-Thomas" , "3rd District  Zev Yaroslavsky" , "4th District  Don Knabe", "5th District  Michael D. Antonovich"

March 5, 2010

Stephanie Maxberry, Ombudsman
County of Los Angeles, California

RE: Request for guidance regarding complaint procedures pertaining to operations of allegedly fraudulent computer systems of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in collusion with County of Los Angeles

Response is kindly requested within 2 business days.

Dear Ombudsman Maxberry:

Thank you for your guidance regarding complaint procedures pertaining to the Sheriff's Department.  I am writing to seek your guidance regarding the process and procedure, and accountable agencies at the County of Los Angeles, California, for filing complaints pertaining to the operation of computer systems in collusion with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  Such systems should be deemed as fraud, and serious abuses of the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of all 10 million residents of this county.

This intended complaint is separate from previous complaints, which pertained to operations of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, California.  However - the methods of alleged fraud are very similar.  The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, has been concealing the true court records for a number of years, in what must upon review be deemed as violations of First Amendment rights - to access court records - to inspect and to copy.  Instead, just as was described in complaints against the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, the Court has been publishing online false and deliberately misleading records, in lieu of true records including, but not limited to Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts, and Index of All Cases.

Additionally, the court and the county of Los Angeles have been operating a server that holds images of court records. However, security programs, such as McAfee, routinely issue severe warnings against such server - that it was operated under false Verisign identity certificates.  Needless to say - any court records that were obtained from a source holding false identity must be deemed lacking in authenticity.

The County of Los Angeles, California, is an obvious party to this alleged fraud, since the Court and the County, jointly, published an incredulous disclaimer regarding such allegedly fraudulent online publications of court records -

The Courts and County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis and typically by parties of record and participants, does not constitute the official record of the court. Any user of the information is hereby advised that it is being provided as is and that it may be subject to error or omission. The user acknowledges and agrees that neither the Los Angeles Superior Court nor the County of Los Angeles are liable in any way whatsoever for the accuracy or validity of the information provided.

Additionally, at times, when the Court denied access to records stored on such computers, such denial was falsely excused by the claim that the computers were operated by the County of Los Angeles.

One should note that KPMG, the independent auditor of the County of Los Angeles, California, separately issued a report which similarly noted material deficiency in validity and security of other computer system operated by the County of Los Angeles.

As was the case pertaining to the computers of the Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles, the proposed solution is in publicly accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of such systems.

I have previously tried to file complaints with various county agencies in regarding the computer system operated jointly with the Court, described above.  However, County agencies repeatedly claimed that they were not accountable, or that they had no authority to review the operations of such computers.  Such claims appear unreasonable, since the evidence is clear that the County of Los Angeles is colluding with the Superior Court of California in such alleged large scale fraud and abuse of rights of the residents of the County of Los Angeles, California.

Your advise, regarding the correct process and procedure for filing complaints regarding such alleged large scale abuses would be greatly appreciated.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
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!

Charles McCoy

Presiding Judge 

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:43:51 -0800 A: "Stephanie Maxberry" De: Joseph Zernik  Asunto: Solicitud de orientación sobre los procedimientos de queja relativos a las operaciones de los sistemas informáticos supuestamente fraudulenta de la Corte Superior de California, condado de Los Ángeles, en connivencia con el Condado de Los Angeles Cc: "1 º Distrito: Gloria Molina", "2 º Distrito Mark Ridley-Thomas", "3er Distrito Zev Yaroslavsky", "4 de Distrito Don Knabe", "5 de Distrito Michael D. Antonovich"
5 de marzo 2010
Stephanie Maxberry, Defensor del Pueblo Condado de Los Angeles, California
RE: Solicitud de orientación sobre los procedimientos de queja relativos a las operaciones de los sistemas informáticos supuestamente fraudulenta de la Corte Superior de California, condado de Los Ángeles, en connivencia con el Condado de Los Angeles Respuesta Se ruega el plazo de 2 días hábiles. Estimado Defensor del Pueblo Maxberry:
Gracias por su orientación con respecto a los procedimientos de reclamación en relación con el Departamento del Sheriff. Le escribo para solicitar su orientación sobre el proceso y procedimiento, y los organismos responsables en el Condado de Los Ángeles, California, para presentar quejas relacionadas con el funcionamiento de los sistemas informáticos con la complicidad de la Corte Superior de California, condado de Los Ángeles. Estos sistemas deben ser considerados como el fraude y los abusos graves de los humanos, constitucionales y de derechos civiles de los 10 millones de habitantes de este municipio.
Esta reclamación se pretende es independiente de las denuncias anteriores, que se referían a las operaciones del Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Angeles, California. Sin embargo, - los métodos de fraude son muy similares. La Corte Superior de California, condado de Los Ángeles, ha estado ocultando los archivos de la corte real durante varios años, en lo que tiene que revisar a ser considerada como violaciónes de los derechos de Primera Enmienda - para acceder a documentos de la corte - para inspeccionar y copiar. En su lugar, tal como se describe en las denuncias contra el Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Ángeles, el Tribunal de Justicia ha venido publicando en línea los registros falsos y deliberadamente engañosa, en lugar de actas verdaderas, incluyendo pero no limitado a los Registros de acciones, calendarios de los tribunales y el índice de todos los casos.
Además, el Tribunal y el condado de Los Ángeles, han estado operando un servidor que contiene imágenes de documentos de la corte. Sin embargo, los programas de seguridad, como McAfee, de forma rutinaria cuestión severas advertencias contra tales servidores - que fue operado bajo falsos certificados de identidad de Verisign. Huelga decir que - los registros de la corte que fueron obtenidos de una fuente de explotación de identidad falsos ha de considerarse carente de autenticidad.
El Condado de Los Ángeles, California, es una parte obvia de este presunto fraude, ya que el Tribunal y el Condado, conjuntamente, publicó una advertencia de incredulidad en relación con tales publicaciones en línea que supuestamente fraudulenta de documentos de la corte -- 

Los tribunales y el Condado de Los Angeles declara que la información proporcionada por y obtenida de este sitio, destinado a ser utilizado en un caso por caso y, normalmente, por las partes del expediente y los participantes, no constituye el acta oficial de la corte. Cualquier usuario de la información se comunicó que se proporciona como es y que puede estar sujeto a error u omisión. El usuario reconoce y acepta que ni el Tribunal Superior de Los Ángeles, ni el Condado de Los Angeles son responsables en forma alguna por la exactitud o validez de la información proporcionada. 

Además, a veces, cuando la Corte negó el acceso a los registros almacenados en dichos equipos, tal negación fue falsamente justificada por la afirmación de que los equipos eran operados por el Condado de Los Ángeles.
Hay que señalar que KPMG, el auditor independiente del Condado de Los Ángeles, California, emitió un informe por separado que de igual forma señaló la deficiencia material en la validez y la seguridad del sistema informático operado por el Condado de Los Ángeles.
Como en el caso relativo a las computadoras del Departamento del Sheriff, Condado de Los Ángeles, la solución propuesta consiste en la validación de responsabilidad pública (certificados, verificación de la lógica funcional) de tales sistemas.
Ya he tratado de presentar quejas ante diferentes agencias del condado en relación con el sistema informático gestionado conjuntamente con el Tribunal de Justicia, descrito anteriormente. Sin embargo, las agencias del condado afirmado repetidamente que no eran responsables, o que no tenía autoridad para examinar el funcionamiento de dichas computadoras. Tales afirmaciones parecen poco razonables, ya que hay pruebas claras de que el Condado de Los Angeles está en connivencia con la Corte Superior de California, en tales supuestos de fraude a gran escala y los abusos de los derechos de los residentes del Condado de Los Ángeles, California.
Su consejo, en relación con el proceso correcto y el procedimiento para presentar quejas en relación con esos supuestos abusos a gran escala sería muy apreciada.
En verdad,
José Zernik, PhD http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner Por favor firme nuestra petición - Libre Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine Fotos Patriótica de Beyonce Knowles, Sharon Stone, y Charlize Theron, 
Pronto la música deep house! 

10-03-05 Request for reasonable explanation by alleged co-conspirators at Bank of America, Countrywide, Bryan Cave, LLP // Solicitud de explicación razonable de por conspiradores aliados de Bank of America, Countrywide, Bryan Cave LLP

   
Brian Moynihan_ _ _ _ _ _ Sandor Samuels_ _ _  Jeff Modisset

  
John Amberg_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Jenna Moldawsky_ _ _ _ _ _ _Todd Boock

David Pasternak

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:36 -0800
To: Alleged Co-Conspirators
From: joseph zernik

Subject: Requesting reasonable explanations for alleged criminalities by Bank of America, the former Countrywide, Bryan Cave, LLP, and Attorney David Pasternak - under the guise of court actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

March 5, 2010

Alleged Co-Conspirators at:
Bank of America Corporation
Bryan Cave, LLP
Former Countrywide Financial Corporation Legal Department
Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton, LLP

Response is kindly requested within 10 days.

Dear Alleged Co-Conspirators:

Please provide reasonable explanations for alleged criminalities by Bank of America Corporation, the former Countrywide Financial Corporation, Bryan Cave, LLP, and Attorney David Pasternak - under the guise of court actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

1) The former Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) and its Legal Department, headed by Sandor Samuels (today - Associate General Counsel, Bank of America Corporation) engaged in various alleged criminalities on Dr Joseph Zernik, on the US Government, and on CFC stockholders:

(a) Through the false and deliberately misleading underwriting of Uniform Residential Loan Applications (1003) of Nivie Samaan, which were opined as fraud by fraud experts;
(b) Through large scale fraud on the US government by routine  false underwriting and funding of extremely unworthy Uniform Residential Loan Applications (1003) as government-backed loans, which eventually led to the so called "sub-prime crisis";
(c) Through the repeated production, in response to legal subpoenas, of hundreds of false and deliberately misleading banking records, as opined by fraud expert;
(d) Through false appearances of Bryan Cave, LLP, not counsel of record in the caption of Samaan v Zernik, who repeatedly filed false and deliberately misleading, malicious motions under the caption referenced above, using a false and deliberately misleading party designation of "Non Party";
(e)  Through false appearances of Bryan Cave, LLP, not counsel of record in the caption of Samaan v Zernik, who filed false and deliberately misleading, malicious papers on behalf of Sandor Samuels under the caption referenced above, using a false and deliberately misleading party designation of "Interested Person";
(f) Through alleged engagement in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, in collection of payments from Attorney David Pasternak, purported as sanctions..

2) Senior Management at Bank of America Corporation (BAC), including but not limited to Brian Moynihan, engaged in alleged criminalities against Dr Joseph Zernik, against the US Government, and against BAC Stockholders :

(a) Through refusal to take corrective actions regarding alleged criminalities perpetrated prior to July 1, 2008 by the former CFC. after the July 1, 2008 take-over of CFC and to this date;
(b) Through permitting resumption of alleged criminalities through false appearances and false court actions by Bryan Cave, LLP,  under the caption referenced above, starting December 11, 2008;
(c) Through refusal to allow the BAC Audit Committee to review complaints filed with the Audit Committee pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002);
(d) Through failure to report to the BAC Audit fraud by management pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002);
(e) Through false certifications in period reports to SEC and to stockholders pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
(f) Through alleged engagement monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, in collection of payments from Attorney David Pasternak, purported as sanctions.
(g) Through false and deliberately misleading response to complaint filed by Dr Joseph Zernik with Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

3) Bryan Cave, LLP attorneys, including but not limited to Jenna Moldawsky, John Amberg, Jeff Modisett, engaged in alleged criminalities against Dr Joseph Zernik and against the people of California and the United States:

(a) Through repeated false appearances and false representations under the caption referenced above;
(b) Through false and deliberately misleading conduct in court - alleged malicious court actions to obstruct and pervert justice and facilitate fraud and extortion against Dr Joseph Zernik;
(c) Through alleged monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity with Attorney David Pasternak.

4) David Pasternak and Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton, engaged in alleged criminalities against Dr Joseph Zernik and against the People of California and the United States:

(a) Through false and deliberately misleading court appearances under the caption referenced above, designating himself as "Receiver", while he had no valid and effectual appointment order as receiver;
(b) Through affecting unlawful but credible threat of force, to drive Dr Zernik out of his own residence, to forcibly enter the residence, to engage in fraudulent conveyance of title - as opined by fraud expert.
(c) Trough alleged monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

Response is kindly requested within 10 days.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
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!

   

Brian Moynihan_ _ _ _ _ _ Sandor Samuels_ _ _  Jeff Modisset

  

John Amberg_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Jenna Moldawsky_ _ _ _ _ _ _Todd Boock

David Pasternak

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:09:36 -0800A: conspiradores aliados
De: Joseph Zernik
Asunto: Solicitud de explicaciones razonables para criminalities alegada por el Banco de América, la ex de Countrywide, Bryan Cave LLP, y el fiscal David Pasternak - bajo el pretexto de acciones judiciales, Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) en la Corte Superior de California, condado de Los Ángeles


5 de marzo 2010
Conspiradores aliados en:
Bank of America Corporation
Bryan Cave LLP
El ex Countrywide Financial Corporation Departamento Jurídico
Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton, LLP

Respuesta Se ruega plazo de 10 días.Estimado Presunta Conspiradores:

Sírvanse proporcionar explicaciones razonables para criminalities alegado por Bank of America Corporation, la primera de Countrywide Financial Corporation, Bryan Cave LLP, y el abogado David Pasternak - bajo el pretexto de acciones judiciales, Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) en el Tribunal Superior de California, el Condado de de Los Angeles.

1) El primero de Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) y de su Servicio Jurídico, dirigido por Sandor Samuels (hoy - Associate General Counsel, Bank of America Corporation) participa en diversas criminalities supuesta Dr. Joseph Zernik, en el Gobierno de los EE.UU., y los accionistas de CFC :
(a) A través de la suscripción falsa y deliberadamente engañosa de uniformes solicitudes de Préstamo Residencial (1003) de Nivie Samaan, que se opinó que el fraude por parte de expertos contra el fraude;
(b) a través del fraude a gran escala en el gobierno de EE.UU. por suscripción falsa rutina y la financiación de aplicaciones muy indigno Uniforme de Préstamo Residencial (1003) como los préstamos respaldados por el gobierno, que finalmente llevó a la llamada "crisis subprime";
(c) A través de la producción repetida, en respuesta a citaciones legales, de cientos de falsa y deliberadamente engañosa registros bancarios, como por el experto opinó el fraude;
(d) A través de las falsas apariencias de Bryan Cave LLP, no abogado de oficio en el título V de Samaan Zernik, quien en repetidas ocasiones presentó mociones maliciosos falsa y deliberadamente engañosa, bajo el título hace referencia más arriba, utilizando una denominación que parte falsa y deliberadamente engañosa de " no Parte ";
(e) A través de las falsas apariencias de Bryan Cave LLP, no abogado de oficio en el título V de Samaan Zernik, quien presentó documentos falsos y maliciosos deliberadamente engañosa, en nombre de Samuels Sandor bajo el título hace referencia más arriba, con una falsa y deliberadamente engañosa designación de parte de la "interesadas persona";
(f) A través de la participación presunta en las transacciones monetarias de bienes derivados de una actividad ilícita determinada, en la recaudación de los pagos de abogado David Pasternak, supuestamente como sanciones ..
2) Dirección general de Bank of America Corporation (BAC), incluyendo pero no limitado a Brian Moynihan, participan en supuesta criminalities contra el Dr. José Zernik, contra el Gobierno de los EE.UU., y en contra de BAC de Accionistas:
(a) a la negativa a tomar medidas correctivas en relación con presuntas criminalities perpetrados con anterioridad al 1 de julio de 2008 por el ex CFC. después del 1 de julio 2008 toma de posesión de CFC y hasta la fecha;
(b) A través de permitir la reanudación de criminalities denunciada, a través de falsas apariencias y de las acciones judiciales falsas de Bryan Cave LLP, bajo el título mencionado anteriormente, a partir de 11 de diciembre 2008;
(c) Mediante la negativa a permitir que la Comisión de Auditoría de BAC para examinar las quejas presentadas ante la Comisión de Auditoría de conformidad con la Ley Sarbanes Oxley (2002);
(d) Por falta de informe de fraude de la Auditoría BAC por la administración de conformidad con la Ley Sarbanes Oxley (2002);
(e) A través de certificaciones falsas en informes periódicos a la SEC y los accionistas de conformidad con la Ley Sarbanes Oxley (2002);
(f) A través de la participación presuntas transacciones monetarias de bienes derivados de una actividad ilícita determinada, en la recaudación de los pagos de abogado David Pasternak, supuestamente como sanciones.respuesta; 
(g) la falsa y deliberadamente engañosa a la denuncia presentada por el Dr. Joseph Zernik con la Oficina del Contralor de la Moneda.

3) Bryan Cave LLP, abogados, incluyendo pero no limitado a Jenna Moldawsky, John Amberg, Jeff Modisett, participan en supuesta criminalities contra el Dr. José Zernik y en contra de la gente de California y los Estados Unidos:
(a) A través de repetidas falsas apariencias y las representaciones falsas bajo el título hace referencia más arriba;de la conducta;
(b) A través de falsa y deliberadamente engañosa en los tribunales - presuntos acciones judiciales maliciosos para obstruir la justicia y pervertido y facilitar el fraude y la extorsión contra el Dr. José Zernik;
(c) A través de presuntas transacciones monetarias de bienes derivados de la actividad ilícita determinada con el fiscal David Pasternak.

4) David Pasternak y Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton, participan en criminalities supuesta contra el Dr. Joseph Zernik y en contra de la gente de California y los Estados Unidos:
(a) A través de falsa y deliberadamente engañosa comparecencias ante el tribunal bajo el título hace referencia anteriormente, la designación de sí mismo como "Receptor", mientras que él no tenía orden de nombramiento válido y eficaz como receptor;
(b) A través de las amenazas ilícitas que afectan pero creíble de la fuerza, para conducir el Dr. Zernik de su propia residencia, a la fuerza a entrar a la residencia, a participar en el transporte fraudulento de título - Según la opinión vertida por el experto en el fraude.
(c) Trough presuntas transacciones monetarias de bienes derivados de una actividad ilícita determinada

Respuesta Se ruega plazo de 10 días.

En verdad,


[]
José Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Por favor firme nuestra petición - Libre Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Fotos Patriótica de Beyonce Knowles, Sharon Stone, y Charlize Theron,
Pronto la música deep house!

10-03-05 Request for equal protection by California Attorney General Jerry Brown // Solicitud de igual protección de Fiscal General de California Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown
California Attorney General and Gubernatorial Aspirant

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:34:37 -0800
To: "Attention AG Brown "
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Repeat request for assistance in re: Widespread corruption of the local justice system, and alleged serious, large-scale violations of Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights in Los Angeles County, California

March 5, 2010

Jerry Brown, Attorney General
California Department of Justice
By Email.

RE: Repeat request for assistance in re: Widespread corruption of the local justice system, and alleged serious, large-scale violations of Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights in Los Angeles County, California

Dear Attorney General Brown:

I am writing again to request that you take notice of widespread corruption of the local justice system, including but not limited to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and alleged serious large-scale false arrests, false jailing, and false hospitalizations of political dissidents by the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, California.

Repeat request for issuance of Complaint numbers pertaining to long standing abusive practices of the Sheriff's Department pertaining to arrests, jailing, and coerced hospitalizations, addressed to Stephanie Maxberry, Ombudsman of the County of Los Angeles, is copied below.  So far, it was not even possible to obtain Complaint numbers for such serious Complaints.

Such Complaints are claimed to be a direct extension of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000), where large-scale false imprisonments were documented, estimated at 10,000-20,000 Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) [1]  To this date, no official report was issued by the LAPD for the 2-year, 200 investigator probe of the scandal. The vast majority of the Rampart-FIPs remained falsely imprisoned to this date, due to the fully documented concerted resistance to their release by the local justice system - police, prosecutors, and judges of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles , which remained inexplicable within the real of the law. [2]

Widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was also previously confirmed through the February 20, 2009 signing into law of dubious legal validity providing "retroactive immunities" for all judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, who took "not permitted" payments of ~$45,000 per judge, per year, for over a decade, while it became practically impossible to win a case in court against the payer. [3]  Request was previously filed with your office to inquire whether you had made any pronouncement regarding such "not permitted" payments, continuing to this date, and regarding the respective law, providing "retroactive immunities", which appeared contrary to the California Constitution, which prohibited retroactive laws.  To this date, your failed to provide any response on these matters.

The February 19, 2010 response letter from your office, [4] regarding an earlier request for Equal Protection under the Law of the Human Constitutional and Civil Rights of the 10 million residents of the County of Los Angeles, suggested that such requests and complaints be addressed to the local justice system.  Such response by your office was unreasonable, and suggested to the victims of serious abuses a futile course of actions in seeking remedies. 

The inability of the local justice system of the County of Los Angeles to address its own corruption was continuously demonstrated for over a decade. The deliberate futility was of the course of action suggested in your February 19, 2010 letter, was best demonstrated when the Rampart scandal (1998-2000), the largest corruption scandal of local justice system in the history of the United States, was left by the California and the US Justice Departments for investigation, prosecution, and judgment by the corrupt local justice system. From the perspective of a decade, the deliberate negligence of such approach is clearer than ever before.

Therefore, the February 19, 2010 response by your office, again referring victims of alleged serious abuses of Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights at the hands of the local, proven corrupt justice system to seek remedies through the same local justice system should be deemed as refusal to perform your duties.

Conditions in the County of Los Angeles, California, the widespread corruption of the judges, and the large-scale abuses of Human Rights were repeatedly brought to your attention in recent years. You repeatedly refused to perform your duties and enforce the law. On such background your comments in a recent press conference in San Bernardino County, California - as quoted by media - that you were "appalled by the corruption", and that you "have never seen anything like this" remained questionable at best...

Please accept this letter as a repeat of the following requests:

1) Please provide your opinion regarding the compliance with California Constitution, or lack thereof, in the California bill SBX-2-11, signed into law on February 20, 2009, providing "retroactive immunities" to all judges who took "not permitted" payments.

2) Please perform your duties and protect the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the 10 million residents of the County of Los Angeles, California, including, but not limited (a) Complaints, pertaining to alleged large-scale abuses by the Sheriff's Department, copied below,  (b) Ongoing false imprisonment of the thousands of Rampart-FIPs, (c) Ongoing false hospitalization of Attorney Richard Fine, with no medical cause, and (d) Widespread corruption of the judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, admitted by the judges through the dubious law providing "retroactive immunities" , which was passed at their own behest.

Conditions of the justice system of the State of California reached an all time low under your watch as Attorney General of the State of California.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
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!


Links:
[1] The Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons - a Review
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729660/09-12-17-Rampart-FIPs-Falsely-Imprisoned-Persons-Review
[2] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/06-07-15-LAPD-s-Blue-Ribbon-Review-Panel-Report-2006
[3] SBX-2-11 the bill which provided "retroactive immunities to judges who took "not permitted" payments.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-02-20-sbx-2-11-budge-bill.pdf
[4] February 19, 2010 response by office of California Attorney General Jerry Brown to complaints of large-scale, long-term serious alleged abuses of Human Rights by the justice system of the County of Los Angeles, directing the complainant to seek remedies for such abuses with the justice system of the County of Los Angeles.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27886893/10-02-19-California-Attorney-General-Jerry-Brown-Refusal-to-Enforce-the-Law-s

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:34:09 -0800
To: "Stephanie Maxberry"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Repeat request for assistance in filing complaints pertaining to Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles
Cc: "1st District:   Gloria Molina" , "2nd District Mark Ridley-Thomas"  , "3rd District  Zev Yaroslavsky" , "4th District  Don Knabe" , "5th District  Michael D. Antonovich"

March 5, 2010

Stephanie Maxberry, Ombudsman
County of Los Angeles, California
By email.

Response within 2 business days is kindly requested.

Dear Ombudsman Maxberry:

I have previously forwarded to your office a total of nine (9) Complaints pertaining to the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, California. Pursuant to your mission, as stated by you, I requested that you assist in filing the Complaints and in ascertaining that the Complaints were adequately investigated.  You also kindly informed me that for a valid Complaint process to be initiated, the Sheriff's Department must issue a 5-6 digit Complaint number for each Complaint. Finally, when no such Complaint numbers were not issued, you advised me to contact your office again if I did not receive such Complaint numbers from the Sheriff's Department by March 4, 2010.

As of today, March 5, 2010, I have never received any Complaint numbers or any other communication from the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles.

For your convenience, listed below are the nine (9) Complaints and the Addendum.  The Complaints pertained to widespread, long term, established practices of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, which were alleged as serious violations of fundamental Human Rights pursuant to ratified International Law (and also - Constitutional and Civil Rights pursuant to US law).  The Addendum also pin-pointed the alleged violations in California Law - conduct of arrests and jailing with no valid records, and the cause- large computer systems, which by both design and operation facilitated the conduct of such alleged violations.  The Addendum also proposed the solution - publicly accountable validation of the case management systems of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles.  Official report of KPMG, Los Angeles, the independent auditor of the County of Los Angeles, was also previously note, which found similar material deficiencies in other central computer systems of the County of Los Angeles.

I request that you facilitate the issuance of Complaint numbers for Complaints #1 through #9, listed below.  In case you conclude that the Sheriff's Department was not likely to issue Complaint numbers or investigate the Complaints as such, please let me know as soon as possible.

Thank you again for your help in this matter.

Response within 2 business days is kindly requested.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
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!

CC:
1) Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, California
2) KPMG, Los Angeles, Independent Auditor, County of Los Angeles, California
3) Office of Attorney General of the State of California, Jerry Brown.


List of nine (9) Complaints and an Addendum, pertaining to operations of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, filed with the Ombudsman of the County of Los Angeles, with request or the issuance of Complaint numbers.

1) Complaint #1 - False arrest and booking data for the falsely hospitalized Attorney Richard Fine, which the Sheriffs Department refused to correct.

2) Complaint #2 - False or Missing Information Regarding Arrest and Booking of Numerous Inmates Held by the Sheriffs Department

3) Complaint #3: False Hospitalizations With No Probable Medical Cause, Appearing As Cover Up For False Imprisonments.

4) Complaint #4: Alleged widespread corruption in bail/bond operations

5) Complaint #5  - False arrests and jailing of Joseph Zernik on February 6 and February 19, 2010

6) Complaint #6 - Misprision of Felonies by the Sheriff's Department in re: Armed abduction of Joseph Zernik by Richard Rodriguez and Javier on February 19, 2010.

7) Complaint #7 - RE: False jailing of Joseph Zernik on February 6 and February 19, 2010 - Disregard for California Public Records Act, Gov Code Govt Code 6254(f).

8) Complaint #8 - RE: False jailing of Joseph Zernik on February 6 and February 19, 2010 - Alleged corruption of bail/bond services and large-scale embezzlement of public funds

9) Complaint #9 - RE: False jailing of Joseph Zernik on February 19, 2010 - Robbery of personal valuables from inmates, and retaliation/harassment/intimidation against victim/witness/informant.

Addendum to Complaints #1:  #2 #3, #5, #6, #8, #9 - False arrests and jailing and hospitalizations
In conjunction with the complaints listed above, please accept the following addendum.

California Code of Regulations, Crime Prevention and Correction 3273 says:

3273. Acceptance and Surrender of Custody.

Wardens and superintendents must not accept or surrender

custody of any prisoner under any circumstances, except by valid

court order or other due process of law.

It is alleged that the complaints referenced above, #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #8, #9, all involved conduct of the Sheriff's Department where inmates were arrested or accepted into jailing with no valid court order or due process of law; That the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County established in recent decades computer systems which lacked and lack security, validity, and reliability and therefore must not be deemed as valid court orders or due process of law; That such computer systems were and are routinely used to affect arrests and jailing with no valid court order or due process of law; That for such reasons, the Sheriff's Department was and is out of compliance and in violation of the law and/or regulations.

Therefore, the proposed solution involved publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of such computer systems, which were and are employed in determination of Liberty of persons in Los Angeles County, California.

10-03-05 Repeat request for assistance by Ombudsman of Los Angeles County re: Alleged Serious Human Rights violations// Repita el procedimiento para solicitar la asistencia del Defensor de volver a Los Angeles County: Presunta graves de derechos humanos violaciónes

Sheriff Lee Baca

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:34:09 -0800
To: "Stephanie Maxberry"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Repeat request for assistance in filing complaints pertaining to Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles
Cc: "1st District:   Gloria Molina" , "2nd District Mark Ridley-Thomas" , "3rd District  Zev Yaroslavsky", "4th District  Don Knabe", "5th District  Michael D. Antonovich"

March 5, 2010

Stephanie Maxberry, Ombudsman
County of Los Angeles, California
By email.

Response within 2 business days is kindly requested.

Dear Ombudsman Maxberry:

I have previously forwarded to your office a total of nine (9) Complaints pertaining to the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, California. Pursuant to your mission, as stated by you, I requested that you assist in filing the Complaints and in ascertaining that the Complaints were adequately investigated.  You also kindly informed me that for a valid Complaint process to be initiated, the Sheriff's Department must issue a 5-6 digit Complaint number for each Complaint. Finally, when no such Complaint numbers were not issued, you advised me to contact your office again if I did not receive such Complaint numbers from the Sheriff's Department by March 4, 2010.

As of today, March 5, 2010, I have never received any Complaint numbers or any other communication from the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles.

For your convenience, listed below are the nine (9) Complaints and the Addendum.  The Complaints pertained to widespread, long term, established practices of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, which were alleged as serious violations of fundamental Human Rights pursuant to ratified International Law (and also - Constitutional and Civil Rights pursuant to US law).  The Addendum also pin-pointed the alleged violations in California Law - conduct of arrests and jailing with no valid records, and the cause- large computer systems, which by both design and operation facilitated the conduct of such alleged violations.  The Addendum also proposed the solution - publicly accountable validation of the case management systems of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles.  Official report of KPMG, Los Angeles, the independent auditor of the County of Los Angeles, was also previously note, which found similar material deficiencies in other central computer systems of the County of Los Angeles.

I request that you facilitate the issuance of Complaint numbers for Complaints #1 through #9, listed below.  In case you conclude that the Sheriff's Department was not likely to issue Complaint numbers or investigate the Complaints as such, please let me know as soon as possible.

Thank you again for your help in this matter.

Response within 2 business days is kindly requested.

Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
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!

CC:
1) Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, California
2) KPMG, Los Angeles, Independent Auditor, County of Los Angeles, California
3) Office of Attorney General of the State of California, Jerry Brown.


List of nine (9) Complaints and an Addendum, pertaining to operations of the Sheriff's Department of the County of Los Angeles, filed with the Ombudsman of the County of Los Angeles, with request or the issuance of Complaint numbers.

1) Complaint #1 - False arrest and booking data for the falsely hospitalized Attorney Richard Fine, which the Sheriffs Department refused to correct.

2) Complaint #2 - False or Missing Information Regarding Arrest and Booking of Numerous Inmates Held by the Sheriffs Department

3) Complaint #3: False Hospitalizations With No Probable Medical Cause, Appearing As Cover Up For False Imprisonments.

4) Complaint #4: Alleged widespread corruption in bail/bond operations

5) Complaint #5  - False arrests and jailing of Joseph Zernik on February 6 and February 19, 2010

6) Complaint #6 - Misprision of Felonies by the Sheriff's Department in re: Armed abduction of Joseph Zernik by Richard Rodriguez and Javier on February 19, 2010.

7) Complaint #7 - RE: False jailing of Joseph Zernik on February 6 and February 19, 2010 - Disregard for California Public Records Act, Gov Code Govt Code 6254(f).

8) Complaint #8 - RE: False jailing of Joseph Zernik on February 6 and February 19, 2010 - Alleged corruption of bail/bond services and large-scale embezzlement of public funds

9) Complaint #9 - RE: False jailing of Joseph Zernik on February 19, 2010 - Robbery of personal valuables from inmates, and retaliation/harassment/intimidation against victim/witness/informant.

Addendum to Complaints #1:  #2 #3, #5, #6, #8, #9 - False arrests and jailing and hospitalizations
In conjunction with the complaints listed above, please accept the following addendum.

California Code of Regulations, Crime Prevention and Correction 3273 says:

3273. Acceptance and Surrender of Custody.

Wardens and superintendents must not accept or surrender

custody of any prisoner under any circumstances, except by valid

court order or other due process of law.

It is alleged that the complaints referenced above, #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #8, #9, all involved conduct of the Sheriff's Department where inmates were arrested or accepted into jailing with no valid court order or due process of law; That the Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County established in recent decades computer systems which lacked and lack security, validity, and reliability and therefore must not be deemed as valid court orders or due process of law; That such computer systems were and are routinely used to affect arrests and jailing with no valid court order or due process of law; That for such reasons, the Sheriff's Department was and is out of compliance and in violation of the law and/or regulations.

Therefore, the proposed solution involved publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of such computer systems, which were and are employed in determination of Liberty of persons in Los Angeles County, California.

Sheriff Lee Baca

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:34:09 -0800 A: "Stephanie Maxberry" De: Joseph Zernik  Asunto: Solicitud de repetición para la asistencia en la presentación de denuncias relacionadas con el Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Angeles Cc: "1 º Distrito: Gloria Molina", "2 º Distrito Mark Ridley-Thomas", "3er Distrito Zev Yaroslavsky", "4 de Distrito Don Knabe", "5 de Distrito Michael D. Antonovich"
5 de marzo 2010
Stephanie Maxberry, Defensor del Pueblo Condado de Los Angeles, California Por correo electrónico.

Respuesta dentro de 2 días laborables se ruega. 

Estimado Defensor del Pueblo Maxberry:
Ya he enviado a su oficina un total de nueve (9) Las quejas relacionadas con el Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Angeles, California. De conformidad con su misión, según lo declarado por usted, me pidió que ayude en la presentación de reclamaciones y en la determinación de que las denuncias se investigan adecuadamente. También amablemente me informó de que para un proceso de queja válida para ser iniciado, el Departamento del Sheriff debe emitir un número de queja 5-6 dígitos para cada demanda. Por último, cuando no hay tal número de quejas no fueron emitidas, que me aconsejó que contacte a su oficina de nuevo, si no he recibido un número tan Queja del Departamento del Sheriff al 4 de marzo de 2010.
Al día de hoy, 5 de marzo de 2010, nunca he recibido ningún número de demandas o cualquier otra comunicación del Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Ángeles.
Para su comodidad, se enumeran a continuación son los nueve (9) Reclamaciones y la adenda.Las quejas se referían a extensos, duraderos, las prácticas establecidas del Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Angeles, que fueron denunciados como graves violaciónes de los derechos humanos fundamentales de conformidad con el derecho internacional ratificado (y también - derechos constitucionales y civiles de conformidad con las leyes de EE.UU.) . El addendum también pin-señaló la presunta violaciónes en la ley de California - realización de detenciones y encarcelamientos sin documentos válidos, y la causa de sistemas informáticos de gran tamaño, que por tanto el diseño y la operación facilitado la realización de tales violaciónes alegado. El addendum también propuso la solución - la validación de rendir cuentas públicamente de los sistemas de gestión de casos del Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Ángeles. Informe oficial de KPMG, Los Ángeles, el auditor independiente del Condado de Los Ángeles, también fue con anterioridad la nota, que encontró deficiencias materiales similares en otros sistemas de computadora central del Condado de Los Ángeles.
Le pido que facilitar la expedición de los números de Quejas de Quejas # 1 a # 9, se enumeran a continuación. En caso de que la conclusión de que el Departamento del Sheriff no era probable que el número de queja o cuestión investigar las denuncias, como tal, por favor hágamelo saber tan pronto como sea posible.
Gracias de nuevo por su ayuda en este asunto.

Respuesta dentro de 2 días laborables se ruega. 

En verdad,
José Zernik, PhD http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner Por favor firme nuestra petición - Libre Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine Fotos Patriótica de Beyonce Knowles, Sharon Stone, y Charlize Theron, Pronto la música deep house!
Cc: 1) Los supervisores del Condado de Los Angeles, California 2) KPMG, Los Ángeles, de los Auditores Independientes, en el condado de Los Angeles, California, 3) Oficina del Procurador General del Estado de California, Jerry Brown.

Lista de los nueve (9) Reclamaciones y un apéndice, en relación a las operaciones del Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Ángeles, presentó ante el Defensor del Condado de Los Ángeles, con la solicitud o la emisión de los números de demanda. 1) Queja # 1 - falso arresto y los datos de la reserva para el falsamente hospitalizados abogado Richard Fine, que el Departamento del Sheriff se negaron a corregir.
En cuanto a la detención 2) Queja # 2 - Falso o falta de información y de reservas de los reclusos numerosas reuniones por el Departamento del Sheriff
3) Queja # 3: Hospitalizaciones falsos sin causa médica probable, que aparece como encubrir falsos encarcelamientos.
4) Queja # 4: Presunta corrupción generalizada en libertad bajo fianza y operaciones de bonos
5) Queja # 5 - falsos arrestos y encarcelamiento de José Zernik el 6 de febrero y 19 de febrero 2010
6) Denuncia # 6 - encubrimiento de delitos graves por el Departamento del Sheriff en Re: el secuestro de José Armadas Zernik por Richard Rodríguez y Javier el 19 de febrero de 2010.
7) Queja # 7 - RE: Falso encarcelamiento de José Zernik el 6 de febrero y 19 de febrero, 2010 - Desobediencia a la Ley de Registros Públicos de California, Gov Código Gbno Código de 6254 (f).
8) Queja # 8 - RE: Falso encarcelamiento de José Zernik el 6 de febrero y 19 de febrero, 2010 - la supuesta corrupción de la fianza o servicios de bonos y en gran escala de malversación de fondos públicos
9) Queja # 9 - RE: Falso encarcelamiento de José Zernik el 19 de febrero, 2010 - El robo de objetos personales de valor de los reclusos, y las represalias o acoso / intimidación contra la víctima / testigo / informante.
Quejas Adenda al # 1: # 2 # 3, # 5, # 6, # 8, # 9 - falsos arrestos y encarcelamiento y las hospitalizaciones En relación con las quejas mencionadas anteriormente, por favor, acepta la adición siguiente.
California, Código de Reglamentos de Prevención del Delito y corrección de 3273 dice: 3273. La aceptación y entrega de la custodia. Directores y superintendentes no debe aceptar o renunciar la custodia de un preso bajo ninguna circunstancia, excepto por válida orden judicial o el debido proceso del Derecho. Se alega que las quejas que se hace referencia supra, # 1, # 2, # 3, # 5, # 6, # 8, # 9, todos los que participan de la conducta del Departamento del Sheriff donde los reclusos fueron detenidos o aceptado en encarcelamiento sin orden judicial o el debido proceso legal; Que el Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Angeles establecido en las recientes décadas, los sistemas informáticos que carecían y carecen de seguridad, validez y fiabilidad y por lo tanto no debe considerarse como órdenes judicial o el debido proceso de ley, que esos sistemas informáticos fueron y son usadas rutinariamente para afectar a las detenciones y encarcelamiento sin orden judicial o el debido proceso de ley, que por tal motivo, el Departamento del Sheriff ha sido y es de cumplimiento y en violación de la ley y / o reglamentos.
Por lo tanto, la solución propuesta involucrados validación rendir cuentas públicamente (certificado de verificación de la lógica funcional) de tales sistemas informáticos, que fueron y son empleados en la determinación de la libertad de las personas en el condado de Los Angeles, California.