12-10-18 Beyond electronic voting machines - fraud in case management systems of the courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court

Large-scale fraud on the People in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – Sustain - enables the deprivation of liberty and property with no due process of law.

Sustain, the electronic record system of the LASC, is believed to be one of the earliest in the nation, implemented around 1985.  According to the web site of Sustain Corporation, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Daily Journal Corporation (NASDAQ: DJCO), and the system are by now implemented in 11 states and 3 nations. Who in fact controls Sustain Corporation remains unknown.

Previous reports documented the invalidity of Sustain: The LASC publishes its legal public records online, subject to a "disclaimer", stating that such records are not valid and authoritative court records. (Fig 1) In parallel, the LASC denies public access to records, e.g. the Register of Actions (California civil docket), which the LASC considers the valid court records, by concealing them in the case management system of Sustain.

Figure 1.   Disclaimer in Sustain online public records "…this site… does not consitute the official record of the court…" [[i]]

In parallel, the LASC has ceased almost universally from service and authentication/notice of entry of minutes, orders, and judgments by the Clerk of the Court. 

At the systems level, it is also be noted that the public records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (LASC), are maintained on servers, whose identity is uncertified. [[ii]] In response to inquiries, the LASC claimed that the servers are under custody of the County of Los Angeles, not the LASC.

A.    The case of Barbara Darwish (1998-2006)

In Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) in the LASC, a group of judges and the clerks colluded to take the 6-unit Santa Monica rental property of Defendant Darwish. The hallmark of the simulated litigation in the LASC took place on May 13, 2002: Defendant Darwish appeared that morning at the LASC for the scheduled Jury Trial, but was deceived by the LASC and attorneys to proceed to the Municipal Court of Culver City, where an anonymous “Muni Judge” conducted on the same afternoon a simulated “Court Trial”. (Fig 2)  Darwish later identified the "Muni Judge" - John Segal.

Superior Court records showed that neither a judgment, nor an appealable order was ever entered in the manner required by California law to make it “effectual for any purpose”.   However, the California Court of Appeal, 2^nd District (Los Angeles) took three (3) simulated appeals in the case – two of them were denied, and the third was voluntarily dismissed. (Table 1) One of the simulated appeals produced a "published decision", which permits "oral modifications" of real estate contracts, overturning hundreds of years of common law, distilled into the Statute of Frauds (1677).  

The case of Barbara Darwish commenced in 1998, a full decade prior to the onset of the "sub-prime crisis".  The case shows that the routines of real estate fraud under simulated litigation in the LASC were already well estabslihed, involving large number of attorneys and judges.

The LASC continues to deny access to the paper court file in this case.  Regardless, due to its extensive documentation, the case was key part of the evidence, repeatedly submitted since 2008 to the US Attorney General and FBI Director with requests for Equal Protection of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California, against racketeering by judges of the LASC.

Figure 2.   Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - Register of Actions [California docket – jz] in Sustain - the electronic record system of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  In this civil real property matter, Ms Darwish appeared on the morning May 3, 2002 for a scheduled jury trial.  Instead, she was deceived by attorneys and the Court to appear on the same afternoon for a "Court Trial" in the Culver City Municipal Court before "Muni Judge" , who remained anonymous.  Declaration of Ms Darwsih clarified that it the "Muni Judge", who decided to take her 6-unit Santa Monica rental property was Judge John Segal. [[iii]]

Appeal #	“Judgment Date” */ Notice of Appeal/ Trial Court Judge	California Court of Appeal Justices	Disposition
B163970	09/05/02 12/19/02 Segal, John	Curry, Daniel Vogel, Charles (Concur) Hastings, J. (Concur)	Affirmed in full Final Signed Published 113 Cal.App.4th 1331
B179667	None Listed 11/24/04 Segal, John	Curry, Daniel Epstein, Norman (Concur) Hastings, J. (Concur)	Affirmed in full Final
B191327	04/26/06 11/24/04 Segal, John	None Listed	Voluntary dismissal Final

Table 1:   Summary of Appeals in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as they are recorded in the online public access system of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District. None of the appeals was lawfully taken from a valid, entered judgment or appealable order of the trial court. [[iv]]

* The public access system of the California Court of Appeal does not list any Dates of Entry of Judgments.

B.    The case of Susan Lomas (2011-2012)

In Lomas v Bank of America Corporation (KC0559379) in the LASC, Susan Lomas attempted to protect her property against fraud by Bank of America. Judge Peter Meeka conducted on Lomas proceedings, which, as was later discovered, were secretly noted in the simulated minutes in Sustain, "off of the record". (Fig 3)  The minutes were not served on Lomas, neither were they authenticated by the Clerk of the Court.  Lomas's access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket), was and continues to be denied by the LASC.

Figure 3.   Lomas v Bank of America (KC0559379) – Minutes of August 12, 2010 "Ex Parte Motion to Stay Enforcement of Write for Possession…".  The Minutes state "The ex parte application is read and considered in chambers and off of the record…" The Minutes were never duly served or noticed by the Clerk of the Court, and are missing the integral authentication record "Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry by Clerk. [[v]] Access to the Register of Actions (Califronia civil docket) in this case and most others in LASC is denied, even to parties in their own litigation.

The case of Susan Lomas commenced over 10 years later than the case of Barbara Darwish.  The methods of conducting simulated litigation in real estate matters remained the same.  However, in the case of Lomas, a bank was the primary beneficiary.  The case is also of interest, since it commenced after FBI issued testimonies to the US Congress of no criminality by sub-prime lenders underlying the current crisis, while Bank of America Corporation was recipient of hundreds of billions of USD in US taxpayer bailouts, under representations of no fraud in its operation, and while large-scale fraud by lenders and the courts on the People were "settled" by the US government and the attorney generals of the several states.

C.    The case of Richard Fine (2007-2011)

In litigation of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420), former US prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Attorney for Plaintiff, exposed and rebuked the taking by Los Angeles judges of "not permitted payments", which were labeled by media "bribes".

Consequently, the State Bar of California disbarred Fine in 2007, and starting March 4, 2009 Fine was held by Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County in solitary "coercive confinement", which was then said to be indefinite.  Eventually, Fine was released on September 17, 2010.  No valid warrant, valid conviction, valid sentencing, valid booking records, or valid order for his release were discovered, only simulated legal public records. (Fig 4, Appendix 9)

Figure 4.   Online Inmate Information Center, Sheriff of Los Angeles County – fraud in booking records of Richard Fine.   Richard Fine was placed under indefinite coercive solitary confinement, which ended up lasting 18 months, purportedly arrested and booked on location and by authority of the "Municipal Court of San Pedro", which did not and does not exist. The image is an excerpt from formal response by Sheriff Lee Baca to Michael Antonovitch, Supervisor of Los Angeles County. [[vi]]

Repeated requests were forwarded to Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and to the LASC during the period of Fine's imprisonment, to correct the simulated legal public records and release Fine.  The requests were ignored. Public access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) continues to be denied by the LASC.

The case of Richard Fine was also part of the evidence, forwarded to the US Attorney General and FBI with requests for Equal Protection of the People of Los Angeles against racketeering by the LASC.

References

---

[i] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – online public records disclaimer, accessible at:

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummary/index.asp

[ii] Web page of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, at:

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/

[iii] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) Register of Actions (California Civil Docket), accessible at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34498017/

[iv] Zernik, J., "Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - Complaint for Public Corruption against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, RE: Conduct of three pretense appeals alleged real estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts." (2011)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/

[v] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Lomas v Bank of America (KC0559379) Minutes, accessible at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51157264/

[vi] Antonovich, M, Los Angeles County Supervisor, "January 8, 2010 response from Sheriff Lee Baca in re: Arrest and booking records of Inmate Richard Fine (1824367)", including attachments, accessible at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/

Appendices

[1]     Human Right Alert (NGO),  Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States – Los Angeles County, Califronia, as incorporated into the 2010 Human Rights Council Report with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession…" (2010)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/

[2]     Zernik, J., "The Los Angeles Superior Court - Widespread Corruption, Patronized by the US Government" (2012)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46460640/

[3]     Zernik, J., " Beyond voting machines - case management systems of the courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior Court" (2008)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110477747/

[4]     Zernik, J., " Computers & the courts: Sustain - case management system of the Los Angeles Superior Court - Registers of Action"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110475097/