In paper Court File records- dated 3/19/2008.
Here - in electronic Court File recrods -
Invalidated with a Date of 00/00/00
CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW
Discovering, archiving, and disseminating knowledge regarding abuse of the People by governments and corporations in the Medieval Digital Era// גילוי, ארכיבאות, והפצת מידע על התעללות בציבור על ידי ממשלות ותאגידים בימי הביניים הדיגיטליים
1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds:
In paper Court File records dated - 1/30/08
Here - from electronic Court File Records -
Invalidated with a date of: 00/00/00
CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW.
a. From paper Court File -
Valid Date - 1/30/2008
CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW
Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS
1. Re-assignment Order to Judge Jacqueline
a. Connor: a. In Paper Court File - False Date : 11/1/2005
SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS:
1. Minute Order: Reassignment to Judge Jacqueline A. Connor
A. From paper Court File -
Notice False Date of 11/1/2005
CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW
There are hardly any documents where these two dates match. Such cannot be valid Litigation Records.
4) The Superior Court is avoiding ever presenting the Sustain report titled: "Case History", which the Court itself is using as "Register of Actions".
SUSTAIN - THE LA SUPERIOR COURT'S CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Excerpts from a document filed with the California Court of Appeal , 2nd District.
d. Sustain Incorporates Some Features that Should Never be
Allowed in CMS – Such as Secret Invalidation of Records.
i. Item #27, Exh p25 May 14, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte
Application to Shorten Time to Hearing Motion for Reconsideration- secretly invalidated…
ii. Item #52, Exh p55, Sept 20, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Due Process and Proposed Referee O’Brien “lodged” Motion for Appointment as Referee - secretly invalidated…
The record shows that this minute order was invalidated after April 30, 2008
by changing the entry date to “00/00/00”. Judge Goodman was with no
authority at that time, and whether he or anybody else invalidated this minute
order, it was a case of falsification of litigation records.
Judge Goodman never realized that Countrywide was involved in this case
until about a month after taking over as Presiding Judge. That is very difficult
to accept at face value. But once he realized that, and given his “long term
close personal friendship with the chief legal counsel of
Countywide”, he immediately recused himself.
One must commend his honesty, even if he was late to remember his friends.
But then again, careful inspection of the records shows that he vacated the
minute order after it was issued and noticed to parties… and that he forgot to
notice the parties of the fact that he vacated that order.
One must note that Judge Goodman was with no authority at all after his
recusal, including no authority to vacate his own Minute Order. Therefore, if
he himself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of
falsification of litigation records.
iv. Item #67, Exh p 65, Nov 5, 2007 Judge Segal’s Ex Parte For Shortened Notice Hearing On Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of A Receiver – secretly invalidated…
This is the minute order of Plaintiff’s ex parte to shorten time for hearing on
appointment of receiver. Given the ruling was on Nov 5, 2007, opposition was
due on Nov 6, 2007, that is the next day. Judge Segal decided to generously
allow Defendant two extra days till Nov 8, 2007.
A legitimate Minute Order was issued and incorporated in paper Court file, but
the electronic Court File data shows it was invalidated by changing the entry
date to 33/33/33. No notice was given to litigants.
v. Item #78, Exh p 73 DEC 7, 2007 -Ex Parte Proceedings Before The Honorable Lisa Hart- Cole – secretly invalidated…
The record indicates that Judge Hart-Cole followed the same routines. By the
time she was recused, her records show that she already set the grounds for
running a hearing on Receiver’s ex parte application as an “off the record”
proceeding. In addition, after issuing the minute order of her own recusal and having a clerk mail it out, which was also entered in the paper court-file, same Minute Order was vacated without making any explicit record of it, just changing the document date to “00/00/00”.
One must note that Judge Hart-Cole was with no authority after her recusal,
including no authority to vacate her own Minute Order. Therefore, if she
herself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of falsification of
vi. Item #83, Exh p 78, Supervising Judge Rosenberg, Dec 26, 2008 Minute Order Denying Appellant’s Ex Parte for Due Process – secretly invalidated…
On December 26, 2008, Appellant appeared before the Supervising Judge, to
ask for his civil rights to be restored – access to litigation records, vacating of
false records, etc. Judge Rosenberg denied it all wholesale. But then he
vacated his own Minute Order with no notice to Appellant.
vii. Item #90, Exh p 83, Judge Friedman, Jan 30, 2008 Appellant’s Ex Parte Application to Release Funds that are his Proceeds from the Sale of his Home against his Will, and are Held by the Court with no Legal Authority – secretly invalidated…
On Jan 30, 2008, Appellant appeared Ex Parte before Judge Friedman, and
asked that the Court release his funds, originally ~$800,000, but ever
vanishing, held by the Court with no due authority.
Judge Friedman immediately denied the application, with prejudice, and
warned Appellant that if he asks for it again, Judge Friedman would impose
Later – Judge Friedman vacated this order. Therefore, on May 19, 2008,
Appellant came again ex parte to ask for release of his funds. Judge Friedman
was not in that day, so Appellant was seen by Judge Tarle, who denied the
application, with prejudice again.
e. Sustain allows the Judiciary to Run Proceedings “of the record” without notice to parties.
This litigant of course would never have participated in any of these
proceedings, had he known that they were off the record.
i. Item #13 Exh p13 – 10/31/06-11/9/06 Defendant’s Motion To Expunge Lis Pendens – “off the record”
Combined, these records demonstrate the proceedings of Defendant’s Motion
to Expunge Lis Pendens, which was managed entirely as an “Off the Record “
procedure. This abuse of the system is pervasive throughout the records, and
is directly tied to the assignment of multiple independent Events to a single
An adequately verified Case Management System should not have allowed
such to be practiced. The abuse of the system is also tied to the assignment of
adjudication “Motion Denied” to an Event that was “Case Management
Conference”. Again, a adequately verified Case Management System should
not have allowed that entry.
None of this evidence could ever be found by Appellant had he relied on Case
Summary – the document filed by Defendants as the “Docket”. It appears that
Courtnet and Case Summary rely heavily on text editing, but have minimal
assertions and limitations that are built into the software – in short – it would
tolerate almost anything, but it is not the formal record of the litigation.
None of this could be figured out using records typically provided to
litigants in LASC.
ii. Item #11, Exh p 11, 13, 15, Oct Nov 2006 – Trial Setting Conference – “off the record”
The Trial Setting Conference was a proceeding “off the Record”, and no trial
date was ever adequately entered in Sustain, while Judge Connor continued to
manipulate trial dates and to switch between Jury and Non-Jury trials, until
after she was disqualified, Sept 10 2007, when she finally formally entered trial
date into the system at around 4:30pm.
In between, Summary Judgment hearing was conducted less than 30 days
before trial date, as set at that time, with no explicit notice or permanent
record of such. Note the date of entry of Minute Order is not consistent among
the several pages of the Minute Order, changing in the last page from
November 9, 2006 to January 16, 2007.
None of this could ever be figured out from Case Summary in Courtnet. None
of this could be figured out using records typically provided to litigants in
iii. Item #31, July 6, 2007 - Indeterminate Party Countrywide Ex Parte Application For A Protective Order – “off the record”
Zernik often asked, but never got the answers:
Now Zernik knows, that the answer is that this was another “off the record”
proceeding. For that reason, the Protective Order that was the outcome of this
hearing was never issued, never recorded, never produced, and never noticed
But when so desired, such a non-existent Protective Order was deemed by
Judge Friedman very recently – in Feb 2008 - as being “in full force and
effect”, although the order was never seen by that time or after.
Judge Friedman later also found such a non-existent order as the legal
foundation for setting serious sanctions against Zernik exceeding $22,000,
and finding Appellant in Contempt of the Court, all through a Bench Trial,
where Judge Friedman, Triar of Facts, admitted evidence that is writings
produced by Countrywide, with no authentication at all, as was the case with
Judge Connor in Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and Motion for Summary
Combined – while courts around the United States rebuke Countrywide
litigation practices, that were documented around the country to include filing
of false and misleading documents, the LASC continues abuse of Plaintiff’s
rights for Speech, Due Process, and Possession, all based on such fraudulent
The right to file mandatory counter claims for fraud, or to have a chance for a
fair hearing on motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7 on such fraudulent
documents were consistently denied.
None of this could be discovered based on :”Case Summary”, or records
normally provided to litigants in the LASC.
f. Sustain allowed Judge Connor to file fictitious Minute Orders.
Appellant believes that the integrity of courts in the English speaking countries
depended to a large degree on the checks and balances in the power of Judges
and Clerks. A Judge could write an order, but could never enter it.
On the basis of the partial data provided, Appellant believes that such
distinctions were eliminated in Sustain. The only power remaining with the
clerk to stop an invalid order is to refuse to mail it out.
But then again, it appears that the LA Superior Court holds minute orders
valid even when they are not mailed out to litigants or served in any other way,
in defiance of basic notions of Due Process, or any logic at all.
Judge Connor entered two entirely fictitious Minute Orders:
i. July 9, 2007, Minute Order – Motion for Reconsideration –
The minute order describes a telephonic hearing of motion for reconsideration
that never took place. Apparently this was to replace the minute order that she
vacated, and here she granted the motion for reconsideration. None of it was
reported to litigants – no minute order was mailed out. Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order – Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7/Disqualification Of Judge Connor
The record for this proceeding is of critical significance:
It was represented in minute order and also in a letter from Att Keshavarzi to
Retired Judge O’Brien as a proof that Judge Connor ruled that none of Zernik’s
claims of fraud in Countrywide’s documents was valid. And numerous attempts of Zernik to vacate this record, which was entered with no authority at all, and which defies truth and justice, were always denied.
An “on the record” hearing on the Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7
could have overturned the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP
Careful analysis of the record in Case History now shows:
Instead of using the correct menu selection in Sustain:
Judge Connor ran the recusal on her own motion as the only “on the record”
proceeding in this case. Both the affidavit of prejudice and the motion for sanctions per CCP §128.7 were merely “off the record” proceedings in this case.
1) This proceeding is also instructive in examining the use of Courtnet
“Case Summary” – the web-base, publicly-accessible system to
mislead. Under “Proceedings” in Case Summary, the following entry appears:
Obviously, the phrasing is deliberately tangled, to mislead, but the overall
impression is that the hearing was on the Recusal, which was granted. That is
of course the opposite of the record created in Sustain.
And on Aug 30, 2007 Appellant Took Part in What he
Thought was a Status Conference, and in Fact was
Registered as a Hearing on a Motion.
i. Item #45, Exh p 47, Aug 30, 2007 - Status Conference
This proceeding presents an entirely new deception technique: Although the
proceeding was announced as a status conference, here without defendant’s
knowledge, it is defined as a “hearing”. During the proceeding itself, Judge
Connor a couple of times referred to the conference as a “hearing” of a
“motion”. Each time defendant protested that there was no motion before the
court, but Judge Connor did not explain her secret intention – to record the
status conference as a motion to appoint an escrow referee, instead of a
unilateral court appointment. Yet the appointment was going to be a defective
one. The language of the minute order is deliberately defective:
There may be judges who write like this, but not Judge Connor, who is possibly the sharpest in the Santa Monica Court House, and by far te best writer.
On the record there was an adequate order appointing O’Brien discovery
referee, issued secretly in chambers July 27, 2007, and never noticed. But
none of that was ever mentioned. The ingenuity here is in the ability to self eface and appear dum .. when it is useful.
Absurd as it may sound: during the conference, defendant, who by now was
familiar with Judge Connor’s conduct asked her on the record ‘to be diligent in
completing an appointment in compliance with the law’ and offered the use of
ADR forms. Judge Connor, on the record, explained that she had no intention
of issuing an appointment in compliance with the law.
Later, retired Judge O’Brien, on Sept 7, 2007, will present defendant with this
defective minute order as the sole source of his authority as an escrow referee
to seize defendant’s property.
Obviously, the Order Appointing Referee, marked in Case History (P103) as
signed and entered, was either the same, alternatively – it was some secret
order, like the one from July 27, 2007, that was never noticed to anybody,
including Judge O’Brien.
In “Event Complete” (P103), one notes that in this case the “Hearing-Other”, which Defendant participated in without even being aware of it, was in fact the “on the record” proceeding in this case. The “Status Conference” was in fact an “off the record” proceeding here.
Obviously, Jury Trial (albeit, the record indicates parties agreed to non-jury
trial) date was still manually carried, not entered in Sustain, and here Judge
Connor forgot that just two days earlier she continued it to Jan 11, 2008.
h. On Sept 14, 2007, the Supervising Judge, the Hon Rosenberg, secretly filed documents in the file, with no notice to litigants.
On page 113 in Case History one finds the following entry:
The record copied above, in full, is probably the reduced essence of the use of
Sustain as an instrument of fraud on Defendant Zernik in the West District, LA
1. progress by the Judicial Council, in order to avoid errors made in the
introduction of Sustain in LASC over 20 years ago. In particular, this complaint emphasizes the unusual mode of operation of Sustain, the case management system in the West District, Los Angeles Superior Court, which different than its use in Central District. Moreover, Appellant shows significant differences in the usage pattern even between Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, both court houses of the West District.
Plaintiff believes that the introduction of Sustain in the LA Superior Court, over 20 years ago, was a major change in the Rules of Court. But there is no indication that it was treated that way. Likewise, there is no indication that the introduction of the new system, CCMS, by the California Judicial Council is treated as such (Docket #56). As an example – it is unreasonable that there is no reference at all to Sustain in the written Rules of Court of Los Angeles County, based on a word search.
The United States Rule Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. § 2071 says:
No new case management system should be allowed before giving public notice and an opportunity for comment. However, when it comes to computer systems, public comment is incapacitated absent detailed information regarding system specifications. Therefore, rules must be developed regarding the method of presentation of such systems for public comment (similar to rules regarding presentation of building plans for public comment). The logic of the programming code may need to be reduced to a set of assertions in natural language. Moreover, in consultation with experts from the field of mathematics and logic, standardized presentations may be developed, and methods of certification, to ensure that such presentations in natural language are true and correct reflection of the code. In addition, it may be necessary to certify that the logic of the system is consistent with the legal code that is implemented in it. Mathematical and logical methods such as “formal verification” and “simulation verification” may be utilized.
The system as it is operated now implements User ID’s and passwords. But such are hidden from public view in the Audit Files. That is in violation of the law relative to implementation of electronic and digital signatures. Such laws as the United States E-sign Act of 2002 and the California regulations regarding electronic signatures mandate that wherever such signatures were traditionally open to public view – and they definitely were open to public view in traditional Books of Court - they must be made accessible for public inspection also in their digital permutation.
Digital signatures must be introduced such that electronic filing (such as in Pacer) or Minute Orders (such as in Sustain) are accompanied by the party’s or the judge’s and the clerk’s digital signature, respectively, where traditionally the “wet” hand-signature would be imprinted in a traditional Books of Court.
It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration should be given to strengthening the ministerial arm of the court, as a counter balance to the judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions. The authorities of the judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully prescribed and segregated, to generate appropriate checks and balances.
The significance of correct docketing must be emphasized, and the systems must not allow easy ways to bypass the menu-driven, rule-based docketing. Without accurate docketing, the system is useless. With accurate docketing the system can become a valuable instrument in safeguarding Due Process. The contribution of the ministerial staff in this process needs to be emphasized, and their personal accountability for each act of docketing, which must bear a personal digital signature that is easily visible.
2. The Common Feature – The Culture of Silence
The California Court of Appeal surely offered helpful advice when it stated that
But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court of Appeal, like the Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the California Code of Ethics Canon 3D(1).
They all knew of the unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff by Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code, which is clear cut in its directive.
Canon 3D(1) says:
None of the judges involved took or initiated appropriate corrective action.
Plaintiff believes that best explanation for what takes place in the LA Superior Court is found in a paper by Erwin Chemerinsky -The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.
In it he states:
Much of what is stated above is directly applicable to the LA Superior Court, in particular the statement regarding the “Culture of Silence”.
Chemerinsky concludes with a statement that is also applicable here:
in pro per
May 14, 2008
I hope that you accept my request below as reasonable under the circumstances. No offense is intended, and I hope that no offence is perceived.
Given the unusual nature of my case, which involved multiple disqualifications of Los Angeles Superior Court judges and multiple recusals of United States District Court judges, I have recently filed requests with the judges that currently involved in my case, to file Statements on the Record pursuant the amended provision (effective January 1, 2008) of California Code of Judicial Ethics.
Canon 3E(2) says:
I filed such requests with:
a. The Honorable Terry Friedman, Judge
b. The Honorable J Mosk, PJ Turner and J Armstrong, Justices
c. The Honorable C Woehrle and V Phillips, Judges
Judge Friedman refuses to comply with this request and other provisions of the law pertaining to disqualification, Judges Mosk, Turner, and Armstrong denied my request, and Judges Woehrle and Phillips have not responded yet.
Given your interest in Jewish observance I have modified the request as follows.
I ask that you provide a Statement on the Record (written and hand signed, fax is ok) and disclose information (or lack thereof) that is reasonably relevant to the question of Gnevat ha-Da-at under the Code of Jewish Ethics, relative to our professional relationship, even if you believe that there is no actual basis for concern in this regard.
I told her that it was downright insulting... Everybody and his brother likes to hack down LA as a place with no culture… Now, on top of everything else, our home grown corruption was not sophisticated enough…
I was unprepared for it at all, I must say. My encounters with the law were mostly with individuals that I grew to appreciate or even admire …
Prof Chemerinsky is scheduled to come back to California as the new founding dean of the new law school at Irvine. Before he left USC for Duke, I had the opportunity to meet him a few times. I remember taking the kids years ago to watch moot court, which was one of his classes. He created a case that was both challenging and entertaining, and it played to a full house...
If I remember correctly, it started with a town with home grown crime and gangs.
But it so happened that the boys school filled up quickly, whereas the girls school was not that popular…
The end of the story was that a boy who was a self declared gang member, thus eligible for a place at the special school, decided to try to enroll in the girls school, since the boys school was full. When he was turned down, for being a boy, AND a gang-member to top it off, he sued the town for discrimination…
I also remember a reception for Justice Kennedy. His visit included participation in Prof. Chemerinsky constitutional law class. After the small reception, Justice Kennedy gave a lecture. Naturally, I took a seat at the very back, since I knew I was going to fall asleep, and I did not want to appear offensive. But I clearly recall, before falling asleep, I was smiling to myself concluding that the guy was a subversive type…. agent provocateur!
It was the height of the conservative revolution, and the country was in the midst of non-stop bashing of activist judges. Justice Kennedy lectured on a topic that couldn't be more boring – the development of tort law in medieval England. But the message was loud and clear – the whole field of Torts was the outcome of judicial activism…
The diagnosis was accurate, I believe, since years later, I recall reading in the newspaper a report about a visit by Justice Kennedy to Congress. The unusual event was necessitated for the periodic request by the justices for congress to award them with a salary increase. But since such visits by Justices to Congress are not very frequent, Justice Kennedy took advantage of the open microphone, and instead of trying to convince the lawmakers of the need for more Gouda for the Justices, he gave them a piece of his mind -- that a situation where the U.S. had the highest percentage the population incarcerated, compared to any other democracy, signaled a need for a fundamental reevaluation of the system. Definitely subversive!!!
Anyway, if you really want to figure out Los Angeles, you got to figure out the Rampart Scandal of 2003, and with it the Bernard Parks, who is not running for office again, and Erwin Chemerinsky, who is finally coming back to Southern California. I realized some time ago that I got to do my homework, and I went back to reading on that year and the Rampart Scandal of 2003. To my surprise, I quickly realized that the definitive paper was of course by Chemerinsky.
And for those readers who suffer from Adult Onset ADHD, like me, here it the long and short of it:
THE RAMPART SCANDAL AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.
1) The Long
"Police officers in the CRASH unit in the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department framed innocent individuals by planting evidence and committing perjury to gain convictions. Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit and were convicted by juries because of the fabricated cases against them. Many individuals were subjected to excessive police force and suffered very serious injuries as a result.
Any analysis of the Rampart Scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states. It occurred in Los Angeles….
… the … report is lacking in the following ways:
2) The short
"No single reform can be sufficient. Reform is not an event, but a process that will take many years to complete…"
d. Regarding Rules of Court implemented in the operation of Sustain in Santa Monica, such as:
e. Regarding the input of “Events” that require adjudication in Sustain:
Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated!