REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF SUSTAIN IN WEST DISTRICT- SANTA MONICA.

May 2, 2008

D. Brett Bianco, Court CounselSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles111 North Hill Street, Suite 546Los Angeles, California 90012213.217.4960 facsimilebbianco@lasuperiorcourt.orgBy Email and by fax

URGENT- TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
RE: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – LITIGATION RECORDS
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF SUSTAIN IN WEST DISTRICT- SANTA MONICA.
REQUEST FOR A COPY OF USER’S MANUAL FOR SUSTAIN.
TIMED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY MONDAY, 5:00PM

Mr Bianco:

I am writing to you again to request clarifications regarding the operation of Sustain in West District, Santa Monica, which appears substantially different from the operation of the system in other locations. The questions arising from analysis of the reports are critical to understanding of the records of litigation in “Samaan v Zernik”. Therefore, I request that you provide the required responses by the time indicated.

I would also be grateful if the court could provide a user’s manual, FOR PAY, so that I could continue my study of such records independently.
Here are preliminary questions that require urgent response:

a. Does the LA Superior Court hold that Sustain, as operated in West District, Santa Monica, complies with California Rules of Court, Chapter 2: Public Access to Electronic File Records?

b. Does the LA Superior Court hold that rules of court implemented in Sustain, as operated in West District, Santa Monica, are all part of the written and published California Rules of Court and Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court?

c. Regarding “Oral Rules of Court” that do not appear in either California Rules of Court or Los Angeles Country Local Rules of Court, such as “Sustain data are privileged – for the Court Only”:

• 1. Does the LA Superior Court hold that such rules comply with the US Rule Enabling Act 28 USC §2071 ?
• US Rule Enabling Act 28 USC §2071(b) says:
• (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.
  …
  (d) Copies of rules prescribed under subsection (a) by a district court shall be furnished to the judicial council, and copies of all rules prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall be furnished to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and made available to the public.
  (e) If the prescribing court determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment, but such court shall promptly thereafter afford such notice and opportunity for comment.
• 2. Were Rules of Court involved in the operation of Sustain in Santa Monica ever published?
• 3. Were such rules prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment?

d. Regarding Rules of Court implemented in the operation of Sustain in Santa Monica, such as:

• The assignment of date of “00/00/00” to a document , an order, or a ruling; and
• The assignment of date of “33/33/33” to a document , an order, or a ruling
  
  1. Who holds the authority to rule that a paper filed with the court would be at a later time designated as dated “00/00/00” or “33/33/33”?
• 2. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court are such determinations made?
• 
  3. How is the Due Process requirement for “Notice” implemented relative to such determinations or rulings?
  

e. Regarding the input of “Events” that require adjudication in Sustain:

• 
  1. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is it determined how many independent events requiring adjudication may be scheduled simultaneously under one calendar event?
• 
  2. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is the “Completion” of such Events, and the recordation of the outcome of adjudication implemented for such independent events requiring adjudication that were scheduled simultaneously under one calendar event
• 
  3. Who holds the authority to rule that a paper filed with the court would be designated as generating an “Event” versus generating just a “Document Filed”?
• 
  4. Pursuant to what code section or Rule of Court are such determinations made?
• 
  5. How is the Due Process requirement for “Notice” implemented relative to such determinations or rulings?

f. Relative to financial transactions implemented in Sustain:

• 
  1. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is it determined which papers require a fee of $40.00, and how is the fee itself determined?
• 
  2. Is there a periodic audit of financial transactions I Sustain? By whom?

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated!

Joseph Zernik

CC:
Ms Avelina Richardson, Clerk’s Office Supervisor
Mr Frank Klunder, IT Department Director

REQUEST FOR LITIGATION RECORDS FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

May 2, 2008

D. Brett Bianco, Court Counsel
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
111 North Hill Street, Suite 546
Los Angeles, California 90012
213.217.4960 facsimile
bbianco@lasuperiorcourt.org
By Email and by fax


URGENT- TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE - Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – LITIGATION RECORDS

Mr Bianco:
I am writing to you again to inform you of the refusal of Santa Monica Clerk’s Office to provide essential litigation records, and to request your help in ensuring that such records are immediately provided, and that abuse of my rights pursuant to the US Constitution, Amendment 5th and 14th, is immediately put to an end.
This is a far cry from a request for “secretarial functions” as you termed it in your April 4th, 2008 letter.
For many months I and my counsels were denied any access to litigation records in “Samaan v Zernik” as evidenced by verified declarations by legal services providers who tried to gain such access on my behalf, and my attorneys’ behalf, unsuccessfully. These services providers are surely familiar with the arrangements for payment, pick up, etc.
In recent months, as always, I am struggling to obtain access to my litigation records. The Court of Judge Terry Friedman has repeatedly refused to notice Minute Order, in abuse of my Due Process rights, and has insisted that I have to obtain them one by one (and guess when and how many were issued) from the Clerk’s office.
To keep myself informed, even if after the fact, I try periodically to obtain comprehensive set of Minute Orders and Case History from Sustain. Such efforts have always been stalled and delayed. In the past two weeks I am attempting to obtain the Minute Orders for the period of Jan 1, 2008- to present, and Case History in Sustain - to present. After many delays, legal services provider finally obtained these documents from the Clerk’s office.
However, a third critical document is still missing. Such document was promised, but was never provided. Such document was to be a printout from Sustain, including:
a) The ID Number of each Action.
In Sustain – most often the number first appears with the Journal Entry – documenting the initial payment at the time of filing for a motion, and such number defines the start of a new register Event in Sustain.
All such numbers are omitted from all printouts that I have ever received from West District, Santa Monica. But such numbers do appear in printouts of West District, Beverly Hills Actions.
b) The Time of filing and Entry and Titles of papers filed by parties in conjunction with such Event
In Sustain – most often such are entered as Document Filed.
c) Calendar information of the hearing, or no appearance review in chambers.
In Sustain – most often such are entered as Events
d) Time and succinct summary of judicial acts in the action.


In Sustain – such data are most often entered as Event Complete, simply stating: Denied, Granted, Granted in part, etc.
To the best of my knowledge such printout is termed in Sustain Register of Actions, and it is a critical litigation record. The quintessential feature of the Register of Actions is the appearance of the register numbers. Other features may or may not appear in a given printout.
I was promised such a printout yesterday, and I made necessary arrangements for pay and pickup, but such was not provided to the legal services providers. I asked for it again today by phone from John.
I again ask that you ensure that I am immediately provided with such printout.
I am also copying Mr Klunder, Director of the Court’s IT Department, on this communication, in hope that he would help and shed light on the name of the most appropriate Sustain report that includes the information described above.


Joseph Zernik
CC:
Ms Avelina Richardson, Clerk’s Office Supervisor
Mr Frank Klunder, IT Department Director