Frauds Galore by the LA Superior Court- for over a quarter century...

And who is behind it all? You guessed right...

Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:16:21 -0800

To: "sarah overton" , kdicarlo@cmda- law.com, "D. Brett Bianco"

From: joseph zernik

Subject: Rules of Court. Time if of the essence! Your timely

response demanded by Friday, Nov 14, 2008, 5:00pm

Cc: martin_berg@dailyjournal.com, Fklunder@lasuperiorcourt.org, and about 20 other attorneys, including attorneys for the judiciary committees of the House and Senate, and Civil Right Attorneys on the Consent Decree of LA.

Nov 13, 2008

Att. Sarah Overton

Att K. DiCarlo

Att D Bret Bianco

Counsel for the Los Angeles Superior Court

RE: Rules of Court

Time if of the essence! Your timely response demanded by Friday,

Nov 14, 2008, 5:00pm

Att Overton, Att DiCarlo, Att Bianco:

The offices of Presiding Judge Stephen Czuleger and the office of

Clerk/Executive Officer John Clarke have refused to answer any

questions for a while, and both offices referred me to you for

responses.

The following questions are not asked as part of any litigation.

These questions are not asked as part of any discovery process.

These questions are asked by a U.S. citizen whose civil rights

have been abused by the LA Superior Court for the past three years

under the color of law. The rules listed below are all rules that

the court should have published pursuant to Rule Making Enabling

Act 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071 - 2077, but failed to do so for over a

quarter century.

Copy is emailed to Mr Martin Berg, Editor of the Daily Journal,

who is also refusing to answer any questions in this regard. Copy

is also emailed to Mr Fred Klunder, Chief Information Officer of

the Court, with the expectation that he review such responses and

verify them.

Failure to respond must be deemed as admission of such statements

as listed below.

Please confirm or deny the following statements.

A. Case Registration and Assignment Procedures

1) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) is not a valid litigation of the

State of California Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles.

2) Liu v Zernik (BC370642) is not a valid litigation of the State

of California Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles.

3) Judge Jacqueline Connor never had Samaan v Zernik duly assigned

to her as judge.

4) Judge John Segal never had Samaan v Zernik duly assigned to him

as judge.

5) Judge Terry Friedman never had Samaan v Zernik duly assigned to

him as judge.

B. Sustain - General

6) The LA Superior Court installed around 1985 Sustain as its case

management system.

7) The Honorable Ronald George, today the Chief Justice of the

California Supreme Court, served at that time in leadership

positions in the LA Superior Court.

8) Sustain was procured from a company by the same or similar name.

9) Sustain was procured from a company controlled by the Daily

Journal.

10) The court has procured services related to maintenance of

Sustain after its initial installation from a company controlled

by the Daily Journal.

11) The operating rule in the LA Superior Court is "Sustain is

privileged - for the court only".

C. Sustain - Specific Features

12) Sustain includes a feature, which allows to dispose/void a

minute order by entering an invalid "Date Minutes Entered" such as

"00/00/00" or "33/33/33".

13) In Samaan v Zernik, Jacqueline Connor, John Segal, and Terry

Friedman, used the feature described in 12).

14) Sustain Case History allows users to enter arbitrary filing

dates, even if such dates are prior to the filing of the complaint.

15) In Samaan v Zernik the court of Judge Connor made such entries

as described in 14) on page 1 of Case History in July 2007, but

the filing dates listed were earlier than the date the complaint

was filed (Oct 25, 2005).

16) One of the entries described in 15) listed Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc, as "Real Parties in Interest".

17) Between December 2007 and April 2008 (April 2008 included),

the Court of Judge Connor removed such entries as described in 15)

from Case History page 1, without any visible notation.

18) Sustain Register of Actions includes rules such as: For an

action to be registered in the Register of Actions as a valid,

adjudicated court action, it must be listed first as a valid

"Event", and it must also be listed as a valid "Event Complete".

19) Sustain Register of Actions includes rules such as: Under an

"Event" listing, only one court action may be validly registered.

20) In Samaan v Zernik any "Event" listing that included more

than one court actions, only one of these actions, if any, was

truly registered as a valid, adjudicated court action.

21) In Liu v Zernik, and also in Samaan v Zernik, any event that

was never listed as an "Event Complete", was never truly

registered as a valid, adjudicated court action.

22) Sustain includes specific rules for the valid registration and

for the valid entry of Judgements and Orders that are appealable.

23) In Samaan v Zernik, Judge Connor never completed valid entry,

as required in Sustain, of Judgment by Court per CCP section 437c

on Aug 9, 2007.

24) In Samaan v Zernik, Judge Segal never completed valid entry,

as required in Sustain, of Order Appointing David Pasternak

Receiver, on Nov 9, 2007.

25) Sustain recognizes only specific natural language terms as

valid court actions in the "Event" listing.

26) "Ex-parte Application" is a valid term recognized by Sustain

as a court action when listed as an "Event".

27) "Exparte proceeding" is not a valid term recognized by Sustain

as a court action when listed as an "Event".

28) "Demurrer" is a valid term recognized by Sustain as a court

action when listed as an "Event".

29) "Hearing on Demurrer" is not a valid term recognized by

Sustain as a court action when listed as an "Event".

D. Other Rules of Court

30) There is no relationship between the published Rules of Court

of LA Superior Court relative to the entry of Judgment and that

which is in fact the practice of the court today.

31) The LA Superior Court denies the pubic access to the true

Registers of Actions, the true Calendars of the Court, the true

Index of All Cases and the true Book of Judgments, if such Books

of Court exist at all, in any media including, but not limited to

paper, digital, microfilm, tape, etc.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, which holds

substantial significance to all 9.5 millions that the LA Superior

Court claims to serve.

Joseph Zernik