09-04-08. Request to file Notice of alleged perverted discrepancy notices
To: Pro Se Clerk, US District Court, Los Angeles
From: Joseph Zernik
RE: Filing in Zernik v Connor et al 2:2008cv01550
Please file the attached paper, and mail back a conformed copy (or copy indicating whatever action was taken relative to the paper), in the self- addressed stamped envelope provided.
I hope that Pro Se Clerk Chris (the older guy) does not take my allegations that he engaged in fraud (criminal conduct) relative to adulteration of my summons as a personal offense. After all, he likewise expected me to take his deceitful conduct as part of business as usual.
____________________________________
.
The paper itself can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-07-notice-of-alleged-perverted-discrepancy-notices-s.pdf
.
Excerpt:
TO PARTIES’ COUNSEL OF RECORD, TO PARTIES WITH NO COUNSEL OF RECORD - BUT PRETENDING TO HAVE A COUNSEL OF RECORD, TO PARTIES SIMULTANEOUSLY IN PRO SE AND REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OF RECORD, TO PARTIES THAT THE COURT HAS ALLOWED NOT TO BE LISTED AT ALL, TO COUNSEL OF RECORD OF NO PARTY AT ALL, TO MAGISTRATE CARLA WOEHRLE, AND TO JUDGE VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, AS MAGISTRATE AND JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THAT WHICH IS NOT VALID LITIGATION IN US COURT, AND ACTING WITH NO AUTHORITY AT ALL -
Detailed listing of counsel and parties to whom this paper is addressed:
a) Att Overton and DiCarlo - For Defendants who are the judges and clerks of the LA Superior Court, ADR Services, and retired judge O'Brien.
b) Att Amberg and Moldawsky - For themselves. They refuse to disclose the identity of clients, who may have engaged them, if any.
c) Att Todd Boock - For Countrywide? Countrywide is today a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation (BAC), although the court failed to notice that in its records. The legal Department of BAC repeatedly instructs Plaintiff that Att Todd Boock is the only counsel, who is authorized to represent BAC and Countrywide in Court, and explicitly denies that Bryan Cave, LLP, Amberg and Moldawsky are authorized to represent BAC.
However, Att Todd Boock repeatedly claims that he is prohibited from communication with Plaintiff by some undisclosed unknown court order. He also claims, contradicting the office of Legal Counsel, that Bryan Cave, LLP is authorized to represent BAC/CFC. The scheme, which is presumably meant to generate conditions where no counsel is in charge, is repetition of a scheme previously employed by Countrywide in the Court of the Honorable Jeff Bohm, US Judge, Houston Texas and described in Memorandum Opinion, March 5, 2008 (Docket # 31 in Zernik v Connor et al) . That Memo was described by media as “rebuke” of Countrywide’s litigation practices. According to that Memo Countrywide had promised the Honorable Jeff Bohm not to engage again in such schemes. As we see here, the Honorable Jeff Bohm’s trust in Countrywide was not necessarily well placed.
d) Angelo Mozilo - No way to figure out which counsel represents him, if any.
e) Sandor Samuels - No way to figure out which counsel represents him, if any.
f) Timothy Mayopoulos, General Counsel, BAC - No way to tell who represents BAC, if any. BAC has failed to file and/or docket adequate corporate disclosure, and also appears to conduct itself in violation of its own Outside Counsel Procedures1 and Code of Ethics2.
g) Kenneth Lewis, President, Chair, CEO, BAC - No way to tell who represents BAC, if any at all. BAC has failed to file and/or docket adequate corporate disclosure.
h) Att John Patton - For David Pasternak. However, David Pasternak insists on simultaneously being listed in pro se.
i) Att David Pasternak - For himself. He claims to be simultaneously represented and in pro se4.
j) Att Michael Wachtell - For Mara Escrow. A subsidiary of Old Republic Title Insurance Corp, but failing to disclose that fact and/or have it adequately docketed.
k) Judge Virginia Phillips - By email and by USPS - since Plaintiff is denied his First
Amendment Right to file papers in court, and therefore access to the
courts.
.
l) Magistrate Carla Woehrle - By email and by UPSP - since Plaintiff is denied his
First Amendment Right to file papers in court, and therefore, access to
the courts.
.
m) The Pro Se Clerk - For the record – 4 copies of this filing will be presented today to
the pro se clerk, in a repeat attempt to exercise my First Amendment
rights.
.
The court denied my request for electronic filing (Docket #42 in Zernik v
Connor et al), thereby establishing from the start a system whereby a pro se litigant is
burdened with substantial costs and waste of time that no other party was burdened
by. Furthermore, as it turned out, the Pro Se clerk was used to dishonestly deny me
the right to file papers with the courts in alleged abuse of my First Amendment rights.
As the pro se clerk himself explained – such conduct was all per instructions by
magistrate Carla Woehrle.
.
The requirement to appear before he pro se clerk has made any attempt to file
papers with this court both futile and abusive. And of course – no other party was
subjected to such abuse.
.
Magistrate Carla Woehrle, in denying the request to file electronically, claimed
that the rules of Court prohibit her from doing so. That is not the case for example, in
US District Court in Washington DC, and such rule must be deemed unconstitutional
upon review, if at all adopted in compliance with the Rule Making Enabling Act, 28
USC §2071-7.
///
CC: This notice is also copied to:
a) Audit Committee of Bank of America Corporation - As an Addendum to
complaint pursuant to Sarbanes and Oxley Act (2002) both by email and on a disc. Therefore, there is no excuse of shortage of staff required for scanning…
.
b) Various Congressional Committees - In re: Courts, Sub-Prime and Bailout
scandals
.
c) SEC- As an Addendum to Complaint against BAC/CFC
.
d) NGOs- For review.
///
.
.
1) VERIFIED REQUEST FOR LENIENCE FOR PLAINTIFF IN PRO SE
.
In filing these Notices I requests special lenience as plaintiff in pro se - for my
"inartful pleading" (Erickson v Pardus, 2007). In particular, I am not qualified in
assessing the validity of legal theories. I ask the court to ignore any irrelevant or
erroneous legal theory I claim, and do take into consideration the facts and the claims
themselves, and if they can support some other valid theory, assign such legal theory
to them, and review them pursuant to such valid legal theory (Haddoc, 1985).
.
Given the track record of this court, it is necessary to also request another kind
of special lenience: That this court stop dishonest conduct against plaintiff, by a judge,
by a magistrate, by pro se clerk, and by counsel and parties. Some counsel I have
consulted in the past claimed that such conduct was only taking place because I was
appearing in pro se. I therefore ask for special lenience as pro se litigant, not to be
subjected to such dishonest conduct.
.
Given the track record of this court, it is particularly necessary to repeat a
previous request to stop dishonest manipulation of docketing (E.g.Docket #60 in
Zernik v Connor et al), amounting to abuse of my First Amendment rights, and denial
of my right to Access to the Courts and to Equal Protection. Please docket this paper
under the appropriate tag. Please docket it in full. It is also provided as an PDF file
.
Submitted April 6, 2009, La Verne, California,
_______________________
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff in pro per
.
.
2) VERIFIED REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF ALL
PAPERS PREVIOUSLY FILED BY PLAINTIFF AND LISTED IN THE
DOCKET REPORT.
.
I request that the court incorporate by reference all of Plaintiff’s filings that are on the
Docket Report of Zernik v Connor et al.
.
Submitted, April 6, 2009, La Verne, California,
_______________________
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff in pro per
///
.
.
3) VERIFIED REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF ALL
PAPERS PREVIOUSLY FILED BY PLAINTIFF AND STAMPED
“RECEIVED BUT NOT FILED” WHICH ARE MISSING FROM THE
DOCKET REPORT.
.
I also request that the court list in the Docket Report all of Plaintiff’s filings that were
deemed in “Discrepancy”, pursuant to what is deemed by plaintiff a perverted
“discrepancy” procedure. Once listed, I request that such papers be incorporated by
reference as papers found by this court in Discrepancy.
.
Submitted April 6, 2009, La Verne, California,
_______________________
Joseph Zernik
///
.
.
4) VERIFIED NOTICE: PAPERS STAMPED “RECEIVED BUT NOT
FILED”, AND ALLEGED PERVERTED DISCREPANCY NOTICES.
.
Vast majority of which are entirely missing from any record of this case. Where are
these papers?
.
Exhibit 1 is a partial list of such papers.
.
Submitted April 6, 2009, La Verne, California,
_______________________
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff in pro per
.
.
Attached to instant paper:
.
Attachment 1) Partial compilation of discrepancy notices.
Attachment 2) Proposed Order
.
.
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION OF REQUESTS AND NOTICE OF
ALLEGED PERVERTED DISCREPANCY NOTICES
.
I, Joseph Zernik, have read the foregoing Requests and Notice of
Alleged Perverted Discrepancy Notices and I know the content thereof to be true it is
correct based on my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein
stated as based upon information and belief, and as to to those matters, I believe them
to be true and correct as well. The Exhibit includes true and correct copies of
original records n my possession.
.
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of
perjury pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
.
Executed here in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, on this 6th day in April,
2009.
_______________________
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff
in pro per
No comments:
Post a Comment