Tuesday, November 10, 2009

09-11-10 Why we must go to a Human Rights Court outside the U.S., ASAP...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- | pic pending... |
RICHARD FINE- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -BARBARA DARWISH
The Textbook Case- - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Poster Girl
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:18:05 -0800
To: [redacted]
From: joseph zernik
Re: Did Richard Fine stipulate to commissioner? And the LA-JR (alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket), Or -
Why we, residents of Los Angeles County, must approach a Human Rights Court abroad, ASAP!
And, the quick answer is:
A copy with links to evidence will be posted at blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Under: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/11/09-11-10-why-we-must-go-to-huamn-rights.html
1) Joseph Zernik is not an attorney - not even by a long shot..
2) Joseph Zernik
declares that information provided by and
obtained from this email, intended for use on a case-by-case basis and typically by
parties of record and participants, does not constitute his official records. Any user
of the information is hereby advised that it is being provided "as is" and that it may be
subject to error or omission. The user acknowledges and agrees that Joseph Zernik
is not liable in any way whatsoever for the accuracy or validity of the information provided.

[Based on Disclaimer by Los Angeles Superior Court relative to the Court's own records]

Hi Rich:
Thanks for your note, and sorry for the delay. I was swamped with email. You are right in focusing on Commissioner Murray Gross, since that was indeed the purported reason for the false on its face jailing of Atty Richard Fine. However, you still never faxed me even one page of your Register of Actions. I would be happy to provide records pertaining to the Commissioner issue in Fine's case, and detail my opinion how such records evidence fraud by the court and "fingerprints" of the LA-JR (alleged LA-Judiciary Racket). Please fax or email to me one full page from your Register of Actions, any page, your choice.

I. Our Goal and our Mission
  • Our goal is to organize a group of people, who appeared before the Los Angeles Superior Court, and whose court records provide strong evidence of fraud by the court and abuse of Human Rights by the Court, to go abroad and file a complaint in a Human Rights Court on behalf of all 10 millions who reside in LA County, including the thousands who are falsely imprisoned, Richard Fine is just one of them, albeit - a case of the utmost importance for all who reside in Los Angeles County,
  • Our mission is to free those who are falsely imprisoned through the conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and leave behind us a court that respects Human Rights, and conducts its business through Due Process in compliance with International Law.
  • All who reside in the U.S. and hold dear their Human Rights and their Liberty must not let it stand.
II. How can you help? Share your Register of Actions, particularly if you are "Highly Desirable"...
  • The best way you can help, is by sharing your Register of Actions. After review, we would tell you if we would like to see more records. We are seeking Registers of Actions from the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Civil Unlimited, or Criminal litigations, going back to 1985, We already have a good basic collection of Civil Registers of Actions.
  • We particularly seek cases with "outrageous" perversions, where the judges pushed it an extra notch -- any case where a person on the street would understand it is a racket in 30 sec or less. (see below case of Barbara Darwish - the Poster Girl).
  • Alternatively, we are seeking documentation of attempts to obtain such court records, and denial by the Court.
  • So far we have no Criminal Registers whatsoever. It is an area of particular concern. False jailing is the clear hallmark.
III. How would you know if you are "Highly Desirable"? Most likely to turn out as an LA-JR case...
  • Any case where multiple judges were involved.
  • Any case where LA County and individual(s) were opposing parties.
  • Any case where an individual(s) and financial institution, or large corporation were opposing parties.
  • Any case involving Countrywide, and now - Bank of America
  • Any case where Specific Performance or Equity Rights were mentioned in any document
  • Any real estate case which simply did not make sense
  • - No contract was included in the Complaint,
  • - Demurrer on Statute of Frauds was overruled.
  • - Claims were based on "oral modifications of a written real estate contract"
  • Any case involving Receivers, Referees, Examiners, for the execution of judgment. In particular
  • - Any cases referred to Dept 1 or 1a in the Central District
  • , Any case involving Atty David Pasternak
  • Any case where Jacqueline Connor, John Segal, Terry Friedman, or Patricia Collins (retired) Presided as Judges,
IV. What evidence we got so far? The evidence of the LA-JR is overwhelming
  • The evidence for the operations of the LA-JR is incontrovertible - going back at least to the conduct that gave rise to the Rampart scandal (1998-2000), official and/or media reports of the false jailing of many thousands that were disclosed then, combined with records of derailing the First Rampart Trial (2000), and later official reports, which documented that the judges of the Court prevented the release of the innocent victims, to this date. The conduct of the central figure - Judge Jacqueline Connor, now documented in a civil case - where there was no police to blame, would make any reasonable person demand investigation into her conduct in the criminal courts.
  • We have strong evidence, backed by expert opinions, related to real estate frauds by the court, in a county that was titled by FBI "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud". We allege that the courts are largely responsible for the distinction. The evidence is based on numerous titles retrieved from Office of Registrar/Recorder, County of Los Angeles.
  • The general nature of the claims would be of racketeering pursuant to U.S. Law. The device is alleged to be the case management systems and routine production of false court records. The evidence of the conduct of the LA-JR would be based almost exclusively on the Court's own false and deliberately misleading records, in particular - paper court records that are false on their face, and computerized records that contradict the paper records, or what was conveyed by judges in open court.
  • Collusion with others, and collusion and/or misprision by County of Los Angeles, State of California, and U.S. Government will also be claimed. The evidence would be based on notices and requests addressed to the Court itself, and relevant Government agencies - initiate corrective actions, and on responses to such requests, or lack thereof.
V. What is the general scheme of the LA-JR? Shell-Game Fraud in court records and court rules
  • The Court holds the true court records of your case, but they are "privileged" and you are not allowed to see them
  • Only the Court knows the True Rules of Court, but they are secret, the court would not publish them.
The general scheme of the LA-JR, going back a quarter century, is described as follows:
1) Alleged fraud and deceit in the installation and operation of computerized case management systems, including, but not limited to: (a) Sustain - in the Civil unlimited division; (b) Name unknown - in the Criminal division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and (c) Name unknown - inmate case management system of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. (Pursuant to the Law of the State of California and/or U.S. Law)
2) Denial of the right of access to court records - to inspect and to copy, and/or denial of the right of access to Sheriff Department Inmate's arrest and booking records.
(Pursuant to the Public Records Act of the State of California - pertaining to all records named; also - pursuant to U.S. Law in U.S. Supreme Court's Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) - pertaining to court records, but not sheriff's. In such decision, the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed as U.S. Law a fundamental right in Common Law, which was much older than the U.S Constitution and its Amendments, and which was also universally recognized as a fundamental right in other English-speaking Countries with Courts originating in Common Law.)
3) Local Rules of Court, which permit alleged violation of the essentials of due process. Local Rules that are deemed critical for the scheme of the LA-JR included those pertaining to
  • Entry of Judgments,
  • Distribution of Business.
The Local Rules of Court are falsely and fraudulently missing, and/or falsely and fraudulently unpublished, and/or falsely and fraudulently published, and/or deliberately inadequate and/or ineffectual, and/or contrary to the law.
(Pursuant to State of California and/or U.S., and/or ratified International Law)
4) Packing of court files with false and deliberately misleading litigation records, and publishing and disseminating of false litigation records online. Trial court litigation records are published that are defined as "filed or generated by the court", and/or "not official record of the Court", and/or "as-is without warranty of any kind", albeit with disclaimers by the Court and by the County of Los Angeles relative to "the accuracy or validity of the information provided".

VI. It sounds like a basic Culture issue... Is that the case? False presumptions of Court "judicial privileges" and attorneys of "litigation privileges" - to engage in criminality in the courts, which is tolerated by U.S. Government and the U.S. public.

The judges, the leadership of the court, and other agencies, convinced themselves:
  • That converting the court into a huge shell-game fraud is a legitimate way to operate a court
  • That the judges are permitted to engage in fraud and deceit under immunity,
  • That attorneys are permitted to engage in fraud and deceit under "litigation privileges"
  • That the burden is on the litigants who are not "Real Parties in Interest" to protect themselves against fraud by the court,
  • That the Court is permitted to hide the evidence through denial of access to records, declaring the records "privileged".
  • That if you completely uncovered the fraud - the review courts are still permitted to deny remedy anyway. They would not reverse such judgments which were void, not voidable. Richard Fine is the textbook case.
VII. If you believe that you are victim of fraud at the Los Angeles Superior Court...
The evidence we seek from litigants or counsel is primarily the Registers of Actions and minute orders, alternatively - documented denial of access to the such records. We would also rely on evidence, which is the online publicly accessible records. The complaint would largely ignore what the litigants themselves considered fair, just, equitable, or consistent with public policy interests. However, it would rely on testimonies by the litigants pertaining to basic facts of the litigations, as understood by them during the litigations, based on records that were available to them, or verbal directives by judges and clerks in open court. Of particular significance are any records that were received by mail from the court, or were received by hand from a clerk of the court.

Other information sought from litigants records their personal understanding of the basic facts regarding the litigation, where false data is often found in the Registers of Actions: (1) The overall dates of the litigation; (2) The dates and titles of the individual proceedings on a day by day basis; (3) The names and represented authority of those who presided in the proceedings (including judges, commissioners, referees, debtor examiners, receivers, etc); (4) The names, party designations, and counsel representations of opposing parties; (5) General representations regarding jurisdiction U.S. law, California law, other; (6) The identify of records that were represented to them as calendars, notices, minute orders, rulings, orders, decrees, judgments of the court, particularly any paper that was received by mail on wire from the court or from parties; (7) The identify of records that were represented as the foundation for any execution of court actions, or any injunction or prohibition imposed on them. (8) Reasons that were provided for denial of jury trial, if applicable.

Individual litigants would also be able to provide information that may be missing, or deliberately concealed in court files: For example:
1) The Poster Girl Barbara Darwish of the LA-JR - Galdjie v Darwish, in May 1992, Defendant Ms Barbara Darwish appeared for trial in Santa Monica Superior Court, as noticed. She was then deceived to proceed to Culver City Municipal Court, where an anonymous presided as Judge, marked in court files only as "Muni Judge". He perpetrated on her a false "Bench Trial" to take her 6-unit Santa Monica rental property. I located her, and she provided a declaration that it was John Segal.
2) Ripped by the Bank - In my case, Samaan v Zernik, the involvement of Countrywide and now Bank of America, was falsely concealed in various ways, Countrywide and Bank of America, are allowed by the Clerk to file papers for 2.5 years, to this date, under the false, fake party designation of "Non Party", they even purported to enter two judgment for contempt, to issued serious sanctions, exceeding $30,000 - all under such fake papers. In the Registers of Actions and Minute Orders - the court interchangeably designated them "Plaintiff", "Defendant", "Intervenor", "Party in Interest", "Cross Defendant", all false designations, with no legal foundation in the case at all.

VIII. Have we tried to have it fixed by the Court leadership?
Substantial efforts were documented of attempts to address these issues with the Presiding Judge and Clerk of the court. Today I consider the central figures in the operation: Clerk John A Clarke, Counsel Frederick Bennett, and Judge Jacqueline Connor.
Over the past two years, I repeatedly filed requests with the Clerk John Clarke, and Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, mostly for access to court records, and in recent months I focused on the following requests:
1) To permit access to court records - to inspect and to copy - in cases of alleged racketeering, including but not limited to the case of Richard Fine (Marina v LA County), and the case related to the secret payments by LA County to all judges (Sturgeon v LA County) - where access would provide definitive evidence of the fraud.
2) To publicly disclose the secret Local Rules on Entry of Judgment - The ambiguity in entry of judgment in LA County is one of the pillars of the conduct of the LA-JR. It stems from the installation of Sustain, and elimination of the Books of Judgment ~1985, when Ronald George, today Chief Justice of California Supreme Court was in leadership positions in LA Superior Court, according to his official biography, and refusal to adjust the Local Rules of Court ever since.
3) To remove from court files particular false on their faces records, which the Clerk should never have filed in the first place - including the False on their Faces March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Richard Fine in Marina v LA County, false on its face August 17, 2009 Minute Order I was served by the Court in Sturgeon v LA County, and false on their faces judgments and orders appointing David Pasternak Receiver in real estate cases of Samaan v Zernik and Galdjie v Darwish.
4) Alternatively - to certify by the Clerk, pursuant to Rules of Court, particular Orders and Judgments - such as those I listed above, which are all evidence of the conduct of the LA-JR.
5) To initiate corrective actions regarding particular cases of fraud by the court - including, but not limited to:
  • Fraud on its face in the judgment of Richard Fine - the Textbook Case
  • Fraud on its face in the judgment of Barbara Darwish - the Poster Girl
  • Fraud as opined by highly decorated FBI veteran in my case.
Response:Clerk John A Clarke, and the Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, failed to respond at all. They would not remove from court file false on their faces records, but they refuse to certify them either. In between - they allowed such false records to be used by others for execution of judgments that the Court itself considered false on their faces - as was the case in the jailing of Richard Fine, and as was the case in taking properties in my case and the case of Ms Barbara Darwish. However, over the past two years I received a series of lengthy letters from the Counsel for the Court, Frederick Bennett and Bret Bianco, on these matters, which are deemed false and misleading and contradictory. They tried to fabricate excuses for that which is inexcusable - general denial of the public access to court records in Los Angeles County for the past 25 years, and a fraudulent scheme relative to entry of judgment and relative to the execution of judgments through referees, debtor examiners, and receivers, all with no authority at all.

IX) Have we tried to get help from the County of Los Angeles?
I also filed complaints and requests for audit of the Court's Computers and the Court's financial records with County officials, County Counsel, County Auditor/Controller, and with the Independent Auditor - KPMG:
1) Evidence showed well-established signs of fraud in financial management at the LA Superior Court in the LA-JR cases, where the Registers of Actions showed "Journal Entry" of funds, and the Clerk and Presiding Judge refused to disclose the final account destinations of such funds.
2) The annual reports of the court include no financial statements at all. There is no evidence that the court ever employed an independent auditor, and the Court would not answer any questions on the subject.
3) There is no central registration, - outside the paper court files - of financial judgments and real estate conveyances of titles - where we find abundant evidence of fraud since the court eliminated the Book of Judgments that is prescribed by California Law. Attempts to identify central registration, accounting, and audit showed that there was none. The court would not certify the papers related to the conduct of receivers - e,g. Att David Pasternak, where in at least two case, it is fraud on its face.

Response: Receipts of my requests were acknowledged by one Supervisor, and the office of Auditor/Controller. No other response was received.

X) How about FBI and U.S. Attorney Office? It sounds like a classic case for them...
Not in Los Angeles. Review of the reports of the Section on Public Integrity shows no enforcement in the past 25 years - as far back as the records go. In December 2008, the FBI stated its policy in New York state:
The case is being handled by the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section in Washington, D.C., and the FBI's Albany division. "This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.
Response: FBI in Los Angeles refused to investigate for the past 3 years.
We have a note from a decorated veteran FBI agent explaining that the FBI in Los Angeles agreed that my case was real estate fraud, but that they would NOT investigate real estate fraud, because it involved the judges.

XI) How about the State of California Attorney General Jerry Brown? Isn't he running for governor?
Jerry Brown assigned the case over a year ago to his "Special Assistant" - who determined that it was a "private matter" and that the Attorney General of California should not interfere in the Court of Los Angeles.

XII) How about your elected officials in Washington DC?
A year ago, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Diane Watson filed on my behalf formal Congressional Inquiries on U.S. Dept of Justice and FBI regarding their failure to respond to my complaints. At the bottom line, I requested the Appointment of Special Counsel for guaranteeing the right of public access to court records at the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, through investigation, and if necessary prosecution of those who deny such access.

Responses: The responses to U.S. Congress were provided by Director of the U.S. Department of Justice Kenneth Melson, and Assistant Director of FBI for Criminal Investigations Kenneth Kaiser, and were false and deliberately misleading. Regardless of my complaints, all of these agencies had to be familiar with the ongoing false imprisonments on a large scale of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) - a full decade after the scandal erupted. The case of the Rampart-FIPs would be central to our complaint in a Human Rights Court.

XIII) How about the U.S. Courts? Aren't they supposed to be the protectors of individual civil rights?
That was probably the most disturbing part of the Richard Fine case, the way it was handled by U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, and U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.

Responses: I know the response of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, I was served with a copy of the purported Order denying the Petition which Richard Fine filed from the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, since I was listed as a "Party in Interest",..
  • It was a false on its face paper, undated, unsigned, which came by mail with no Attestation by Clerk.
  • It was generated in the names of Chief Judge - Alex Kozinski, and Circuit Judges - Richard Tallman and Richard Paez...
  • It was nothing special, simply the standard "Frivolous Prisoner" technique...
  • Richard Fine was deceived all the way up to the Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit


I am also sending a copy of this email to Cheri, who sent me a full Register of her case, hoping that she would encourage you to let me see at least one full page of your register. Any page, your choice...

Joe Zernik

At 11:21 AM 10/17/2009, you wrote:
by email: 10/17/2009 12:30
Joseph Zernik:


I finally noticed that Fine's problems are because of actions of a COMMISSIONER.

I hope it has not been overlooked that you must STIPULATE to letting a commission be the judge in a matter. I know this because I had a problem with a commissioner. If you need the court rule, let me know and I'll dig it up.

I'm pretty sure that the stip has to be in writing. Mine was. It should be part of the case that Fine was involved in.

Incidentally, the reason they use Commissioners, is that they can be FIRED (unlike Judges) so they are easier for the court to control. It seems unlikely that Fine would agree to one.