Sunday, November 22, 2009

09-11-22 More about integrity of operations,or lack thereof at U.S. District Court LA....


- - - - - - -- - - - -

U.S. District Court - Los Angeles - Public Integrity, or Lack Thereof...

Request for response either from Terry Nafisi, alternatively - from Section on Public Integrity at the U.S. Department of Justice:

1) Regarding the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914):
I have raised concerns regarding the integrity of handling of the paper record that was the Habeas Corpus Petition of Atty Richard Fine, filed on March 19/20, 2009.
  • Sharon McGee, a brave woman, Supervisor at the Clerk's Office, informed me that she concurred with my concerns.
  • I then filed a request for investigation with Clerk of the Court Terry Nafisi.
  • No response was ever received.
  • Consequently, I visited the Office of the Clerk on September 18, 2009, and hand delivered a written request to access the Petition record to inspect and to copy.
  • The Duty Clerk denied my request, claiming that the paper record had been shredded.
  • I consequently filed a request to access, to inspect and to copy the records of the shredding of the petition.
  • No reseponse was ever received...
Questions:
  1. Was the petition indeed shredded by Septeember 18, 2009, less than 6 months from the date of filing?
  2. If so - was that pursuant to standard procedures?
  3. If so- can the record of the shredding be accessed?
  4. If not - why am I denied for months access to this record?
  5. Why is the Clerk of the U.S. Court avoiding answering the questions?
  6. Is she taking the 5th?
  7. If there was any wrongdoing involved, was Clerk Chris Sawyer part of it
  8. If there was any wrongdoing involved, was Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas part of it?
  9. Was Donna Thomas, Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas operating within her authority in transactions on records noted in the docket?
  10. If there was any wrongdoing, was Magistrate Carla Woehrle part of it?
2) Regarding complaint re: Abuse of Civil Rights by the LA-JR in: Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
Concerns have been raised in the past regarding alleged criminality in the conduct of Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer relative to the case number desingation in this case, and relative to the adulteration of Summons, and refusal to issue valid summons.
Additional concerns were raised regarding the elimination of records from the docket with no procedure and no documentation. About 20 papers material to the case were eliminated, some are recorded in my filing #104.

Questions:
  1. Was there any criminality in the conduct of Chris Sawyer relative to the case number desingation?
  2. Was there any criminatlity in the conduct of Chris Sawyer regarding adutleration of summons on March 5, 2008?
  3. Was there any criminality inthe conduct of Chris Sawyer regarding refusal to issue valid Summons later on?
  4. Was the elimination of paper filed by Plaintiff Joseph Zernik from the docket in compliance with the law?
  5. Were transactions made by Donna Thomas in the docket within her authority?
  6. Chris Sawyer claimed that the denial to issue summons was by order of Magistrate Carla Woehrle, if that was indeed the case, was there any criminatlity in her conduct?

Requests Addressed to IG-DOJ in re: NEFs in both cases:
  1. The Government of the U.S. is kindly requested to safeguard my right to access court records, to inspect and to copy relative to the NEFs in both cases ASAP.
  2. Both of these cases were invalid, ineffectual court actions, as the records show. Therefore, the Government of the U.S. is kindly requested to immediately free Atty Richard Fine, and immediately return my property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills to my possession.




"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.

09-11-22 Yet more on Pacer and CM/ECF, And what is wrong at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles...

CM/ECF
Scanning of the database shows that civil cases that were falsely linked by number to criminal "MJ" cases, are much more likely to be perverted.

Example #1:
Select a case:

Example #2:
Select a case:

Questions:
1) What are the Rules of Court regarding Case Number Assignments?
2) It appears that the Los Angeles court hears unusually high numbers of MJ Duty cases by various agencies, some - regarding the transport of persons and things. Is it possible that the Los Angeles Court has become a clearing house for such cases?
3) Is there possibly a connection between the conduct of MJ Woehrle in the civil cases and her activity in MJ cases?

"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.

09-11-22 More on PACER & CM/ECF and what is wrong at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles....

PACER & CM/ECF at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles are materially different from other installations of the system in other court around the country. The deficiencies are also likely to be out of copliance with both State of California and U.S. Law.
_________________
Washington DC:
CM/ECF












_________________
California, Central District:
CM/ECF

Reports


Docket Report
Docket Sheet

Civil Reports
Judgment Index

Civil and Criminal Reports
Written Opinions





_________________

The Public is Denied Access in Califronia Central District to:
  1. Calendar of the Courts
  2. Docket Activity Report
Both are reports that are critical in the safeguard of the integrity of the courts

Questions:
  1. How was the decision made to deny the access to these reports in California?
  2. Was this decision pursuant to Rules of Court?
  3. Was this decision pursuant to FRCP?

"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.

09-11-22 More on NEFs and what is wrong in PACER & CM/ECF

Following are excerpts from CM/ECF manuals from various states, various courts, they are very similar to each other, albeit there are some significant differences.

____________
1) The Vanishing NEFs

a. North Carolina [Highlights added - jz]
- - - -- - - -


b. Delaware Manual [Highlight added].


Ques
tions:
a) What reason in the world could there be, to design, develop, and implement a record maintenance system for the courts, where the emails, carrying the authentication data (the NEFs) vanish after 60 days, or whatever number of days the local court sets it to be?

b) Wouldn't switching to such system of vanishing records be deemed a change in the FRCP? Or may be Local Rules of Court?

c) Is it likely that the courts usurped authorities that were not theirs to create such system?
____________
2) Initiating Documents

Numerous examples from various U.S. Courts around the country demostrate that initiating records - filing of complaints, issuing of summons, are executed through CM/ECF.

Not in Los Angeles.

a. Idaho


b) California Central District (Los Angeles)

ANDERSON ON CIVIL E-FILING
IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE UNOFFICIAL
CIVIL E-FILING USER MANUAL
For E-Filing Users In
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 6: Proof of Service

--------5. Proof of service
--------If all of the parties in the action are represented by E-Filing users who have not opted out
--------of electronic service, you do not need to attach a proof of service to your E-Filed document, and
--------you do not need to serve your E-Filed document. The E-Filing System will e-mail a Notice of
--------Electronic Filing to each user and that will serve as the proof of service. However, if there are
--------any parties who are not registered E-File users or who have opted out of electronic service, you
--------must attach a proof of service to your documents showing service on those parties using
--------traditional methods (i.e., mail, personal service, etc.) before you E-File the document.
--------Before E-Filing a document, you can find out if any parties are not registered E-Filing
--------users or have opted out of electronic service and thus must be served manually. Login to EFiling,
--------click on “Utilities” at the top of the page, then click on “Mailings,” and then click on
--------“Mailing Info for a Case.” Enter the case number and the system will give you a list of manual
--------filers in the case. The most likely situation where this will occur is in cases involving pro per
--------parties, but it could also happen with attorneys who have just appeared in a case and have not
--------registered for E-Filing or attorneys who have elected not to receive electronic service.
--------The Court’s Local Rules do not address timing issues related to E-Filings. For instance,
--------Local Rule 6-1 sets a deadline for filing motions that is based upon whether the motion is served
--------by mail or by personal service. Since the rule contains no indication of which deadline to use for
--------E-Filing, it is best to use the longer deadline associated with serving a motion by mail.

Page 13: Proof of Service

--------L. The Notice of Electronic Filing
--------The system will present you with a Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) screen and will
--------also e-mail you a copy of the NEF. The Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) is your proof that
--------the document has been E-Filed. You should print the screen to a piece of paper or a PDF (or
--------both) before proceeding, because you will need to attach the NEF as the last page of the courtesy
--------copy that you submit to the Court.
--------The NEF includes a “document number” and a link. Be sure to note that document
--------number, as you will need it if you need to e-mail a proposed order to the Court. The NEF also
--------includes an “Electronic Document Stamp” which is a string of letters and numbers which Court
--------staff can use to verify the authenticity of the NEF. The NEF also contains the path and file name
--------of the document you uploaded and any attachments.
--------Be sure to read the next step before you click anything on this screen.

Page 16: Initiating Documents

--------III. PROCEDURES FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF DOCUMENTS
--------A. Complaint and Related Documents (Civil Case Cover Sheet, Notice of
--------Assignment to Magistrate Judge, Notice of Interested Parties)

--------Filing Type: NOT E-FILED
--------Docketing Questions: None
--------Special Notes:

--------At this time, the complaint and related initiating documents should not be electronically
--------filed. In the future, the Court may implement a system for E-Filing new cases, but that system is
--------not yet operational.
--------Instead, submit the Summons, Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet, and Notice of
--------Interested Parties, along with the required filing fee (currently $350) or waiver documents, to the
--------Court on paper. The Summons (CV-001A), Civil Case Cover Sheet (CV-071), and Notice of
--------Interested Parties (CV-030) are all available in PDF on the Court’s web-site
--------(http://cacd.uscourts.gov) by clicking on “Forms” at the top and then clicking on “Civil Forms.”
--------The Complaint and Notice of Interested Parties should be bluebacked. The Summons
--------and Civil Case Cover Sheet should not be bluebacked. All documents should be two-hole
--------punched and labeled as originals or copies. You should submit one original and one copy of
--------each document for the Court to keep, plus one additional copy or face page to be conformed and
--------returned to your office. The Court also requires an additional copy (for a total of one original
--------and two copies) of the Civil Case Cover Sheet.
--------After you receive the documents back from the Court, you must scan the documents in
--------PDF format and e-mail them to the Clerk’s office within 24 hours. The following documents
--------should be scanned into a single PDF File, in this order: (1) the Complaint/Removal, (2) the
--------Notice of Assignment to Magistrate Judge, (3) the Summons, and (4) the Cover Sheet.
--------Any other documents that were filed should be scanned by themselves into a separate
--------PDF file (i.e., the Certification and Notice of Interested Parties, etc.) and e-mailed together with
--------the PDF you created above. However, it is not necessary to scan and return the civility
--------guidelines.
--------At this time, the Court is providing a one-page flyer on the procedure for scanning and emailing
--------documents. Be sure to check that flyer to make sure that you are following the correct
--------procedures, because the Court has made changes in the past, and may do so after this manual is
--------published.

Questions:

1) Aren't the rules described here Rules of Court?
2) Does this arrangement, with Anderson's unofficial/official manual comply with Rule Making Enabling Act?
3) What exactly is the authentication method of Complaints?
4) Why is Los Angeles different from other courts on this matter?

Suggestions:

It is very likely that upon investigation it would turn out that fraud relative to initiating documents and their authentication in CM/ECF was central to the frauds at the U.S. District Court in LA.
"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.

09-11-22 What's wrong with Att David Pasternak? Don't you think you name too many names?


Atty David Pasternak was after all the former President of the LA County Bar Association...

David Pasternak was central to racketeering in both Galdjie v Darwish and Samaan v Zernik.

David Pasternak acted in both cases with no valid appointment order.

David Pasternak holds even today, 2 years after the purported sale of the Zernik property some $360,000 that he claims to be proceeds in this case, with no foundation in the law. California law says that in case of sale of property by court, all proceeds must be distributed within 30 days. Here he held the funds for two years, and engaged in various money laundering operations during that period.


"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.

09-11-22 Notice ot Atty David Pastenak: Please no racketeering on court grounds during business hours...



Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:48:17 -0800
To: "Charles McCoy -Presiding Judge " >, "John A Clarke" , "Greg Drapac -Senior Administrator" , "David Pasternak"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Kindly request to Atty David Pasternak, Judge Terry Friedman, and the Presiding Judge and Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court: Please make sure that no racketeering activity takes place on the grounds of the court during business hours.


Atty David Pasternak

Charles McCoy
Presiding Judge

John Clarke
Clerk of the Court

Greg Drapac
Senior Administrator

RE: Kindly request to Atty David Pasternak, Judge Terry Friedman, and the Presiding Judge and Clerk of the Court: Please make sure that no racketeering activity takes place on the grounds of the court during business hours.

Dear Atty David Pasternak, Presiding Judge McCoy, Clerk Clarke, and Senior Administrator Drapac:

Please accept this notice as a kindly request to ensure that no racketeering activity takes place on the grounds of the court during business hours.
Please remove from the online Case Summary the listing of any Future Proceeding on Wednesday, November 25, 2009, or any other "Proceeding" in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400).
It never was and never will be a true litigation of the Superior Court of California. None of you was willing to state that much either, except for David Pasternak, and complaint is filed with FBI for mail and wire fraud for that reason.

Dated: November 22, 2009

Los Angeles County, California ____/s/ Joseph H Zernik____
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - JOSEPH H ZERNIK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - Tel: (323) 515-4583
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Fax:(801) 998-0917
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CC: FBI Los Angeles


"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.

09-11-22 Back to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit- fraud in orders served on Joseph Zernik in 2008

- - -- - -
- See full size image- -- -
Alex Kozinski- Richard Tallman- Richard Paez- Marsha Berzon;Stephen Reinhardt;Milan Smith

In June 2008 Dr Joseph Zernik filed emergency petitions to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, regarding denial of access to the courts by U.S. District Court, LA, in Zernik v Connor et al. The pro se clerk, Chris Sawyer, for months, refused to issue valid summons, after he adulterated the initial valid summons presented to him by Joseph Zernik on March 5, 2008. Chris Sawyer claimed that he was doing so by instructions of Magistrate Carla Woehrle, and there was good reason to believe that he was truthful.

The U.S Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit:

1) Eliminated some of the papers filed by Joseph Zernik from the docket. There is full documentary evidence that such records were filed, and were on file at the office of the clerk even months later. However, they were deleted from the docket, with no procedure or documentation of the ruling to do so.
2) Denied the Petitions summarily, using verbatim the same standard language used a year later on Atty Richard Fine -
3) Failed to sign the Orders, as in the case of Richard Fine.

________________________
Unsigned Order

JOSEPH ZERNIK,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent,
JACQUELINE O'CONNOR; et al;
Real Parties in Interest.

No. 08-72714
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
Central District of California, Los Angeles

ORDER

Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the emergency petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order shall be filed or entertained.

________________________
Ineffectual Docketing Text

06/25/2008 3 Order filed (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON
2 pg, 31.57 KB and MILAN D. SMITH, JR.)Petitioner has not demonstrated that
this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the
extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States
Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the
emergency petition for writ of mandamus is denied. No motions for
reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order shall be
filed or entertained. [Denied;Terminated on the merits after
submissions without oral hearing;Written, reasoned, unsigned,
unpublished; ] (KAB)

________________________
Question:

Why were no complaints filed against Circuit Judges Tallman, Paez, Reihhardd, Berzon, M. Smith?

Answer:
Although a reasonable person may conclude that these Circuit Judges were involved in various criminalities, from perversion of justice to mail fraud, Complaints were only regarding Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and Clerk of the Court Molly C Dwyre.
The reason was that if the same standards were applied to all Circuit Judges, there probably would remain no Judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The conduct was common. It was believed that the Circuit Judges should go before a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and permitted to continue in their positions. Richard Fine is the natural candidate to chair such commission


Linked Records:

1. June 25, 2008 unsigned, unsigned, false and deliberately misleading court record Order:

2) June 26, 2008 unsigned, false and deliberately misleading court record - Order

3) False and Deliberately Misleading Docket


"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.