Sunday, December 6, 2009

09-12-06 In defense of the courts in view of unfounded attacks. Yet Kozinski must resign!

Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:51:18 -0800
To: "Bonnie Russell""scott huminski"
From: joseph zernik

Subject: In defense of the Federal Courts against unwarranted, unfounded blast...Yet Kozinski must resign...
Hi Bonnie, hi Jon, hi all:

Thanks for the time and effort in your thoughtful responses. Let me help out here, because it sounded like you, Bonnie, and also you, Jon, were implying that the federal courts were not following the law. However, neither Bonnie's message, nor Jon's, included any mention of any facts, cases, or law. Entirely unprofessional!
A. Our Federal Courts were particularly lenient with Pro Se filers!
In view of such unwarranted, unfounded attacks, let me state it clearly. Our federal courts were particularly lenient with pro se filers. Federal case law said:
A document filed pro se is "to be liberally construed," Estelle, 429 U. S., at
106, and "a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," ibid. (internal
quotation marks omitted). Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(t) ("All pleadings shall be
so construed as to do substantial justice"). (Erickson v Pardus et ai, 2007)
Moreover, the Court is to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory
by a pro se filer, 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
(Haddock v Cal Board of Dental Examiners, 1985).
B. Richard Fine was a particularly able attorney
Richard Fine indeed filed in pro se, albeit, he was an attorney, and a very able attorney at that. His skills were claimed to cost the State of California treasury some $1 Billion dollars in tax payers' money - that was either returned to tax payers, or that was prevented from being taken. I doubt that either Bonnie, or Jon, or any of the few hundred attorneys who are copied on this message could claim anything even close!
Even the California Court of Appeals recognized Fine's outstanding professional accomplishments - in its ruling to disbar Fine! Fine's bio can be found in the link to his name. I hope the implication was not that Fine was incompetent. That would be baseless as well.

C. The narrative was simple
Richard Fine was the first to uncover payments of some $45,000 per judge, per year, to ALL (~450) Los Angeles Superior Court Judges, which went on for well over a decade, and continue to this date. Richard Fine was also the first to compile the data to show that it became practically impossible to win a case in LA County against the payer - LA County, during those years. Such payments were ruled in October 2008 "not permitted" on California Constructional grounds (Ca Court of Appeals ruling, and Metronews report).
On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed into law pardons for all judges at the urging of the California Judicial Council (Sbx2-11). Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009, in open court, Richard Fine was arrested by the Sheriff's Department Warrant Detail - albeit - with no warrant at all.

D. The key facts were even simpler
1) Richard Fine was held in solitary confinement, in Los Angeles County, California, for the past 9 months (gosh, it's almost Christmas, and he has been held since March 4, 2009).
2) Fine was held all along in a hospital room, with a wristband, as if he were ill, when in fact he was not.
3) There was and there is no warrant, no conviction, and no sentencing.
4) The Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County denied access to the arrest and booking papers, in defiance of the California Public Records Act Cal
Govt Code 6250-6276.48. The Legal Director of a California Civil Rights organization advised in this matter. He also stated that the Sheriff Departments of other counties in California were routinely asked for access to arrest and booking papers, and routinely complied with the law in this matter. That was this Legal Director's day in and day out job.

E. The law:
The law was most ably stated by the late Justice Brennan in Fay v Noia, (1963):
"The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a civilized society... if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release".
F. The Cases
1) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - ancillary contempt proceedings to a civil litigation, Judge David Yaffe, LA Superior Court
2) Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - habeas corpus petition at the U.S. District Court, LA, Magistrate Carla Woehrle and Judge John Warner.
3) Fine v Sheriff (should be Fine v U.S. District Court LA) (09-71692) - emergency petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.

G. Alleged quartet of computer frauds in concert!
The case of Richard Fine was destined to become a landmark, if for nothing else - for the fact that alleged fraud was perpetrated in four (4) separate case management systems (CMSs) to accomplish the fete:
1)
Sustain - the LA Superior Court
2)
Inmate Information Center - Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County.
3)
PACER & CM/ECF platform - as implemented at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles
4)
PACER & CM/ECF platform - as implemented at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
None of these systems were installed with any public oversight, or any reasonable opportunity for comment and challenge. Most of the rules embedded in the operation of such systems were never even fully published! The installation of the CMSs at the courts amounted to sea changes in the rules of the respective courts. Therefore - such installations should have been treated pursuant to rulemaking enabling acts, state or federal, respectively - Cal
Code of Civ Proc 575.1 and Cal Gov Code 68071; Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC 2071-2077. None of that took place - with predictable results.

H. Further Reading
Almost all relevant papers, dockets, and more, in these three cases can be found in an online archive, free of charge, at:
http://inproperinla.com/ It holds thousands of papers, but you can find the desired caption by searching party name using "Control F" function.
As usual, I am grateful for the thoughtful responses on the matter, for the detailed comments on the facts or on the law, particularly for the citations from Shaw.


Joe Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
Where we have
"the best courts that money can buy"
(KNBC, Oct 16, 2008)

I. CC
1) Prof Richard Posner
[]
2) Law school faculty

3) U.S. Dept of Justice, Inspector General Glenn A Fine, as an addendum to complaint about wide-spread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles County, and refusal of FBI and U.S. DOJ senior officers to accord Equal Protection, providing instead fraudulent responses to inquiries by U.S. Congress.

4) Other Inspector Generals

5) U.S. Secret Service

6) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
See full size image
7) Basel Accords Committee

II. The Usual
[]
IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!

"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.

At 09:09 06/12/2009, Bonnie Russell wrote:
This was sent to me by a member of the OK Legislature. Primarily because USAjudges.com deals with actual case numbers, names opposing counsel, and (so-called) "expert" witnesses. You know, facts.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20091204_298_0_TwoOkl912955

Bonnie
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Roland
To: scott huminski
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:54 AM

Subject: Re: Kozinski Fraud - and Kozinski Culture were the true problems

I have had pro se cases before the federal court and did the removal myself. I found the prejudice was not so much against pro ses as such, but against anything less than a perfect professional legal product, and there is closer scrutiny of pro ses on that. A single mistake, no matter how minor, and they will dump it. They do that to lawyers, too. If you file anything in federal court, don't so much as make even an error of punctuation. It has to be something that would earn an A+ in a course on legal writing. Check all your cites and make sure every one is accurately on point. Don't present them with any unusual legal arguments that might require them to do any research. That is a sure way to get it dismissed for "failure to state a claim". Federal judges don't like novelty, no matter what the merits. They just want to clear their dockets, not "make new law".

Remember, the purpose of the courts, as they see it, is not to render justice but to remove obstacles to the smooth flow of business. The only way to get justice is to get judges to fear that if they don't provide it there will be civil disturbance that would be bad for business. They will provide just enough justice to deceive people into thinking they have a chance to get it in court, and exhaust themselves in the judicial process, thus defusing anger that might otherwise erupt into violence.

Keep in mind that the foundations for even the little justice the system provides was laid less by wise and beneficent jurists than by mobs of citizens who burnt down courthouses and hanged any judges they could catch. It took that to happen from time to time to get the judges' attention.

If you haven't seen it, try to catch the movie Law Abiding Citizen for a sense of what a lot of people are feeling.

"Nothing important ever happens unless someone is willing to kill somebody if it does not happen." - George Bernard Shaw.

-- Jon
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001    www.constitution.org    jon.roland@constitution.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

09-12-6 Kozinski Fraud had nothing to do with errors, or with getting it dead wrong... The solution? It's the computers, %&$#$@!

Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:03:37 -0800
To: scott huminski

Hi Scott, Hi all:
Thank you, Scott, for the response. I am totally flunking here the job of making myself clear. If you think anybody got anything dead wrong - you are most likely dead wrong. When you see sloppy errors - most likely you are facing very calculated sloppy errors...

Check out, for example, the sloppy errors by Judge Jacqueline Connor, which I posted - from the face page of my register of actions (linked below). She was a master con-artist, second to none. Her method of preferrence - sloppy errors... That was also the method, which she used to pervert justice in the First Rampart Trial (2000) - she claimed that her own sloppy errors had fatally biased the jury. Therefore, to further the cause of justice, she had no choice, but to reversed jury convictions. Ingenious!

Con Man
More specifically, let's go back to the example of Richard Fine and Alex Kozinski:
Richard Fine was confined in a hospital room for over three months at that time, with no warrant, no conviction, no sentencing. He sent an Emergency Petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (which was never even filed), protesting the treatment of his Habeas Corpus Petition by Magistrate Carla Woehrle at the U.S. District Court, LA. Alex Kozinski responded with an order denying the petition, stating that it had not amounted to a case that justified the extreme measure of mandamus...

Did Alex Kozinski get it dead wrong on the facts? I doubt it!
If Prof Posner found him to be one of the sharpest on the bench today, I have the sense that he had figured out precisely, what even a clueless guy like me managed to figure out.

Did Alex Kozinski get it wrong on the law? I doubt it!
I greatly doubt that Alex Kozinski forgot what the Fourth Amendment was about, what warrantless arrest was, what habeas corpus was about, and all about the concept of Liberty. Justice Brennan routinely referred to habeas corpus as the "Great Writ" - he saw in it one of the essentials of "civilized society", and in the Magna Carta - one of the cornerstones of the U.S. Constitution... Justice Cardozo found that even the notion of Due Process was found "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Justice Brandeis considered the greatest achievement of the English speaking legal system - establishing Liberty by law...

So, what happened here? Kozinski Fraud!
Since the matter of Richard Fine originated in judicial corruption, and since judicial collegiality in judicial corruption was the supreme edict, the petition of the falsely imprisoned Richard Fine was perverted through the use of fraudulent computer systems (PACER & CM/ECF), and in fact it was deemed by Kozinski an unfiled "non-petition". What is the adequate judicial act on "non-petition"? Obviously - "non-order"!
And since it was a "non-order", he could write in it whatever... Fraudulent on the facts, fraudulent on the law.

Thanks again,

Joe Zernik

Linked Record:
1) Face page of Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). The date of the record marked in red, was prior to the date of filing the complaint, by over a year. The outcome - having the false note permanently posted on the face page. The note to inform all others that "Countrywide" was in fact "Real Party in Interest" in the matter. In open court, at the same time, she claimed that any claims by me, that Countrywide had any interest in the case, were "conspiratorial theories". Of course, she never dreamed I would gain access to this record.
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/12/09-12-06-how-to-get-copy-of-your.html

A. CC
1) Prof Richard Posner
[]
2) Law school faculty

3) U.S. Dept of Justice, Inspector General Glenn A Fine, as an addendum to complaint about wide-spread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles County, and refusal of FBI and U.S. DOJ senior officers to accord Equal Protection, providing instead fraudulent responses to inquiries by U.S. Congress.

4) Other Inspector Generals

5) U.S. Secret Service

6) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights

See full size image
7) Basel Accords Committee

B. The Usual
[]
IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!
[]
"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.
__________________________________________

At 11:34 06/12/2009, scott huminski wrote:
I have found that federal courts will ignore facts and case law of pro se's or suits with representation that target government. My $500/hr. attorneys in Huminski v. Corsones got dismissed more than I can count until we were at the 2nd cir. and my atty happened to be a collegue of Justice Sack. The only reason I won. Sack wrote the 85 page opinion and still got it dead wrong on judicial immunity although I prevailed otherwise. -- scott


2009-12-06 How to get a copy of your register of actions - the essential evidence of fraud in Los Angeles Superior Court litigation

Superior Court of California - County of Los AngelesSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

HOW TO GET A COPY OF YOUR REGISTER OF ACTIONS:
_______

1) Prepare a letter as follows in two copies:


TO: the Clerk John A Clarke, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 
FROM: (your name)


Please accept this notice as request to access court records, to inspect and to copy, pursuant to my Due Process and First Amendment rights, as re-affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).


This request pertains to the Register of Actions (NOT the online Case Summary) in  case caption (case number), in (name of courthouse)


Date:
[signature]
_________
(your name)



2) Go in person to the Office of the Clerk in the courthouse where the case was heard.
3) Present the two copies to a person, who MUST HOLD THE TITLE OF "DEPUTY CLERK" (no other person is under oath relative to court records).
4) Ask to have your copy stamped "RECEIVED".
5) Practice a bit of civil insistence - make it clear that you know that the Case Summary is NOT the Register of Actions, and that it is your basic Civil Right to have a copy of the court records in your case, and that the Deputy Clerk is in violation of his/her Oath of Office if he/she deny you access to the records.
6) It may also be helpful to bring a copy of the standard Disclaimer, published online, which shows that the Case Summary is not a court record at all: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39881015/
7) In case they still refuse to provide a copy of the Register of Actions, I would ask for a short declaration, documenting the interaction:

DECLARATION OF (your name)
1) I went on to the courthouse.
2) I delivered a copy of the letter (Exhibit 1) to Deputy Clerk (his/her name) .  
3) The Deputy Clerk refused to provide the records. 
___________________
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:52:31 -0800
To: bohemian_books@yahoo.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: How to obtain your register of actions (California docket) from LA Superior Court, or document denial of access.
Cc:
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:05:57 -0800
To: Laura Lynn
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Your records
Hi Laura:
Thanks for the expedient response. As you could tell by now, I am details oriented... with particular focus on computer systems. I had contacts with a number of individuals, who had cases at the LA Superior Court. However, it could get entirely unproductive, unless we either have:
a) Register of Actions
b) Documentation of denial of access to Register of Actions
[]
Register of Actions
Absent one of the two, the cases are of little interest for me.
You could be of great help if you posted on your web site the instructions regarding the way to ask for register of actions and/or document denial of access, whichever may be the case, and suggest that those who went through that step contact me. I would not be able to provide others with the type of preliminary work I provided to you. It would be too time consuming. I could and I would provide analysis to those who provide the register of actions or documentation of denial of access.
I look forward to hearing from you, and thanks again for your quick response,
Joe Zernik
How you get your Register of Actions from Los Angeles Superior Court, or document denial of access
Most important relative to the LA Superior Court:
You probably never saw and never knew of the existence of a record called "
Register of Actions" (please correct me if I am wrong). If that was the case, I would be grateful if you could confirm it in a statement by email.
  • If indeed you have never seen your Register of Actions, I request that you please go to the court where the case was last heard, and request in writing from the clerk, a copy of that critical record.
  • Please include in your request "pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978)".
Tricky Dick
  • Please have a copy of your written request stamped "Received" for your records.
  • The clerk may charge you $0.50 per page, but it would be the most worthy investment relative to both your LA superior Court and your U.S. District Court cases.
  • It is the only true valid court record of your litigation. All online records are not true court records at all. Therefore, it is the only record that provides the true evidence of the fraud in the conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Therefore, they routinely deny access- the old Flimflam...
[]
Old Flimflam
  • I would be extremely interested to know if you were allowed to obtain that record.
  • If not, I would be interested in a statement of what happened.
  • If you do get access to the record, I would be grateful if you could email me a scan.
  • You may find there lots of surprises, but you may not be able to fully comprehend it without help.
Register of Actions, Los Angeles Superior Court
Face Page with evidence of fraud by Jacqueline Connor
and Bank of America Corporation (Countrywide)


CC:
1) Prof Posner
[]
2) Various Law School faculty
3) USDOJ-IG Glenn A Fine, as an addendum to complaint against senior officers of the USDOJ, who provided alleged fraudulent responses to U.S. Congress in Aug/Sept 2008, and refused to provide equal protection for 10 millions LA county residents.
[]
IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!
[]
"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.=

09-12-06 Asking the U.S. Secret Service to come clean on Kozinski Fraud and Kozinski Culture...

Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:45:16 -0800
To: "Jz12345@Earthlink. Net"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Kozinski Fraud & Kozinski Culture: The solution? It's the computers, %&$#$@! Asking U.S. Secret Service to come clean... Timely response requested within 48 hours.
Bcc:
December 6, 2009
U.S. Secret Service
Jeffrey Boothe (BPD)
Timothy Buckley (VPD)
United States Secret Service

The favor of a response within 48 hours is requested.

Dear Mr Boothe and Mr Buckley:
You have been following my communications for many months now, as evidenced by your responses. In my requests to Office of Attorney General in 2008, for Equal Protection of 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, abused by the LA Superior Court in collusion with some at the U.S. courts, and for my Equal Protection - against abuse by Countrywide and Bank of America, in collusion with the court, I explicitly requested to keep FBI out of any enforcement action related to the courts in LA. FBI was part of the corruption in Los Angeles County.
Where did the Secret Service fall in this case? It remained unclear. The one veteran US Secret Service agent, whom I met, and with whom I discussed the matter, gave me very helpful advise. He also impressed me as honest. But then again, nobody else from your agency ever responded.
In my complaints to inspectors generals of U.S. agencies, I described the conduct of federal law-enforcement agencies, who refused to respond regarding their primary investigational or oversight jurisdiction, as a shell game, nothing more, and a unified front in refusal to enforce the law.
However, in a rare moment of generosity, a senior member of another federal agency informed me that the Secret Service did have primary investigational jurisdiction over large computer systems. Therefore, refusal by the Secret Service to respond on such matter, might be deemed as even worse than the typical shell game - possibly more along the lines of Misprision of Felonies.
[]
Old Flimflam
Therefore, I would be grateful for your timely response on only one question:
Does the United States Secret Service hold primary investigational jurisdiction regarding fraud alleged in my complaints regarding key computer systems, as detailed below?
1) Key government computer systems:
a) SUSTAIN - the case management system of the LA Superior Court, civil division (details would be provided upon request).
b)
NAME UNKNOWN - - the case management system of the LA Superior Court, criminal division (details would be provided upon request).
c) PACER & CM/ECF - in all U.S. district courts and courts of appeals, where PACER users were denied access to NEFs.
d) PACER & CM/ECF - as implemented at U.S. district court, LA, where in addition, public access was denied to Calendar of the Courts, and Docket Activity Report.
e) PACER & CM/ECF - as implemented at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, where the initials of deputy clerks in docketing text, which in PACER & CM/ECF platform of U.S. district courts were linked to digital signatures, were allowed to be displayed, however, with no links to digital signatures, creating a blatantly false and deliberately misleading system.
f) Inmate Information Center - as implemented at the Sheriff's Department, Los Angeles County. It is a hazard to Liberty itself.[added to the online version-jz]
2) Key financial institution systems:
a) EDGE -
the underwriting monitoring system at Countrywide, now part of Bank of America (details would be provided upon request).
Any response on the matter would be gratefully received,

The favor of a response within 48 hours is requested.

Respectfully,
__/s/________
Joseph Zernik
A. CC
1) Prof Richard Posner
[]
2) Law school faculty.
3) U.S. Dept of Justice, Inspector General Glenn A Fine, as an addendum to complaint about wide-spread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles County, and refusal of FBI and U.S. DOJ senior officers to accord Equal Protection, providing instead fraudulent responses to inquiries by U.S. Congress.
4) Other Inspector Generals

5) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
See full size image
6) Basel Accords Committee
B. The Usual
[]
IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!
[]
"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.
__________________________________________