10-01-30 More about US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) and US Judge Gary Feess

    

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:11:10 -0800
To: lawsters
From: joseph zernik
Subject: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal,  Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769), and the office of Overseer for Civil Rights in LA (2001-2009)
At 09:11 AM 1/30/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:

Dear Brad:

Surely you remember, you are an attorney, I am not.   Not even by a long shot.

I provided a case caption and number for US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769), and made some outrageous, scandalous statements regarding a US judge that by your account and by the account of many others is one of the more decent on the LA bench.  The case, which I referred to, was one of the most important in the civic life of LA in recent decades, and I claimed that Judge Feess deliberately undermined it, presiding in a false court action, and that later on, for most of the recent decade, Judge Gary Feess deliberately failed to safeguard the Civil Rights of 10 million residents of LA County, which he pretended to be the Overseer of.

What is most striking in the past couple of months, during which I, a clueless non-attorney, Jose the PhD, have been making such outrageous, scandalous claims regarding various cases in the various courts, is that none of the attorneys ever said: Man, you are nuts, what you said was totally wrong. None of the facts you stated was a true fact.  You were totally delusional, you never understood the first letter of the first one of the numerous dockets that you claimed to have reviewed.  What you claimed, that judges and attorneys deliberately took part, in both state and  US courts, in fake court actions, which they all considered null and void, not voidable, a priori, was nothing but a lunatic misconception.  Such conditions were entirely impossible in our glorious courts, operating under our glorious US Constitution and the Amendments thereto.

My claims, below, were not of the type that sought perfection and infallibility in a human being.  Instead, my claims amounted to allegations of a scheme at the US District Court, Central District of California, under the caption of US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) to deprive 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California, of their Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, while running a show that pretended to appear as action to protect such rights.  I further claimed that US Judge Gary Feess was the star actor in such show.

Your response was read by this non attorney as a failure to refute any of my claims of the facts in the matter.  Instead, what you wrote appeared more like a character witness letter, asking for lenience in sentencing of a convict.

Facts or Fiction?
Basic facts in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769), as claimed by non-attorney Joseph Zernik, challenging any and all of the attorneys, recipient of this message, to prove him wrong on the facts in the matter.

a) As an attorney, do you agree that the findings of large scale abuse of rights under the color of law in Los Angeles County, California, in the Rampart scandal (1998-2000), and large scale false imprisonments, were unprecented, and that such false imprisonments were described, based on data from the year 2000, by PBS Frontline, as follows? [1]

Nearly 100 convictions have been overturned as a result of Perez's testimony. Most

of these cases involve arrests made by Perez; some involve wrongful convictions

identified by Perez and corroborated by investigators. The District Attorney's office

has filed 64 writs and attorneys representing defendants have filed 22 others that,

unopposed by the DA's office, have been granted by the Court.[1] Another 13

writs that have been granted involve juveniles. Meanwhile, defense attorneys

continue to review as many as 15,000 cases that may have involved misconduct by

police officers, particularly those implicated in wrongdoing by Perez. The Public

Defenders Office alone is examining more than 8000 cases.

b) As an attorney, do you agree that Erwin Chemerinsky, founding Dean of UC Irvine Law School, was and is an acclaimed constitutional scholar, and that in his 2000 paper in Guild Pract, titled The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County he stated: This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.  ? [2]

c) As an attorney, do you agree that US v City of LA et al was a landmark case that  eventually, through the Consent Decree was the key (and in fact - the only) federal response to such findings as described in (a) and (b), above?

d) As an attorney, do you agree that plaintiff in US v City of LA et al  was US Attorney Office for Central District of California, and the case was overseen by none other than the top person in that office during that period - US Attorney Alejandro Mayorkas (today Director of US Immigration and Citizenship Services), and that numerous attorneys were listed for Defendants and various Intervenors in the case.

e) As an attorney, do you agree that no summons was issued in the case US v City of LA et al, and that the Consent Decree of June 2001 was never entered?

f) As an attorney, do you agree that the Consent Decree in the case US v City of LA et al, was never an honest, valid, and effectual decree of the United States Court, since it was never entered, and therefore, it could never be enforced?

g) As an attorney, do you agree that Judge Fees, during his tenure as Overseer for Civil Rights in LA (2001-2009), never affected the release of a single falsely convicted victim of the Rampart Scandal?

h) As an attorney, do you agree that periodic financial disclosures by undercover narcotic officers was one of the central provisions of the Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al?

i) As an attorney, do you agree that the provision of the Consent Decree US v City of LA et al relative to periodic financial disclosures by undercover narcotic officers was never enforced by Judge Gary Feess during his tenure as Overseer for Civil Rights in LA (2001-2009)?

j) As an attorney, do you agree that the case of US v City of LA et al was never sealed?

k) As an attorney, do you agree that there was and there is no legal foundation for denial of access to court records in US v City of LA et al pursuant to First Amendment and Nixon v Warner Communications et al (1978) ?

l) As an attorney, do you agree that such conduct by Judge Gary Feess, i.e. presiding in a case with no summons, where the Consent Decree was never entered, then serving for almost a decade as Overseer for Civil Rights in LA, pursuant to a Consent Decree, which had never been entered, and therefore, was unenforceable, then failing to enforce the key provisions of the Consent Decree, and failing to initiated any corrective actions relative to the large-scale false imprisonments in LA County, upon review should be deemed Fraud and Deceit on the court and on the people, and Willful Misconduct by a US judge Gary Feess?

m) As an attorney, do you agree that through such conduct, in fact, Judge Gary Feess, not only failed to conduct himself as Overseer for Civil Rights in Los Angeles, but in fact, was central to the ongoing abuse of rights under the color of law of the 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County, California?

Joseph Zernik (aka Jose, the PhD)
Not an attorney, not even by a long shot.

[1] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
[2]  http://www.scribd.com/doc/24901612/01-05-01-Rampart-FIPs-Rampart-First-Trial-PBS-Frontline-Rampart-False-Imprisonments-s

At 12:39 AM 1/30/2010, Brad wrote:

I am not saying Judge Fees is a perfect Human or a Perfect Judge, but I have appeared before him and he courteous to the parties and the lawyers.
    During the Rampart Consent Decree, Judge Fees sent out monitors to make crime reports to see how the LAPD handled them.  In Some divisions they refused to take crime reports from minors and minorities, even keeping one minor until 10pm then arresting him for a curfew violation.
    These violations by the LAPD of the Consent Decree orders resulted in the overseer of the Federal Courts on the LAPD to extend two more years.
    Now we have some other scandals brewing with the LAPD.  Three cops were caught on video planning how to make false charges and a false complaint against a suspected gang member for drugs the suspect didn't have on his person.  The case was dismissed, the cops are on suspension pending an investigation.
     I am not saying Gary Fees is a super judge, but he works very hard, has put some really bad people into prison with his sentencing, and he has done quite a bit of work to try and make the LAPD more honest.  If you see him on the bench he looks really tired and some days totally exhausted from the work he does.  I really don't expect him to live a long time at the pace he is keeping.
     From everyone I have spoken to Gary Fees is tough but fair and has a good reputation amongst lawyers.  Lawyers are judges worst critics and especially is the judge is unfair, an idealog (left or right), or the judge make stupid rulings.  Fees is not perfect but he does his best and trys to be as honest and impartial as possible.
     When you appear before lots of judges you get a sense about them.  Sometimes I like appearing before tough judges, because if you get them on your side of the legal or fact issues they are tough on the other side when you win.  But generally speaking, everyone appreciates a judge who is courteous, calm, and knows the law before deciding the case.  All cases resolve themselves one way or the other.  Sometimes the winner dies before collecting the judgment.  That happened where I work recently.  The Plaintiff died just before trial.
     When you deal with other human beings you also deal with those pesky emotions.   Right Mr. Spock? - Brad 

NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.

         At 07:12 PM 1/29/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik
To: lawsters Sent: Fri, January 29, 2010 7:12:13 PM Subject: FACT BASED DISCUSSION: Judge Gary Fees, the Rampart scandal, and Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769)
Hi Brad:

I would like to initiated discussion of only one point from your writing below, under Fact-Based Discussion:

Brad listed here Judge Gary Fees as some kind of positive example, not being a dictator like Judge Manuel Real, if I got it right.  The LAPD Rampart Scandal was mentioned, if I got it right, as one of Judge Gary Fees credentials.

Please notice, and any fact-based comments would be appreciated:

Although Brad did not provide the caption,  US v City of LA et al (2:00-cv-11769) is most likely the reason that Brad associated Judge Gary Fees with the Rampart scandal.   One should note that the caption of this landmark case, is one of the key cases that I previously listed as likely to be Kozinski Fraud.  I therefore requested access to court records, to ascertain the facts in the matter. However, the US District Court, to this date, denies access to records of this case, with no legal foundation at all. I  was denied my First Amendment Rights by the US District Court LA.  I was neither allowed access to the paper records, nor to the NEFs.

The reasons that I requested access to the records in the first place, and the reason that following denial of access, I consider it likely to be a Kozinski Fraud were:
a) No summons were issued in this case.
b) The Consent Decree, of June 2001, was never entered.
c) Accordingly, Judge Gary Fees, who later served as "Overseer" for Civil Rights in LA from 2001-2009, pursuant to the purported Consent Decree in US v City of LA et al,  failed to enforce the key provisions of the Consent Decree: (i) access to certain computerized databases, and (ii) Periodic financial disclosures by undercover narcotic officers.

In sum: The demeanor of Judge Gary Fees in court may be more pleasant than that of Judge Manuel Real.  However, once First Amendment rights - access to court records -  are restored in LA County, and full evidence is accessible in court records of US v City of LA et al, it is most likely to be found that Gary Fees engaged in Fraud on all 10 millions who reside in LA County in his conduct under such caption and in his conduct as "Overseer". 

Joseph Zernik

P.S. 
1) One should note that we who live in LA County, California, shared the distinction of a federal "Overseer" during the past decade with the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and with prisoners in the California prison system.  It is further alleged, that upon review of the facts in each of the three cases, appointment of "Overseers" by the Justice Department of the Bush administration would be found to have been a fig leaf, nothing more, and none of the three "Overseers" performed his duties.  

2) The fact that access to computerized databases of the justice system in LA was a key provision of the Consent Decree, and the fact that the LAPD refused to comply, lend support to my claims of the central role of such unvalidated computer systems in corruption of the justice system.  At least the framers of the Consent Decree thought so.

At 04:07 PM 1/28/2010, Brad wrote:

I have practiced law in federal courts won two appeals to stop the collection of taxes by CA, been in thousdands of Bankrutpcy and Tax Court hearings, had a tax court judge apologize to me, and accompanied others into federal court.  I have seen hundreds of federal court hearings and argued before Judge Kozinski.  I have attended about 400-500 IRS audits.  I have gotten 7 houses out of 7 back from the IRS AFTER seizure.  I got the 9th Circuit to Sanction the State of CA $30K for violating the bankruptcy laws.
    From all this experience I can tell you that Federal Judges act very independently.  Some are courteous, others are not.  Some are dictators (Manny REal) and others are not (Gary Fees LAPD Rampart Scandal Fed Judge).
    The truth is that some of these federal judges are political appointees and know the other while others are stupid when it comes to the law or worse not impartial.
    Federal Judges are people.  People are flawed, the point I was making to JZ.  Two judges in Penn. recently were found to be sending innocent young people to a home in which the judges had a financial interest.  The Recent Caperton case in the US Supreme Court is another example.  You put that much power in the hands of a few people and you can expect such examples as a matter of course.
    But in the average case you are before a human being who doesn't know all the law or all the procedures and who didn't get perfect scores on law in their law school.  People or litigants don't like to lose, especially where a lot of money and a lot of power changes hands or there is anger on either or both sides.  Emotion has to be eliminated from the equation and if there is a real problem, like Operation GreyLord in Chicago a few decades ago, where many State Judges were indicted.
    As long as humans make the decisions flaw come out.  I wonder how many would want machines to make the decisions based on the law made by men, and by necessity those laws are fueled by anger to stop other human beings from acting a certain way, such as drunk driving, forgery, presentation of false evidence, and the huge laws sending people to prison for minor crimes as the 3 strikes laws which send people to prison for life for committing minor felonies or Misd/Felony wobblers. - Brad

NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:
This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.

At 07:07 AM 1/28/2010, Ken wrote:

From: Ken To: lawsters Sent: Thu, January 28, 2010 7:07:30 AM Subject: RE: Joe Imagine : The psychology of corruption.

In the real world, Brad, federal judges will ignore facts they are required to acknowledge under Fed. R. Evid. 201, when they are asserted by a pro per.  YMMV in lower CA courts, of course. 

                                        At 08:11 AM 1/28/2010, John wrote:

-----Original Message-----

From: John 

Sent: Jan 28, 2010 8:11 AM

To: lawsters

Subject: RE: Joe Imagine : The psychology of corruption.

Interesting point Brad: As practice tends to make perfect, prosecutors are more perfect at banboozelling jurors than most lawyers.  After all, that is their job.

 

Wolf 

At 02:50 1/28/2010, Brad wrote:

---

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:50:15 -0800

From: crusaderjd

Subject: Re: Joe Imagine : The psychology of corruption.

To: lawsters

Juli - As someone who went to law school and practiced LAW I was never concerned about pro se or pro per plaintiffs or defendants.  In fact I used to win against them routinely because I made sure I followed the procedures because the judge would favor the pro pers over the lawyers if they could.  So I had to make sure I followed all the rules.  I used to beat other lawyers routinely for the same reason and when I lost it was usually because I didn't devote enough time to the case or overlooked something.

     I did find some odd things in my quest for knowledge. 

         1.  Most people don't want to sue or go any where near a courtroom.

         2.  There are a lot of very litigious people out there who will sue at the drop of a hat.

         3.  The primary problem for the lawyers is that when you lose the clients get upset, even if the case was close.  Some of the clients of other attorneys I know have threatened them and even attacked them and put them into the hospital.  I know of several other lawyers who were shot and killed, shot, and who committed suicide.  However most lawyers die quite early in life like my friend Harry Pike who died at age 52 from a massive heart attack a stress related disease. 

          4.  Judges have to take more time with pro pers s they take it out on the lawyer if there is a lawyer on the other side.

        5.  Most Pro pers and Pro se don't realize how important the facts are to the case.  They argue the law and claim their facts are on point with the law they cite, but usually those facts are not on point.  When anyone disagrees with them they get really upset.  Facts are to gas as automobiles are to law.  The law does not begin to operate without facts.  Ex.  D hits S.  what crime or tort has occurred.  No crime or tort if they are playing a game like football.  If S is not offended by the hitting, no crime or tort is committed.  If S asked or consented to the hitting, kissing (a touching), sex, or being hit with a needle to take blood or other common touching, there is no crime or tort.   Most jurors don't think this way and most pro pers don't think this way either, which is why so many innocent people are jailed and imprisoned because the DA can bamboozle the jurors so easily.

    There is a lot more but you get the idea.  - Brad

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Lawsters" group.
To post to this group, send email to lawsters
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to