10-07-29 Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court, in re: Richard Fine // Evidencia adicional para el fraude en los EE.UU. Corte Suprema, in re: Richard Fine

William Suter
Clerk of the US Supreme Court
Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court, in re: Richard Fine 
Los Angeles, July 29 - Human Rights Alert (BGO) released additional evidence of fraud at the US Supreme Court in re: Richard Fine v Lerory Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) - application for stay of execution of ongoing solitary confinement.  Records recently retrieved from the US Supreme Court file in the case failed to discover any valid court records supporting the purported denial of the Application in the Supreme Court Conference either on April 23, 2010, as scheduled, or on April 26, 2010, as noted in the online Supreme Court docket. [1] Court records also failed to show any record of service and notice to the parties of the purported denial.  Information obtained from the imprisoned former US prosecutor Richard Fine, likewise, indicated that he had never received any notice and service at all of the purported denial.

The Application was first submitted to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The online Court docket noted denial by Justice Kennedy on March 12, 2010, and Richard Fine received a notice to that effect as well.  However, the notice was by Counsel Danny Bickell, who was not authorized as a Deputy Clerk. Moreover, the notice was unsigned, and the copy in Court file was never stamped "FILED". Furthermore, there was no valid record of denial by Justice Kennedy to form the legal foundation for such notice. [2]
Former US prosecutor Richard Fine then re-submitted the Application to Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who in turn referred it to the US Supreme Court conference, scheduled for April 23, 2010.

Prior to the April 23, 2010, Mr Danny Bickell, again - with no authority at all, eliminated from the court file records filed in the case, which included evidence, including, but not limited to details of his March 12, 2010 invalid notice of denial by Justice Kennedy.  Mr Bickell's conduct relative to the March 12, 2010 notice and the consequent elimination of records from the Court file was subject of a complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Washington DC. [3]
On April 23, 2010, outcome of the conference remained unknown.  However, an April 26, 2010 note in the US Supreme Court online docket, [1] indicated denial of the Application.  The records, which were obtained on July 26, 2010 from the Court file, showed no legal foundation at all for the April 26, 2010 denial note in the online Court docket.

Therefore, it was alleged that the case documented the repeated publication of false and deliberately misleading notes in the online US Supreme Court docket, the issuing of false notices by unauthorized US Supreme Court staff relative to the purported March 12, 2010 denial by Justice Kennedy, and failure of the US Supreme Court Justices to dispose of matters before them.

Former US prosecutor Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments ("bribes"), which necessitated the signing on February 20, 2009 of "retroactive immunities" ("pardons") for all such judges.  Since March 4, 2009, he has been imprisoned in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California.  Albeit, no warrant was ever issued, and no judgment/ conviction/ sentencing was ever entered in his case.

The case of Richard Fine documented a pattern of publication of false records in online public access systems, and denial of access to true judicial records:
1)      The Los Angeles Superior Court - published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court in the case.
2)      The Sheriff of Los Angeles County - published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine.
3)      The US District Court, Los Angeles - published a false online "PACER docket", but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court.
4)      The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - published a false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal.
5)      The US Supreme Court - published a false online "docket" noting March 12, 2010 and April 23/26, 2010 denials, which were not supported by the Court records in the case.  Access to true dockets in the case management system of the Supreme Court was yet to be permitted.

Notice of the newly discovered records of the US Supreme Court was also submitted to the US State Department and the United Nations.  Review of such conduct by the courts was sought by Human Rights Alert as part of the pending review of Human Rights in the United States in the first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.  The April 2010 UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems.

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
LINKS[1] 10-07-28-RE-Fine-v-Baca-09-A827-Additional-Evidence-for-Fraud-at-the-US-Supreme-Court-pertaining-to-purported-denial-of-the-Application-in-Confe
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/
[2] Alleged fraud in US Supreme Court records in Fine v Baca (09-A827)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/
[3] Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

Joseph Zernik, PhDHuman Rights Alert (HRA), NGO 
WHAT DID THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA?*     "Innocent people remain in prison"*     "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) [i]
*   "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) [ii]
*   "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."     Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) [iii]
[i] LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
[ii] Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
[iii] Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274339
2010 UPR OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES
April 19, 2010 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
a) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
b) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
c) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
d) UPR Tool Kit by the Urban Justice Center:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29867561/

10-07-31 Human Rights Alert's Request for US Congress Judiciary Committees to Establish by Law the Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts

Human Rights Alert's Request for US Congress Judiciary Committees to Establish by Law the Case Management and Online Public Access Systems of the US Courts.
Los Angeles, July 31 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) forwarded a request to the US Congressional Committees on the Judiciary for urgent review and legislative initiative regarding case management and online public access systems of the US courts.  Such systems were introduced over the past decade through a large-scale project by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, albeit with no public oversight.  Moreover, the courts failed to publish Rules of Courts to govern their operation.  Evidence was provided that such systems have caused precipitous deterioration in integrity of the courts, particularly in the areas of Banking Regulation and Human Rights. The evidence showed that litigations, which were widely reported by media as court actions, were only pretense, with no valid judicial review at all.

The following key deficiencies were identified:
1)       All courts that were examined, from the District Courts, through the Courts of Appeals, to the US Supreme Court, have failed to publish Rules of Court to set the legal foundation for the operation of case management and online public access systems, in apparent violation of Due Process rights.
2)       The manner in which case management and online public access systems were operated today, the public at large, and even attorneys could not distinguish between valid and effectual court records and records that were deemed void, not voidable by the courts themselves.  Both types of records were published in online public access systems in a manner that had to be deemed as serious violation of various fundamental Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights. 
3)       Public access was routinely denied to critical judicial records, in apparent violation of First Amendment rights, and the range of judicial records, which were publicly accessible varied among the courts with no foundation at the law at all.
4)       The key role of Clerks in authentication of court records, which was established over the centuries as a critical safeguard for integrity of the courts, was largely eliminated - a sea change in administration of the courts, which was never established by law. Dockets were now constructed by unauthorized persons, and the Clerk refused to certify them. Unauthenticated judgments were entered in the Index of Judgments with no authority at all.
5)       Discrimination against pro se litigants, and unprecedented authority for counsel to enter court records with no prior review by authority of the Clerk, which were established in the case management systems, undermined Due Process and Fair Hearing rights.
6)       Similar conditions were documented in the courts of the several states as well.

Key features were outlined of the desired legislation:
1)       Any case management and online public access systems should be recognized as inherently affecting changes in court procedures. Therefore, their installation must be established by law. Validation of such systems must be undertaken prior to their installation, in a manner that is legally and publicly accountable - e.g. through agencies under control of the legislative branch.
2)       Data that must be entered only by authority of the Clerk of the Court should be defined, including, but not limited entries in the online dockets, where the name, authority, and digital signature of the person entering the data should be publicly accessible.
3)       All court records must be publicly accessible, pursuant to First Amendment, Due Process, and Public Trial rights, including, but not limited to all authentication records, unless access is denied by law or through documented sealing orders.
4)       Authentication records of the US District Courts (NEF - Notices of Electronic Filing) and the US Courts of Appeals (NDAs - Notices of Docket Activity) must be re-drafted, to form valid certification of authentication records, clear and unambiguous reference should be included in such records to the judicial records being authenticated, as well as visible names, authority, and digital signatures of those issuing the authentication records � as signs of intention to take responsibility. Dockets must be constructed only by authority of the Clerk.  Judgments must be entered into the Judgment Index only by the authority of the Clerk.
5)       Counsel must not be permitted to enter court records in the dockets with no prior review by authority of the clerk; pro se litigants and counsel should be given equal standing in access to such systems.
6)       Key provisions of such legislation should apply to the courts of the several states as well.
Conditions now prevailing in the US justice system were deemed as undermining the framework of lawful and effective government.  Such conditions incurred risks that cannot be easily assessed to stability of US financial infrastructure, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law. 
The proposal was copied to the US State Department and the United Nations, as part of the pending, first ever UPR (universal periodic review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations scheduled for November 2010.  The April UPR report by Human Rights Alert, alleged large-scale fraud in online public access and case management systems of the courts in the United States. The report called for publicly and legally accountable validation of such systems by the legislative branch.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of online public access and case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.
The proposal was also copied to the Basel Accord Committee, since in such Accords, the US government made commitments for honest and effective regulation of the US banking system, valid risk assessment, and effective risk reduction.

LINKS
01-07-31-Human-Rights-Alert-s-Request-for-the-Judiciary-Committees-to-Establish-Case-Management-and-Online-Public-Access-System-of-the-US-Courts-by-Law
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35149271/

10-07-30 Advising Mr Kinney re: Bank of America // Asesoramiento Sr. Kinney re: Bank of America

  

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:58:27 +0300
To: Ralph Kinney
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Bank of America

Dear Mr Kinney 

You are asking the wrong person, and evidently you never read my blog.  I have full evidence of racketeering by Bank of America and Brian Moynihan in the courts of Los Angeles, and no US agency would take action.

         Joseph Zernik

At 04:58 AM 7/30/2010, Mr Kinney wrote:

Dear Dr. Zernik,

I live in Detroit, Michigan and am losing my home of 23 years.

While you don't know me, I hope you can help since I am having a major problem with Bank of America.

The Internet is a wonderful resource and therefore I was able to see your on-line letter to the CEO of BofA and your on-line blog.

To keep it short, here is the situation that I seek your advice.

I am losing my home due to foreclosure, however in Michigan the law requires a six month redemption period before the bank can take the house..

I contacted the bank during the 5th month and asked for a short sale.

The bank said yes, but gave me the run around and the wrong information and sent me to the wrong program.twice.

By time their error was corrected the six months had expired.

Also my loan is an FHA loan, meaning that HUD gives BoA back 100% of the loan amount so they lose nothing.

This is the major (unspoken) reason they dont want to do the short sale, althought they state they wont do it because the redemtion period has expired (due to their neglegence.)  .

I belive they do this as a pattern and pratice with  FHA loans, vs Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae loans.

I wish to file a class action lawsuit, but I have no idea where to start..

Since you are more seasoned in the battle with BofA can you advise me what to do next? Can you refer me to an attorney? A class action does not have to be a Michigan based attorney.

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration.

Ralph Kinney
  

10-07-30 Most Read on the Human Rights Alert Scribd Site // Leer más sobre los Scribd Web Site de Alerta de los Derechos Humanos

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  7 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-05-05 Countrywide, Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), and its President Brian Moynihan - Compilation of Records - Evidence of Racketeering s
  

  The record includes a short overview and links to some 80 records which are the evidence itself. See an updated, expanded list of evidence with links to records and short descriptions under: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32907453/ 10-06-11-Dr-Zernik-s-Complaints-Filed-with-Office-of-Comptroller-of-the-Currency-and-SEC-against-Countrywide-Bank-of-America-NYSE-BAC-and-Brian-Mo

   Reads: 4477 Published: 05 / 06 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  57 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-01-04 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: Online Inmate Information Center - Data Survey - Jose Martinez s
  In the course of attempting to secure the Human Rights of Richard Fine, it became apparent that the case management system of the Los Angeles Sheriff Department, like database management systems of the courts, suffers from lack of integrity. The Sheriff's system must be of particular concern - it allowed arbitrary deprivation of liberty. See also similar series constructed for: 1) Jose Rodriguez http://www.scribd.com/doc/25064776/ 10-01-11-Inmate-Information-Center-data-survey-Jose-Rodriguez-s 2) John Smith http://www.scribd.com/doc/24816245/ 10-01-05 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: Online Inmate Information Center - Data Sur Please see also review paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32470740/ 10-06-03-Data-Mining-as-a-Civic-Duty-Online-Public-Prisoners-Registration-Systems-draft-scholarly-paper-s
  

   Reads: 4085 Published: 01 / 05 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  7 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-05-05 Chairs of US Congress Committees of the Judiciary and Banking Are Requested to Join Senator Feinstein’s Inquiries on Comptroller of the Currency and US Dept of Justice Inspector General s
  

  Subject matter was alleged racketeering by Bank of America Corporation and Brian Moynihan - its president at the Los Angeles County, California, courts, and refusal of US banking regulators, FBI, and US Department of Justice to provide equal protection in Los Angeles County, California.

   Reads: 3156 Published: 05 / 06 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  25 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-01-05 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: Online Inmate Information Center - Data Survey - John Smith s
  

  Efforts to secure the Human Rights of Richard Fine revealed material deficiencies in the case management system of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department - Inmate Information Center. Given the limited access to data, indirect efforts were made to produce initial assessment of system integrity.

   Reads: 2862 Published: 01 / 05 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  49 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-01-14 Harris County, Texas, Sheriff's Office: Online Inmate Public Information - Data Survey - Carol Ann Davis s
  

  Interest in the Harris County Sheriff’s Office case management system (CMS) arose following an email from a Texas fellow, Dr Shirley Pigott, regarding the taking of Carol Ann Davis, her friend. Interest was also in reviewing the Harris County CMS as a comparison to the CMS of the Sheriff’s Department of Los Angeles County, California – and the online Inmate Information Center - which were deemed fraudulent by design and in operation. [1] [2] [3] [4] The online system of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, in this superficial review, initially appeared exemplary in its integrity compared to the Los Angeles County, California, Sheriff’s Department CMS – all listed inmates had SPN numbers issued, and all courts that were listed could be identified as existing courts, compared to the large percentage of entries in the Los Angeles CMS who had no booking number issued, and who had fictitious court listings. However, further analysis of the Harris County, Texas, data - attempt to correlate the SPN numbers with Booking Date - failed to reveal correlations. Finally - the glaring deficiency remained: Carol Ann Davis, who was taken over 12 hours earlier, and was claimed to be held by the Harris County Sheriff, was never listed on the system at all.

   Reads: 1590 Published: 01 / 15 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  8 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-01-11 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: Online Inmate Information Center - Data Survey - Jose Rodriguez s
  

  The best evidence for widespread corruption of the judges of the LA Superior Court is in the large-scale false imprisonments, which were never terminated even after the Rampart scandal (1998-2000),

   Reads: 1372 Published: 01 / 11 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  203 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-03-24 US District Court, Central District of California: Local Rules of Court,Chapters 1-4 s
  

  The complete files for the Local Rules were downloaded from the Court's web site. Of note, the Local Rules of Court failed to provide any foundation for the operation of PACER and CM/ECF, and the new authentication instruments that are the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) or the use of digital court stamps.

   Reads: 1248 Published: 03 / 24 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  86 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-01-16 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: VINE vs Online Inmate Information Center - Data Survey - Jose Martinez & Jose Rodriguez s
  

  Initial interest in the case management system of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department arose following the jailing and hospitalization of two senior attorneys, who had filed complaints pertaining to allegations of corruption of judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court. One of them, Richard Fine, has been confined under coerced hospitalization for over 10 months. In parallel – Los Angeles Sheriff, Lee Baca, refused to allow access to California Public Records, which were the arrest and booking papers of the two attorneys. Instead, his office repeatedly referenced false and deliberately misleading data published on the online Inmate Information Center. Previous data surveys demonstrated that about 30% of the entries in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Inmate information Center had no booking number available. It further showed that about 50% of the entries had fictitious court and/or case number listed as the legal authority for their jailing. Data surveys for common latino names such as “Jose Martinez”, “Jose Rodriguez”, versus common “anglo” names such as John Smith or John Williams, also suggested that latino named inmates were more likely to be missing a booking number or listed with other false data. Here, such data were further analyzed by accessing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department listing of inmates from two alternative sources: The VINE system, and the Inmate Information Center, and by comparing the results of the same queries from the two systems. The differences were of surprisingly large magnitude: ... Results of such analysis was claimed to demonstrate that upon investigation it was very likely to be found that large-scale false arrests and false jailing were prevalent in Los Angeles County, California. The evidence demonstrated that such practices were patronized by the courts. Additional evidence demonstrated widespread corruption of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – relative to real estate and financial institution fraud. FBI and the US Department of Justice refused to investigate allegations and overwhelming evidence of widespread corruption of the Los Angeles County justice system. It was therefore proposed that international observers should attempt to access public records in Los Angeles County, California, and further explore what appeared as large scale false jailing – direct extension of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000). Conditions of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, may also require immediate approach to International Human Rights courts.

   Reads: 1239 Published: 01 / 16 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  33 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-03-14 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: Online Inmate Information Center - Survey of Consecutive Booking Numbers s
  

  Following previous surveys of the inmates case management system of the Sheriff’s Department of LA County, California, [1] and of Harris County, Texas, [2] which were name-based, attempt was made to survey the Los Angeles system for consecutive inmate booking numbers. The online Inmate Information Center of the Sheriff’s Department of Los Angeles County did not allow search by number. Therefore, such search had to be conducted through the VINE Link system. Two series of booking numbers were queried, 20 in each the “High Series” and “Low Series”, which were previously shown to be issued in parallel by the Sheriff’s Department. In the Low Series only four (4) out of the twenty consecutive numbers matched an inmate name. In the High Series only five (5) numbers out of twenty consecutive numbers matched an inmate name. In each series, at least one of the non-matched booking numbers corresponded to a known inmate name. Generally, the findings confirmed the networked nature of the various terminals. However, the existence of two series of booking numbers, issued in parallel, remained inexplicable. In addition, departures from consecutive numbers relative to booking time were found. As in past surveys, reliance on non-existent court names was a common finding. For one of the nine (9) named inmates, who was held for fourteen days, no court name or court case number were listed at all. For another named inmate, and invalid case number (99999) was listed. One could have reasoned that only data for inmates whose offence level was “Felony” were forwarded from the Sheriff’s Department to VINE Link. However, for two (2) of the nine (9) named inmates on VINE Link no Offense Level was listed in the online Inmate Information Center of the Sheriff’s Department at all. The general nature of the online Inmate Information Center is again found as inconsistent with honest, valid implementation. The option to search the online Inmate Information Center by booking number should be provided – it is a critical safeguard for integrity of such system. Instant survey, like the previous surveys documented the urgent need for publicly-accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of such systems, which are a hazard for the Liberty of all who reside in the respective counties.

   Reads: 1026 Published: 03 / 14 / 2010 Share Add to Collections
• 
  
  
  
  5 p.
  
  
  
  Edit09-12-17 Richard Isaac Fine - Review e
  

  Overview of the Richard Isaac Fine case. Anti-judicial corruption activist falsely hospitalized since March 4, 2009 in Los Angeles, California

   Reads: 1018 Published: 01 / 03 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  2 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-01-08 Bank of America: Response letter by office of President/CEO Brian Moynihan to Office of Comptroller of the Currency on Zernik's Complaint (#00971981), as mailed to Dr Zernik
  

  January 8, 2010 copy of response from office of Brian Moynihan, BAC CEO & President on complaint to OCC (#00971981) - as mailed to Dr Zernik. It was alleged that such response should be deemed as fraud, tightly coordinated by office of Mr Brian Cave and the former CFC Legal Department - Mr Sandor Samuels and/or Mr Todd Boock.

   Reads: 925 Published: 03 / 06 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  48 p.
  
  
  
  Edit08-12-11 Bank of America - Outside Counsel Procedures s
  

  April 2008 the published BofA Outside Counsel Procedures. Obstructionist conduct by outside counsel is strictly prohibited. Outside Counsel is not allowed to appear unless authorized by BAC office of the General Counsel, and Outside Counsel is required to report per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) section 307. Bryan Cave, LLP, and the former CFC Legal Department, headed by Sandor Samuels were exempted from all such procedures starting December 11, 2008, under Bryan Moynihan. Therefore, the published Outside Counsel Procedures are alleged as false representations and fraud on shareholders, banking regulators, and the US taxpayer - sponsor of BofA to the tune of over $200 billions in the past two years. In contrast - note: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25700960/ 09-01-13-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Non-Party-Countrywide-s-Purported-Order-to-Show-Cause-for-Contempt-and-for-Sanctions-and-Other-Orders-Alleged

   Reads: 885 Published: 03 / 06 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  4 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-05-22 FBI complaint against Michael Libow and Gail Hershowitz, both of Beverly Hills, California, for conspiracy of real estate fraud and extortion.
  

  10-05-22 Complaint Filed with FBI, Los Angeles, against Michael Libow (Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage) and Gail Hershowitz (Mara Escrow) The complaint hinged on a total of three records: a) A November 2004 signed statement by Gail Hershowitz - that September 22, 2004 Real Estate Contract was faxed to her by Michael Libow. b) 2007 Subpoena production by Gail Hershowitz and Mara Escrow - failed to include the September 22, 2004 contract record, instead included a record that is alleged as forgery and adulteration. c) 2007 Subpoena production by Michael Libow - failed to include the September 22, 2004 contract record, instead included a record that is alleged as forgery and adulteration. The adulteration and forgery alleged in the record produced by Hershowitz and Libow are claimed to be the product of image processing, which could be easily discerned even by a lay person, including, but not limited to: a) Elimination of authentication data - fax header imprints were eliminated from the record. b) Placement and replacement of graphic signatures using cut and paste. c) Deskewing d) Background reduction. The outcome was appropriately termed by Mara Escrow counsel the "Cleaned Contract".

   Reads: 837 Published: 05 / 22 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  73 p.
  
  
  
  Edit08-03-05 Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248: Judge Jeff Bohm's Memorandum Opinion, rebuking Countrywide's litigation practices, Countrywide's false outside counsel scheme s
  

  “…During several hearings over the past year, the Court received evidence on a wide range of misconduct beyond this initial misrepresentation. The parties are a mortgage loan servicer and its two law fIrms: (I) Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), the loan servicer for Fannie Mae, the mortgagee of the Debtor's home loan; … Their collective conduct caused this Court to issue two Show Cause Orders. This Memorandum Opinion discusses how their actions in the case at bar have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system.”

   Reads: 776 Published: 01 / 10 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  6 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-03-06 Bank of America: Requesting President/CEO Brian Moynihan to Disclose His Own Fraud to the Audit Committee s
  

  10-03-06 Requesting Brian Moynihan, BAC President/CEO to disclose to Bank of America Audit Committee his own conduct as fraud by management, pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002). March 6, 2009 Brian Moynihan, President/CEO Bank of America Corporation By Email: RE: Requesting Brian Moynihan, BAC President/CEO to disclose to Bank of America Audit Committee his own conduct as fraud by management, pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002). Dear Mr Moynihan: Please accept this notice, and the attached digitally signed letter by Bank of America stockholder, as a request that you disclose to the Bank of America Audit Committee fraud by management: 1) Brian Moynihan, President/CEO 2) Sandor Samuels, Associate General Counsel. Truly, Joseph Zernik, PhD http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron, Coming soon- deep house music! CC: 1) Ed O'Keefe - General Counsel 2) Mary Schapiro - Chair, SEC, as a complaint against Brian Moynihan and Bank of America Corporation. 3) OCC, John Dugan, Kevin Bailey, as an Addendum to complaint #00971981 against Bank of America Corporation, a national bank. 4) Basel Accords Committee on international banking

   Reads: 760 Published: 03 / 06 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  5 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleged Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights s
  

  Complaint pertains to conduct of US Supreme Court Counsel in March-April 2010 in Fine v Sheriff (09-A827)

   Reads: 715 Published: 07 / 01 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  549 p.
  
  
  
  Edit09-09-09 SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) Dr Joseph Zernik’s Affidavit and Appendices in opposition to settlement then pending before the court s
  

  On August 3, 2009, Complaint (Dkt #1) in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) was filed, pursuant to cause of action of Securities Fraud – 15 USC §77. Litigation in this matter continues to this date. Concomitantly with the filing of the complaint, the parties noticed the court of their intent to file a proposed Consent Judgment in the case – in the sum of ~$30 millions. The August 25, 2009 Order (Dkt #13) stated: This Court has the obligation, within carefully prescribed limits, to determine whether the proposed Consent Judgment settling this case is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. Both parties filed papers in support of their proposed Consent Judgment. On September 9, 2009, Dr Zernik submitted, as an affidavit letter to chambers, copied to the parties, objection to the proposed settlement. Such affidavit was submitted following instructions from chambers regarding the procedure permitted for such affidavit. The September 15, 2009 Memorandum Opinion (Dkt #22) rejected the proposed settlement, then pending, and ordered the parties to set schedules for trial in February 2010. The core arguments in the September 9, 2009 Affidavit by Dr Zernik in opposition to the then proposed settlement can be summed as follows: · Conduct of Bank of America Corporation following the takeover of Countrywide Financial Corporation demonstrated adamant refusal to comply with the law. · Conduct of SEC and other US banking regulators in recent years demonstrated adamant refusal to enforce the law, and cover up of the alleged and opined criminality in banking operations. · SEC and Bank of America Corporation never arrived in court as adversarial parties, and therefore, neither the settlement, nor an attempt to litigate the complaint were likely to be effectual. Following records include: 1) Table of Contents - ii - iv 2) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Transmittal Letter for the Affidavit – 1 3) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Affidavit – 2 - 25 4) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Appendices for the Affidavit – 26 – 545

   Reads: 659 Published: 02 / 15 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  130 p.
  
  
  
  Edit09-06-04 US Senate Judiciary Committee: Then Circuit Judge Sotomayor's Questionnaire Appendix
  

  It is alleged that responses by then Circuit Judge Sotomayor to US Senate should be deemed a case of fraud on US Congress. Sonia Sotomayor listed among her decisions cases where orders were unsigned and were served with no authentication at all. Furthermore, the US Circuit Court for the 2nd District is denying access to the NDAs - authentication records of such purported court decisions. Therefore - such court orders could not possibly be deemed honest, valid and effectual court orders, which required "full faith and credit". JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX Question 13(b): Provide citations for all opinions you have written, including concurrences and dissents. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Kelsey v. County of Schoharie, --- F.3d ---- (2d Cir. 2009) U.S. v. Abdulle, --- F.3d ---- (2d Cir. 2009) Mendis v. Filip, 554 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. 2009) U.S. v. Varrone, 554 F.3d 327 (2d Cir. 2009) U.S. v. Draper, 553 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2009) U.S. v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 1

   Reads: 653 Published: 02 / 24 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  34 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-06-11 Dr Zernik's Complaints Filed with Office of Comptroller of the Currency and SEC against Countrywide, Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), and Brian Moynihan - alleging fraud and extortion on Dr Zernik, fraud on shareholders, banking regulators, and the US taxpayer s
  

  Beyond the introductory narrative about 130 links to records are provided as evidence of ongoing racketeering by Brian Moynihan and Bank of America at the Los Angeles Superior Court. D. LAYPERSON’S INTRODUCTION Most honest persons are likely to have difficulty in understanding the range of convoluted schemes employed by Countrywide and Bank of America described in instant complaint. Therefore, a layperson’s introduction is provided below: 1. REAL ESTATE FRAUD - Under Samaan v Zernik Countrywide, and Bank of America after it, were key perpetrators in a real estate fraud and banking fraud, which was opined by fraud experts second to none – James Wedick – (36) FBI veteran, who was decorated by US Congress, FBI Director, and US Attorney General, and Robert Meister – renowned fraud expert. The case involved no foreclosure, no bankruptcy, and no default on mortgage of any kind. Regardless, Dr Zernik was forced to leave his home under illicit threat of force, the property was taken for private use. Fraud in conveyance of title was committed in December 2007, ~$1.8 millions were collected in the purported sale of the property, but Dr Zernik was never compensated to this date in one penny for his residence. 2. HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, RETALIATION - Once Dr Zernik exposed the fraud and filed complaints with law enforcement, an extortionist retaliation campaign was initiated by Countrywide, and later continued by Bank of America. The campaign entailed the fraudulent employment of one of the worlds largest law firms to harass, intimidates, and retaliate against Dr Zernik. 3. FALSE PARTY DESIGNATION SCHEME - In civil litigations of the Superior Court one finds at minimum “Plaintiff” and “Defendant”. However, there is NO such party designation as “Non Party". Countrywide and Bank of America have been filing papers for 2.5 years under party designation "NON PARTY". Think about it as if in a football game, a third team appeared on the field, assisting one of the two legitimate teams in the game, and was listed on the scoreboard as "NON TEAM". 4. FALSE COUNSEL SCHEME - Attorneys appeared on behalf of Countrywide and Bank of America in courts, without being legally authorized to appear on behalf of their clients. As routine part of such schemes Countrywide was documented in the Case of Borrower Parsley in US Bankruptcy Court in Texas (9) as retaining such false counsel with "no communications with client clause.” Think about it as hiring a hit man, with a written contract never to contact the client once the hit man is hired, hoping to maintain deniability regarding conduct of the hit man that way. 5. PRODUCING OF FABRICATED BANKING RECORDS - The collapse of Countrywide in January 2008 was unrelated to the performance of its loan portfolios. Instead - it was the market's reaction to the publication by the New York Times, that Countrywide was caught in the Case of Borrower Hill in Pennsylvania, filing "Recreated Letters" as evidence. (37) Filing of false and deliberately misleading records was also part of the practices documented in Case of Borrower Parsley. (9) However, in the case described below, Countrywide produced hundreds of false banking records, (19) which documented in great detail the non-existent underwriting of residential mortgages already in 2004 – creating liabilities to the US government, which is the foundation of the current crisis. 6. OBSTRUCTION AND EXTORTION – Bank of America published a Code of Ethics, which promised to “do the right thing”, and Outside Counsel Procedures, which stated that outside counsel must be authorized to appear on behalf of Bank of America in a give caption, must not engage in obstructionist conduct, and must report to the General Counsel on conduct involving fraud that they may become aware of. The evidence provided here shows the exact opposite conduct. 7. WHY DO THEY BOTHER? - Angelo MOZILO – then Countrywide CEO, Sandor SAMUELS – then Countrywide Chief Legal Officer, today – Bank

   Reads: 636 Published: 06 / 11 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  1 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-04-19 Press Release: Human Rights Alert (NGO) Filed UPR Report with the United Nations
  

  Large scale violations of Human Rights in Los Angeles County, California were alleged. The hallmarks are false imprisonments and real estate fraud by judges under the guise of litigations. Racketeering is alleged by judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court. International monitoring of the California and US courts was recommended, absent which the precipitous deterioration in Human Rights conditions was unlikely to cease.

   Reads: 629 Published: 04 / 19 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  5 p.
  
  
  
  Edit09-05-01 Rampart-FIPs - Rampart First Trial PBS Frontline: Rampart False Imprisonments s
  

  PBS Frontline program "LAPD BLUES" is a living online monument for the human rights abuses taking place in Los Angeles County, California. Conditions of the justice system in Los Angeles County are a Human Rights disgrace of historic proportions.

   Reads: 590 Published: 01 / 07 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  43 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-02-09 One Unnamed District Attorney Deputy et al v County of Los Angeles et al ( ) Complaint against Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley
  

  Los Angeles, Feb 9, 2010 - An unnamed District Attorney Deputy, and the union representing the deputies filed complaint in US District Court, Los Angeles, against the District Attorney of Los Angeles County. Among the claims in the complaint of One Unnamed Deputy District Attorney et al v County of Los Angeles et al, it was alleged that the District Attorney, Steve Cooley, punished Deputies who shared discovery materials with Defense Attorneys, as required by law. It was also alleged that District Attorney Cooley openly discriminated and punished any Deputy who joined the union.

   Reads: 582 Published: 02 / 10 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  12 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-06-03 Data Mining as a Civic Duty - Online Public Prisoners Registration Systems - draft scholarly paper s
  

  Abstract: Online registries of prisoners are a subset of social networks - government controlled and subject to particular laws. They hold public records, which replaced the Index of All Prisoners, critical for the safeguard of Human Rights – Liberty itself. Transition to digital records raised validity, verification, and security problems. Hundreds of entries were sampled in the Los Angeles, California, online Inmate Information Center, and about half of the entries were found invalid. In particular cases, access to the arrest and booking records – public records by California law, was requested. Access was denied, neither were invalid records corrected upon request. Therefore, it was concluded that the invalid records posted online were not the outcome of inadvertent error. Ways and means are readily available to address the deficiencies currently detected. Regardless - transparency and constant data mining will remain a civic duty – to safeguard integrity of prisons and protect Human Rights.

   Reads: 578 Published: 06 / 03 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  41 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-03-24 US District Court, Central District of California: CM/ECF "Unofficial" Anderson Manual s
  

  Procedures that by law were required to be spelled out in Local Rules of Courts, were instead delegated in the Central District of California to an "Unofficial" Anderson's Manual.

   Reads: 576 Published: 03 / 24 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  20 p.
  
  
  
  Edit07-12-17 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) David Pasternak: Grant Deeds opined as fraud by James Wedick ss
  

  Opinion Letter by fraud expert James Wedick, an FBI veteran who was decorated by US Congress, by US Attorney General, and by FBI Director, is probably the single best evidence for the operation of the Equity/Enterprise Track by the LA-JR (alleged LA Juduciary Racket) at the LA Superior Court.

   Reads: 567 Published: 01 / 09 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  142 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10-01-02 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - Served by US District Court, Central District of California - Minutes, Orders, Judgment as served on Plaintiff during the purported litigation
  

  In Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Plaintiff filed complaint at the United States District Court, Los Angeles against 10 judges of the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, pursuant to deprivation of civil rights under the color of law 42 USC s1983. Moreover, it was alleged that the conduct of such judges in collusion with Countrywide/Bank of America Home Loans amounted to racketeering. The papers served by the court on plaintiff were deemed void, not voidable - none included valid and effectual authentication by clerk through a valid NEF (notice of electronic filing). Moreover, such records demonstrated the alleged fraud at the US Court, perpetrated through operation of PACER & CM/ECF. Other records in this series provide additional evidence and alanysis of the fraud in design and operation of the United States courts case management and public access systems.

   Reads: 566 Published: 01 / 03 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  8 p.
  
  
  
  Edit10 01 03 Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) - First Amendment & CMSs - Review
  

  NEF - Notice of Electronic Filing is the instrument designed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for authentication of court records by the clerk.

   Reads: 557 Published: 01 / 03 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  128 p.
  
  
  
  
  09-01-13 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) "Non Party" Countrywide's Purported Order to Show Cause for Contempt, and for Sanctions and Other Orders - Alleged Fraud and Extortion s
  

  It should be noted that this paper, unique in its alleged fraudulence, was filed on behalf of Bank of America at a time that Brian Moynihan, today Bank of America's President served as its General Counsel. 09-01-13. Att Jenna Moldawsky – Winner of the 2008 Pinocchio Award* As the year comes to a close, there is no doubt that Atty Moldawsky deserves more than anybody else the 2008 Pinocchio Award! Atty Moldawsky won the award for her landmark paper: “Non-Party Countrywide Home Loans, Inc’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Monetary Sanctions…”.** “In this artful pleading, Atty Moldawsky masterly crafted all possible Pinocchio effects: – Atty Moldawsky purportedly represents a corporate client, but she would not answer direct questions about its identity, neither has she filed any corporate disclosure in the past six months since BofA took over Countrywide, and since Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo presumably ceased to be Countrywide employees. Atty Moldawsky also filed no paper showing she was authorized by BofA, and BofA denied she was authorized. – Atty Moldawsky purportedly represents a client whom she designates “Non-Party”. By what authority and on what legal foundation she came by this party designation? Obviously it is handy in failing to report the violations of the law per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) §307, but why did the Clerk of the Court accept such filing? – Atty Moldawsky’s paper claims to be part of a case captioned Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), of the LA Superior Court. But the offices of Presiding Judge and Clerk of the Court refuse to certify such facts. – Atty Moldawsky adequately listed no judge as being assigned the to the case on the face page. And yet, in the first sentence she noticed it to “Department J”. What legal theory led Atty Moldawsky in determination of venue and jurisdiction? Maybe the fact that Mr Terry Friedman is a friend of Mr Sandor Samuels.., – Atty Moldawsky’s arguments are based on a purported July 23, 2007 Order by Judge Connor, but a valid order that was issued, served, noticed, and entered in a timely manner is yet to be produced… – Atty Moldawsky included in her motion a table of authorities. How did she determine that such case is adjudicated by the Law of the State of California ? – Atty Moldawsky, again, produced evidence with no authentication, and insufficient pleadings – with declaration by counsel alone. The Pinocchio Award committee congratulates you, Atty Moldawsky, for such unique achievement so early in your career – as graduate of UCLA Law School, Class of 2006. Congratulations also to your mentors at Bryan Cave, LLP, Bank of America, and Countrywide. Mr Samuels’ inspiration surely shines between your lines - his precocious student of the art of streamlining, of which he is a master – second to none… All the best!”

   Reads: 527 Published: 01 / 24 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  101 p.
  
  
  
  06-07-15 LAPD's Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
  

  Official report of the LAPD dated June 15, 2006, the definitive record regarding ongoing false imprisonments of thousands of blacks and latinos in Los Angeles County. California -- the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) victims, and the role of judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court in preventing their release. Please also see repeated requests forwarded to President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder - the first self-identified blacks to serve in such position, who to this date (May 2010) failed to take any action..

   Reads: 492 Published: 01 / 07 / 2010 
• 
  
  
  
  5 p.
  
  
  
  10-04-18 Human Rights Alert - Final Submission to the United Nations for the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the US s
  

  2010 UPR of the United States: Human Rights Alert (NGO) - Report on Conditions in Los Angeles County, California – Allegations, Conclusions, Recommendations. Executive Summary Human Rights Alert, a Los Angeles County, California, based NGO documents precipitous deterioration in integrity of the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, and respective US Courts – US District Court, Central District of California, and US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - national tribunals for protection of rights, with patronizing by US Department of Justice and FBI. Conditions which prevail today in Los Angeles County, California, are best evidenced in: a) Deprivation of Liberty - of various groups of FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), and b) Deprivation of the Right for Property - collusion of the courts with large financial institutions in perpetrating fraud in the courts on homeowners under the current US economic crisis. Unvalidated computerized case management systems (CMSs), which were installed at the state and US courts, in jails and prisons, and in financial institutions in the past couple of decades are claimed as a key to what amounts to an integrity crisis in government and financial systems in the US today. Through such systems the courts issue orders and judgments that they themselves never consider honest, valid, and effectual, but which are publicly displayed as such, prisoners are held with no valid records to support their imprisonment, and public access – to inspect and to copy - is denied to critical authentication records of the court. Such CMSs were installed in the US courts in violation of the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC §2071-7, since they entailed a sea change in court practices and procedures, which were never established in rules of court as required by law. Conditions in the US are not likely to self-correct in the foreseeable future within the checks and balances provided in the US Constitution. Allowing such disintegration to proceed poses risks to world peace and welfare, which are difficult or impossible to assess. Accordingly, Human Rights Alert recommends that goals be set and international monitoring be implemented to facilitate strict enforcement of the law on the US courts themselves – a) the Rule Making Enabling Act and b) the First Amendment Right to Access Court Records – to inspect and to copy. Inherent in compliance with the law must be a requirement for publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification) of CMSs in the courts, jails, and prisons in the US.

   Reads: 474 Published: 04 / 18 / 2010
  
  
  
  

  • 
    
    26 p.
    
    

    
    
    
    08-02-00 US District Court, Central District of California: General Order 08-02 Authorizing CM/ECF Digital Authentication and Attestation in NEFs

    The General Order 08-02 is purported by the US District Court, Central District of California, as providing the authority of its present day practice of NEFs in CM/ECF. The General Order 08-02 is alleged as central to the fraud in CM/ECF. First - such practice had to be established by Rules of Court, not by General Order, and second - the General Order 08-02 failed to even name its author, let alone bear a signature. BELOW ARE PARAGRAPHS THAT MAY BE OBLITERATED BY THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS IN SOME BROWSERS: F. “Electronic Signature” refers to the signature of an electronically filed document based on: (1) the CM/ECF User’s login and password and (2) the person’s representative signature, “/S/ – Name,” or a digitized personalized signature or facsimile signature on the signature line of the document. ... I. Hyperlinks. Documents filed electronically may only contain hyperlinks to sections of the same document. Hyperlinks to other documents, websites, source documents, or citations are not permitted. ... K. Notice of Discrepancies For Electronically Filed Documents. The Clerk’s Office may notify CM/ECF Users of discrepancies found in electronically filed documents by a discrepancy notice. In response to this notice, the assigned judge may order: (1) an amended or corrected document to be filed, (2) the document stricken, or (3) other action as the assigned judge deems appropriate. ... 55. O. Certification of Electronic Documents. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the method of electronic certification described herein is deemed proof of an official court record maintained by the Clerk of Court. The NEF contains the date of electronic distribution and identification of the United States District Court for the Central District of California as the sender. An encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp section of the NEF. The electronic document stamp shall be used for the purpose of confirming the authenticity of the transmission and associated document(s) with the Clerk of Court, as necessary. When a document has been electronically filed into CM/ECF, the official record is the electronic recording of the document kept in the custody of the Clerk of Court. The NEF provides certification that the associated document(s) is a true and correct copy of the original filed with the court. ... B. Pro Se Litigants. Documents filed by pro se litigants will continue to be filed and served in the traditional manner and will be scanned by the Clerk’s Office into the CM/ECF system. ... VI. Proposed Orders, Proposed Judgments, or Other Proposed Documents That Require a Judge’s Signature. A. Electronically Filed Proposed Documents. When a proposed order or other proposed document accompanies a filing, the proposed order or other proposed document shall be in PDF format and included, as an attachment, to the main electronically filed document (e.g., stipulations, applications, motions). Proposed orders or other proposed documents that are not filed with a main document, such as a proposed judgment or proposed findings of fact, shall be electronically filed as an attachment to a Notice of Lodging and shall be linked to the order or minute order directing the preparation of the proposed document. ... B. Service of the Court’s Orders or Other Court Generated Documents. Orders or other documents generated by the court will be served electronically unless: (1) an attorney is not a registered CM/ECF User, (2) an attorney is a CM/ECF User but has not consented to electronic service, or (3) a party is appearing pro se. If any of these situations exist, traditional service will be made by the court on that party(s) only. ... VIII. Signatures. An electronically filed document shall be deemed to be signed by the person (the “Signatory”) when the document identifies the person as a Signatory and the filing complies with either subparagraph (A) or (B) of this Section. Any filing in accordance with any of the

     Reads: 471 Published: 02 / 28 / 2010
  • 
    
    
    6 p.

    
    

    
    
    
    10-07-04 Human Rights Alert Complaint against the California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law in re: Richard Fine.

    Complaint Filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles, Alleging Public Corruption and Deprivation of Civil Rights Under the Color of Law by California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George. Los Angeles, July 4 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed complaint [1] with the newly re-established public corruption and civil rights unit of the US Attorney Office, alleging public corruption and deprivation of civil rights by the California Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George, pertaining to their conduct in the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine. Richard Fine, 70 year old, former US prosecutor, exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by judges in Los Angeles County of "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case. On March 20, 2009, Richard Fine filed a habeas corpus petition Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) at the US Court, Los Angeles. The Sheriff, named Respondent, refused to answer on the petition. Instead, the complaint alleged that the California Judicial Council falsely retained Attorney Kevin McCormick to answer on the petition on behalf of Judge David Yaffe and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint provided documentation that the California Judicial Council retained Attorney McCormick under false case caption. Consequently, Attorney McCormick appeared with no authority at all, and with no communications with his purported clients either. In such appearances, Attorney McCormick filed false and deliberately misleading records, purported as Judgment for the confinement of Mr Fine, and false declarations under penalty of perjury. The complaint further alleged that the parties involved - the Chief Justice Ronald George, the California Judicial Council, Attorney McCormick, Judge David Yaffe, and the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, were all duly informed of the wrongdoing, but none initiated any corrective actions, as required by law. Therefore, the complaint stated that in fact, there were no valid records, conforming with the fundamentals of the law to provide the foundation of the arrest and imprisonment of Richard Fine. Conduct of subjects of the complaint was alleged as false arrest and false imprisonment under the color of law, and retaliation against Richard Fine for exposing widespread corruption of judges in Los Angeles County, California. In the complaint, copied to the US Senate Judiciary Committee, and filed to coincide with July 4th, the US Independence Day, the US Attorney, Central District of California, was asked to provide equal protection for Richard Fine and all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County California. The complaint was also copied to the United Nations. In report filed in April 2010 with the United Nations, Human Rights Alert (NGO) alleged widespread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles County California, and large-scale false imprisonments, which the US government is refusing to address. The report was filed as part of the first ever review of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations, scheduled for November 2010. Human Rights Alert (NGO) recently initiated international lobbying to affect effective report by the United Nations regarding Human Rights in the United States. LINKS: [1] July 4th, 2010 Complaint filed with US Attorney, Los Angeles, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights by California Judicial Council, Chief Justice Ronald George, and others, relative to the imprisonment of Richard Fine. http://www.scribd.com/doc/33879469/ 10-07-04 Comp

     Reads: 457 Published: 07 / 04 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    1 p.

    
    

    
    
    
    10-05-28 Request for Senator Feinstein's Help in Obtaining a Verified, Valid Response by Office of Comptroller of the Currency on Case 01070442 against Bank of America s

    Dear Senator Feinstein: As always I am grateful for the assistance of your office in obtaining responses from federal agencies. Most recently I received by fax from your office two responses: a) Response Office of Inspector General, b) Response from Office of Comptroller of the Currency. Whether or not I was satisfied by the response from the Office of Inspector General, the letter was a valid one – it was verified by the hand signature of Acting Deputy Inspector General Cynthia Schnedar. However, the response from US Office of Comptroller of the Currency was not verified by any individual, and no name of individual responsible for the response appeared in the letter either. Such response was of particular concern, since there were additional deficiencies that lead to concern regarding its validity of the response: 1) The cover letter, page #1, addressed to Senator Feinstein, dated May 10, 2010, listed in the subject line Case #01070442, the correct case number, response on which was overdue, and response on which was requested through Senator Feinstein’s office. However, the response letter itself, page #2 – addressed to Dr Zernik, also dated May 10, 2010, referred only to Case #00971981. Therefore – in fact, no response was received from Office of Comptroller of the Currency on Case #01070442, the case on which response was requested. 2) No response from Bank of America was ever received on Case #00971981, either. The response from OCC was supposed to be based on response by BofA on the complaint in Case #00971981. 3) The response letter itself, page #2 – addressed to Dr Zernik, in its content, failed to address the issues that were raised in Case #01070442, either. In short, the agency in question – Office of US Comptroller of the Currency failed to respond at all on the Honorable Senator’s inquiry on Case #01070442 – only a cover page was provided carrying that case #, nothing more. Therefore, request is made for assistance by your good offices in obtaining a verified response from US Office of Comptroller of the Currency on Case #01070442. Truly, Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (HRA), NGO http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

     Reads: 455 Published: 05 / 28 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    36 p.

    
    

    
    
    
    10-01-09 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Case Summary-s

    Court records in Samaan v Zernik, in Galdjie v Darwish, in Marina v LA County, in Sturgeon v LA County, are the best evidence to this date of the Equity/Enterprise Track by the LA-JR (alleged LA Judiciary Racket) at the LA Superior Court. To wit, Countrywide/Bank of America Corporation have interchangeably been given numerous party designations, from Intervenor, through Non Party, Plaintiff, Defendant, Cross Defendant - all with no legal foundation. Albeit, the case summary is NOT an official court record. For better understanding of the alleged fraud in court conduct, please see the Register of Actions in the case.

     Reads: 442 Published: 01 / 09 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    9 p.

    
    

    
    
    
    10-07-06 Complaint Filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles, Against Moynihan Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) Bryan Cave LLP, Alleging Racketeering and Large Scale Financial Institution Fraud s

    Executive Summary Complaint was filed July 6, 2010, with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California, against Brian Moynihan – President/CEO, Sandor Samuels – Associate General Counsel, Bank of America Corporation, and Attorneys Jenna Moldawsky and John Amberg alleging: (a) Public Corruption and Financial Institution Fraud relative to their conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles pursuant to various acts, including, but not limited to the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (2009); (b) Large-scale fraud on the US government and the US taxpayer in funding government-backed uniform (sub-prime) residential loan applications with no underwriting at all in violation of Regulation B of the Federal Reserve and “sound banking principles” as evidenced in records produced in the same caption; (c) Consequent violations of Qui Tam – False Claims Act – in seeking hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout funds from the US government for the large-scale default of such loans, which were funded in violation of the law, and (d) Large-scale securities fraud pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act (1934) and Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), relative to false certification signed starting January 1, 2010 by Brian Moynihan as President/CEO of Bank of America Corporation in periodic reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, failure to report fraud by corporate counsel and by management to the Audit Committee, and refusal to allow review complaints by the Audit Committee. Combined, their conduct is alleged as involving numerous predicated acts in the past three years, and satisfying the elements required for prosecution for racketeering pursuant to RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (1970). The July 6, 2010 complaint relied in part on previous complaints: (a) June 11, 2010 complaint against Brian Moynihan and Bank of America Corporation, filed with the Office of Comptroller of the Currency and the Securities and Exchange Commission; (b) June 21, 2010 complaint, filed with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Attorney David Pasternak, former President of the Los Angeles Bar Association, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law relative to real estate fraud under the caption referenced above, as opined by one of the best known fraud experts in the US and FBI agent assigned to the case, and (c) May 11, 2010 complaint, filed with FBI against Nivie Samaan and others for real estate fraud and other violations of the law. US banking regulators and the US Justice Department repeatedly promised the US Congress, the people of the US, and the international community to investigate any criminality that may have caused the current economic crisis, inflicting harm on workers and investors world-wide. The case at hand documents in great detail such alleged criminality. Therefore, the US Attorney, Central District of California, was called upon to perform his duties and provide equal protection to complainant Dr Joseph Zernik, to shareholders of Bank of America Corporation, and to all who reside in the United States pursuant to the US Constitution and ratified international law – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Conduct documented in the July 6. 2010 complaint was not unique at all, only its scale and the evidence of involvement of senior management were. Examples were provided of similar conduct in other cases. It also documented the central role of alleged widespread corruption of the legal profession in undermining US financial systems and corporate governance, and failure of US law enforcement and the courts to enforce provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), which were specifically enacted to address such conduct by counsel. The continued dysfunctional state of US banking regulation poses risks to the US economy that are difficult to assess

     Reads: 416 Published: 07 / 06 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    18 p.

    
    

    
    
    
    10-07-19 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office against Judge John Segal, Clerk John Clarke, Attorney David Pasternak, Los Angeles Superior Court - in Re: Public Corruption in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - real estate fraud by the court s

    Executive Summary Los Angles, July 18 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against John Segal – Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, Attorney David Pasternak – former President of the Los Angles County Bar Association, and others of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights relative to their conduct in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737). The complaint named as co-conspirators all attorneys who appeared in the case, including, but not limited to Plaintiff’s Counsel Richard Green and Defendant’s Counsel Rhonda Walker. The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation, to employ the Court’s fraudulent case management system – Sustain - in generating fraudulent court records, and to take Defendant’s property – a 6-unit rental property in Santa Monica - under the color of law. The complaint further alleged that the case of Galdjie v Darwish, in and of itself, held sufficient evidence for prosecution of judges, clerks, attorneys, and the Los Angeles Superior Court itself for racketeering – conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The case proceeded from 1998 to 2006, by a group of judges, who presided with no Assignment Orders and with no authority at all, juggling the case back and forth among them. Judgments were falsely represented as entered, and a Receiver - David Pasternak - was falsely represented as appointed by the court. The minutes as registered in Sustain showed routine back-dating - at times by half a year or more, and also the “waiving” of notice and service and failure to have the minutes authenticated by the clerks. Therefore, all such records were alleged as void, not voidable. The Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Sustain showed the listing of numerous dates for jury trial, repeatedly continued. However, Defendant declared that her counsel had informed her at the onset of the litigation that the case would be heard by an ”Equity Court”. Therefore, she had been told that she would not be eligible for a jury trial at all. The Register of Actions also provided evidence of routine false registrations of numerous actions in the case. On May 13, 2002 the Register of Actions again listed jury trial in the case. However, Defendant declared that upon arriving at the Santa Monica Courthouse of the Superior Court of California, she was instructed to proceed to the Culver City Municipal Court. The Register of Actions noted that on the same afternoon a “Court Trial” was conducted by a judge who remained anonymous, listed in the Register only a “Muni-Judge”. However, Defendant declared that it was Judge John Segal, who acted with no authority at all. Attorney David Pasternak later acted as “Receiver” in the case. However, the hearing of a motion and the order for his appointment of receiver, were falsely registered. The Register of Actions also showed that no writ of execution was ever issued in the case. Regardless, David Pasternak took Defendant’s property, under the color of law, and conveyed it into possession of Plaintiff. However, no conveyance of title was ever found in searching the records of the Los Angeles County Registrar/ Recorder. The Register of Actions further showed that all court fees in the case, without exception, were listed as “Journal Entry”, whereas in other cases of the Court they were listed in the Registers as “Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”, “Stipulation Fees”, etc. Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke refused to disclose the ultimate designation of the funds collected in the case. It should be noted that accountancy textbooks consider misuse of “Journal Entry” registration as a cardinal sign of high-level financial management fraud. Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court also denied access to the paper court file in the c

     Reads: 409 Published: 07 / 18 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    14 p.

    
    

    
    
    
    10-01-12 Bank of America: Correspondence with Mary Schapiro - SEC Chair, Kevin Bailey - Deputy Comptroller of the Currency, Brian Moynihan - BofA President, and Basel Accords Committee

    The correspondence concerned conduct of Countrywide, later Bank of America Home Loans conduct in the courts of Los Angeles County, which was alleged as racketeering. Complaint based on such conduct was filed with OCC in late September 2009, but Bank of America refused to respond on the complaint to this date. Therefore, notice was given to Mr Moynihan, Bank of America new president, pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) section 307, of material deficiencies in integrity of operations, Furthermore, it was claimed that conduct of SEC and banking regulators defied any notion of US as good party to the Basel Accords, or compliant with ratified International Law.

     Reads: 401 Published: 01 / 13 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    42 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-04-13-UPR Tool Kit - Urban Justice Center USA, provided by UN office of High Commissioner for Human Rights

    UPR TOOL KIT OF THE URBAN JUSTiCE CENTER Human  Rights  Project at  the  Urban  Justice  Center -  A  PRACTICAL  GUIDE  TO  THE  2010   UNIVERSAL  PERIODIC  REVIEW   (UPR) BY THE UNITED NATIONS  OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES. January  2010   Table of Contents GLOSSARY INTRODUCTION About the Human Rights Project A: BASIC ASPECTS OF THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR) B: THE REVIEW PROCESS B1. Steps of the UPR process B1.1 Before the Review Documentation B1.2 At the review Interactive dialogue Informal adoption of the outcome document

     Reads: 387 Published: 04 / 13 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    11 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-01-11 Los Angeles Law Library Catalog - Data Survey - California Code s

    Material deficiencies in integrity of Case Management Systems (CMSs) were found at the following justice system agencies: 1) The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (SUSTAIN), 2) US District Court, Los Angeles (PACER & CM/ECF), and 3) Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (INMATE INFORMATION CENTER). Given such widespread lack of integrity in CMSs of the justice system, preliminary survey was conducted of the CMS of a related agency - the catalog of the Los Angeles County Law Library: · The online catalog of the Los Angeles County Law Library was queried for “California Code”. · The hit list included 1323 entries. · List of the first 100 hits was printed to file. · The full listing of about 10 entries was examined – no obvious deficiencies in integrity were found. · Call numbers appeared on all entries and appeared correctly issued. · No fictitious data entries were identified. · No deliberately misleading, invalid entries, were identified. On the background of the near perfect catalog of the Law Library, the appearance of “sloppiness” in CMSs of the courts and the jail appeared suspect. It is proposed that no sloppiness at all was involved in any of these fallacious CMSs, but in fact – they reflect widespread corruption of the judges of Los Angeles County, California.

     Reads: 386 Published: 01 / 11 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    2 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-02-05 Bank of America: Repeat Request for Ed O'Keefe- General Counsel, and Brian Moynihan - President, to report Sandor Samuels to the Audit Committee for fraud by management s

    To Brian Moynihan - BofA President, and to Ed O'Keefe - BofA General Counsel; Copied to Mary Schaprio - Chair, SEC, John Dugan - Director, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, and the Basel Committee. By email and by fax. Dear Mr Moynihan, and Mr O'Keefe: Please accept this request by Dr Joseph Zernik, stockholder, that you report to the Audit Committee of BofA , pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), fraud by management - Sandor Samuels - Associate General Counsel of BofA. The fraud was and is by Sandor Samuels in collusion with others, including, but not limited to his friend, Attorney David Pasternak. Such fraud was opined by two fraud experts of the highest reputation, James Wedick and Robert Meister. Such fraud included: a) Fraud against stockholders of Countrywide Financial Corporation and Bank of America Corporation, including, but not limited to false certifications pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) in periodic reports; b) Large-scale fraud in Countrywide relative to false underwriting and the funding of extremely unworthy US government-backed, uniform residential loan applications, under the guise of true underwriting, using the fraudulent case management system "EDGE" for underwriting monitoring. c) Fraud, extortion, harassment, intimidation and retaliation against Dr Joseph Zernik, after he uncovered such large-scale fraud by Countrywide and filed complaints in that regard with FBI. Such extortionist conduct against Dr Joseph Zernik continues to this date. In December 2006-January 2007, Dr Zernik uncovered the large-scale fraud at Countrywide against stockholders and against the US government, and he filed complaint to that effect with FBI, where he correctly projected liabilities to the US Government at the hundreds of billions of US dollars as result of such fraud. Subsequently, Countrywide, under the guidance of Sandor Samuels engaged in malicious litigation under the caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), where Countrywide and later BofA appear to this date under the false party designation of "Non-Party", and where Sandor Samuels falsely appears as "Person in Interest". Under the caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Countrywide, and later Bank of America filed hundreds of false banking records, declarations, motions, and purported orders and judgments, all without exception false and deliberately misleading. In the course of such litigation, Countrywide and BofA, under the guidance of Sandor Samuels, also engaged in false appearances by Counsel - Bryan Cave, LLP, which continued even when the office of General Counsel of BofA under General Counsel Timothy Mayopoulos repeatedly informed Dr Zernik that Bryan Cave, LLP was not authorized to appear on behalf of BofA in the respective caption. To simplify review of the multiple types of fraud involved in the case, the Audit Committee of BofA was repeatedly requested to review only 6 key Countrywide/Bank of America records from such malicious litigation, all alleged or opined as fraud. [1] However, correspondence of Dr Zernik with General Tommy Frank, former member of the Audit Committee, would lead one to conclude that the Audit Committee was never informed of the complaints filed by Dr Zernik pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), and likewise, that the Audit Committee was never informed of the fraud by management - by Sandor Samuels - Associate General Counsel, and others. Although conduct of Sandor Samuels and Countrywide/BofA under caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was extreme, the pattern of fraud by the Legal Department of Countrywide under Sandor Samuels in courtrooms across the United States was well established in the Case of Borrower Hill (01-22574) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the Case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) in Houston Texas. The latter case also included a one- year study by the United States Trustee regarding litigation practices of Countrywide in cour

     Reads: 369 Published: 02 / 05 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    12 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-04-21 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) US Supreme Court list of orders for March 8-15, 2010, failing to show the March 12, 2010, denial of Fine v Sheriff by Justice Kennedy.

    Contradictory records of the US Supreme Court

     Reads: 365 Published: 04 / 21 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    163 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit04-09-27 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Nivie Samaan's Fraudulent Uniform Residential Loan Applications (1003) and Their Fraudulent Underwriting by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc s

    It is alleged that this record, in and of itself, can provide the true history of the "sub-prime crisis", which FBI, US Dept of Justice, and banking regulators are deceptively hiding from the American people, US Congress, and the international banking community.

     Reads: 354 Published: 01 / 24 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    33 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-02-17 People of California v Joseph Zernik (8BR0429801) Burbank court records related to February 6 2010 arrest s

    1) Arrest of Joseph Zernik was conducted on February 6, 2010, by La Verne Police, claiming to have a valid signed warrant from the Burbank Court, which they claimed that they executed. 2) On February 6, 2010, att the time of the arrest La Verne Police refused to show the warrant. 3) Two days later, upon release from county jail, La Verne Police denied access to the warrant - a California Public Record - under the claim that it was not a "separate entity". 4) The purported warrant record was later retrieved from the Burbank Court, and it was found to be an unsigned warrant. 5) The Clerk of the Burbank Court claimed that it was a valid warrant, regardless of it being unsigned. 6) Moreover, the Burbank court clerk claimed that the La Verne Police never executed the warrant, so that Joseph Zernik was still subject to arrest at any time, again based on an unsigned warrant.

     Reads: 352 Published: 02 / 17 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    4 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-04-19 Human Rights Alert - Final Appendix for Submission to the United Nations for the 2010 UPR of the United States s

    Human Rights Alert PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US Location: La Verne, California Date: 2010.04.19 01:08:03 -07'00' 10-04-18 Human Rights Alert - Appendix to UPR Report The appendix includes a series of records in support of the allegations, conclusions, a

     Reads: 351 Published: 04 / 19 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    4 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-01-27 US Office of Comptroller of the Currency: Complaint against Bank of America (Case # 00971981) -alleging conduct amounting to racketeering by Bank of America and Brian Moynihan - Response to Compalint s

    In late September 2009 complaint was filed with OCC against Bank of America Corporation, for ongoing fraud against me by its subsidiary - Bank of America Home Loans, the former Countrywide Home Loans, and for conduct that amounted to racketeering. Initially, Bank of America failed to respond within the time requirements. After repeated complaints, OCC claimed to have "escalated" the complaint twice. Finally, Bank of America responded on January 8, 2010, in a letter that refused to respond. Based on such letter, OCC closed the complaint. It should add, that the letter by OCC is also deceptive. Bank of America in fact responded to OCC with two letters, both dated January 8, 2010. However one of the two letters was not disclosed in the letter by OCC. Therefore, FOIA-request was filed in order to discover the second January 8, 2010 letter, which OCC and Bank of America were deceptively concealing. The conduct of complaints by OCC and other US banking regulators, where the bank is allowed to see the complaint, but the complainant is not allowed to see the response, is a unique perversion of due process.

     Reads: 347 Published: 02 / 02 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    28 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit09-12-29 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - CM/ECF - Request and Response in attempt to gain access to records of US District Court, Los Angeles s

    NEFs (notices of electronic filings) were finally accessed on December 29, 2009, after numerous attempts. They provided direct evidence for the alleged fraud in the design and operation of PACER and CM/ECF - the case management systems of the United States courts. Notice that only a fraction of the requests to access court records was allowed. The evidence suggested that the other cases where access was requested and denied, would provide additional evidence of fraud in CM/ECF in cases of the highest public interest significance.

     Reads: 342 Published: 01 / 01 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    31 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit08-01-08 Case of Borrower Hills (01-22574) - at the US Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh. Countrywide's Recreated Letters & a Transcript s

    In Case of Borrower Hill Countrywide was found to have fabricated three (3) "recreated letters" as evidence. In Samaan v Zernik, it recreated hundreds of records, including a "Protective/Restrains Order".

     Reads: 328 Published: 01 / 10 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    7 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-07-08 Complaint Filed with US Attorney Office, Los Angeles, against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights in Imprisonment of Richard Fine s

    Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California. 221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012 By certified mail, by fax: 213-894-6269, 213-894-0141 TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s Complaint against David Yaffe - Judge, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke - Clerk, and Frederic Bennett – Counsel, all of the Superior Court of California, and against Lee Baca – Sheriff of Los Angeles County – for public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in re: False imprisonment of Richard Fine. Executive Summary Complaint was filed July 8, 2010, with the US Attorney Office, Central District of California, against DAVID YAFFE – Judge, CHARLES MCCOY – Presiding Judge, JOHN A CLARKE – Clerk, and FREDERIC BENNETT – Counsel, of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and LEE BACA – Sheriff of Los Angeles County, for public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law in the matter of Richard Fine. The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to hold Richard Fine (#1824367) in solitary confinement at the Central Men’s Jail since March 4, 2009, with no legal foundation at all for the imprisonment. Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in Richard Fine’s case. Instead, the complaint alleged that the accused engaged since March 2009 in the production and publication of fraudulent records, including, but not limited to records filed in the habeas corpus of Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) at the US District Court, Los Angeles and records produced by the Sheriff in response to inquiry by Los Angeles Supervisor Michael Antonovich. The complaint further claimed that inherent to the conduct of the accused was failure of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles for over a quarter century, to publish honest Local Rules of Court pertaining to the entry of judgment - in violation of due process rights, and refusal of the Court to allow access to court records, which were the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Marina v LA County (BS109420), the case where Richard Fine was purported to have been arrested and imprisoned – in violation of First Amendment rights. Moreover, the complaint detailed refusal of Presiding Judge McCoy and Clerk Clarke to initiate corrective actions relative to the alleged false imprisonment of Richard Fine, to correct false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Court repeatedly published by the Court pertaining to the entry of judgments in Los Angeles County, to publish valid and effectual Local Rules of Court, and to allow access to the Register of Actions in Marina v LA County (BS109420). Instead, in 2009-10 Court Counsel Frederic Bennett sent a series of false and deliberately misleading letters to complainant Dr Zernik, with no authority at all, pertaining to Local Rules of Court and denial of access to court records. Combined, the complaint alleged that the four accused conspired to falsely imprison Richard Fine, under the color of law, as retaliation, harassment and intimidation of a victim, witness and informant. The complaint further alleged that the conduct of the Court relative to the ongoing publication of fraudulent Local Rules of Court, refusal to disclose and publish honest Local Rules of Court, and denial of access to court records amounted to severe violation of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all residents of Los Angeles County. The complaint requested the US

     Reads: 317 Published: 07 / 08 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    13 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-06-07 Michael Paul v California Administrative Office of the Courts (10-500520) - Complaint

     Los Angeles, July 17 - Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed with the United Nations and US State Department copy of complaint filed by Michael Paul, former employee of the California Administrative Office of the Courts, alleging public corruption by the California Courts and California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. [1] [2]Human Rights Alert asked the US Department of Justice and the United Nations to accept the complaint as additional evidence of widespread corruption of the California courts. Widespread corruption of the courts and large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, were the focus of the Human Rights Alert April 2010 report to the United Nations. In letter to plaintiff Michael Paul, Dr Zernik noted that former's complaint was consistent with complaints filed in recent weeks by Human Rights Alert with the US Attorney Office against Ronald George, California Judicial Council, judges and clerks of the Superior Court of California,alleging widespread corruption. Dr Zernik added that he had no doubt that upon review of the body of the complaints as a whole, any competent court of jurisdiction would conclude that judges of the Superior Court of California were engaged in racketeering for at least a decade or two. Moreover, Dr Zernik noted documents,which had been filed with the United Nations, and provided evidence of the refusal of the US government to address the corruption of the courts, as part of its duties and obligations pursuant to ratified international law. Dr Zernik also urged Mr Paul to join others in lobbying nations that would be central to the review of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations. Mr Paul was also urged to come forward and reveal any information that he may have pertaining to case management systems of the California courts, as part of his previous employment with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. The letter repeated allegations that Chief Justice Ronald George was a key figure in the installation of a fraudulent case management system in the Los Angeles Courts circa 1985, the harms of which are suffered to this date. In recent years, the California Administrative Office of the Courts engaged in a large-scale project to install a new California Case Management System - again - with no evidence of public oversight of integrity of the system. Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States. LINKS [1] Letter to the US State Department and the United Nations - providing additional evidence of widespread corruption of the California Courts. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34467837/ [2] Michael Paul v California Administrative Office of the Courts - complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/34467455/

     Reads: 311 Published: 07 / 17 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    173 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit09-11-24 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) David Pasternak'a "Final Report" and Declaration w Bookmarks s

    The finality of the "final report" is unclear - Attorney David Pasternak continues his extortionist conduct for over 2.5 years, with no end in sight. Conduct of David Pasternak in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was opined a "fraud being committed" by fraud expert second to none - decorated FBI veteran James Wedick (See record dated 07-12-17.) David Pasternak's conduct was alleged as real estate fraud in a series of other cases, to be separately posted. first and foremost among them - Galdjie v Darwish. It was further alleged, that it was corrupt judges of the Superior Court of California, such as: Collins, Patricia Connor, Jacqueline Friedman, Terry Goodman, Allan Hart-Cole, Lisa O’Brien, Gregory Rosenberg, Gerald Segal, John Yaffe, David And corrupt attorneys, such as David Pasternak, in collusion with others in financial institutions, who propelled Los Angeles County to the distinction, by FBI, as "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud". Finally, it was stated as a fact, that FBI was fully aware of such conditions in Los Angeles county, for years, but allowing such widespread corruption to continue unbridled.

     Reads: 309 Published: 01 / 14 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    3 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit09 12 29 Richard Fine - Request for Los Angeles County Supervisor Antonovich to file addnl inquiries on sheriff Lee Baca in re: Arrest and booking papers

    California Public Records Act makes arrest and booking papers public records. In disregard of the law, Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles county refused to provide copies of the arrest and booking papers of two attorneys who had filed complaints pertaining to alleged widespread corruption of the judges of Los Angeles Superior Court, and were later subjected to forced hospitalizations.

     Reads: 308 Published: 01 / 04 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    17 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit09-06-24 US App Ct 9th: Fine v Sheriff of LA (09-71692) Dkt #02 - Zernik's Ex Parte Application for Leave to File

    Ex parte application for leave to file papers - to inform the court of the ways that PACER & CM/ECF were utilized for conducting sham court actions.

     Reads: 304 Published: 01 / 13 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    8 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit09-09-11 Former San Bernardino County Superior Court Presiding Judge - Michael Welch - suspect in real estate frauds cases under the guise of court actions - San Bernardino County Sentinel

    The San Bernardino County Friday, September 11, 2009 A Fortunado Publication in conjunction with Countywide News Service 10808 Foothill Blvd. Suite 160-446 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Colonies Scandal Issues Were Explored by County Taxpayers Group Three Years Ago SAN BERNARDINO–Moving on to three years after the county board of supervisors as it was then composed entered into a controversial $102 million settlement with the developers of a massive residential and commercial subdivision in Uplan

     Reads: 303 Published: 05 / 31 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    5 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit09 12 17 Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) - Review

    Large scale false imprisonments continued in Los Angeles County, California for over a decade.

     Reads: 300 Published: 01 / 03 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    9 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-01-08 Supervisor Antonovich, Los Angeles County, repeat mailing of January 8, 2010 response from Sheriff Lee Baca in re: Richard Fine papers, including the fraudulent attachments s

    It is indisputable that Richard Fine was arrested on the morning of March 4, 2009 at the Court of Judge David Yaffe, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, at the Mosk Courthouse, on North Hill Street, City of Los Angeles. However, no warrant for the arrest was ever discovered. Furthermore, for over a year Sheriff Lee Baca insists on denying access to the California public records, which are the arrest and booking records of Richard Fine. Instead, for over a year, Sheriff Lee Baca insists on producing false and deliberately misleading records, even in response to inquiry by Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich - falsely claiming that Richard Fine was arrested on location and pursuant to the Authority of the "San Pedro Municipal Court". [1] As you surely know, no such court has existed for almost a decade. Richard Fine is only one example, but survey of the inmate data in Los Angeles County jails demonstrated that about half the inmates - thousands of persons, are held under false and deliberately misleading records. [2] It is a Human Rights disgrace of historic proportion! This repeat mailing, post-stamped January 14, 2010, included the attachments, which were missing from the original mailing by the office of Supervisor Antonovich. Such attachments were the fraudulent responses provided by Sheriff Lee Baca to Supervisor Antonovich's inquiry regarding refusal to allow access to the California Public Records which were the arrest and booking papers of Richard Fine and Ronald Gottschalk. The responses, among other fraudulent data, state the arrest and booking of Richard Fine to have taken place by the non-existent San Pedro Municipal Court. In fact, the abduction was perpetrated by the Sheriff's Warrant Detail in open court at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Court of Judge David Yaffe.

     Reads: 298 Published: 01 / 21 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    4 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-02-24 Dr Joseph Zernik abducted, robbed at gun point is denied protection s

    In a series of complaints filed with Los Angeles County Supervisor Stephanie Maxberry on Tuesday, February 23, 2010, Dr Joseph Zernik, a Los Angeles County Human Rights activist, detailed his abduction at gun point in La Verne, California, his false arrest, extortion, and armed robbery, related conduct by the Sheriff’s Department, which was alleged as amounting to corruption of operations and serious abuse of Human Rights, and related dishonest conduct by the La Verne Police Department undermining any integrity in crime statistics reports. [1]

     Reads: 296 Published: 02 / 25 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    96 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit08-12-15 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Countrywide Ex Parte Application for a Short Notice Hearing on Motion for OSC Contempt and Sanctions

    December 15, 2008 Ex parte application by “Non Party” Countrywide for short notice hearing on contempt and sanctions against Dr Zernik. Such court actions were alleged retaliation/intimidation/harassment against witness/victim/informant and also obstruction/perversion of justice. The application was deemed as an act of flaunting criminality, since it was based on a claim of contempt related to Dr Zernik contacting the office of BAC General Counsel and obtaining information that Bryan Cave,LLP was NOT authorized to appear in court under Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). Most significantly - the ex parte application demonstrated the resumption of conduct alleged as racketeering within 24 hours from ouster of Timothy MAYOPOULOS as General Counsel and appointment of Brian MOYNIHAN as his replacement. (December 10, 2008). US Congress, US District Court, and NY State Attorney General attempted to investigate the background for the ouster of MAYOPOULOS. The case at hand provides clear answers. MAYOPOULOS was determined to oppose the racketeering conduct at Countrywide - then newly acquired subsidiary. Brian MOYNIHAN was willing to adopt the new business model.

     Reads: 295 Published: 03 / 06 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    4 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-06-20 Brian Moynihan - Bank of America President, John Dugan - Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of the Chair - SEC - Confirmations of Receipt on Message Alleging Invalid Litigation, Requesting Authentication Records s

    Human Rights Alert PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@e arthlink.net, c=US Date: 2010.06.20 16:02:51 +03'00' 10-06-20 SEC v Bank of America Corporation - Confirmations of Receipt on Press Release by Brian Moynihan – Bank of America President, SEC, and John Dugan – Comptroller of th

     Reads: 292 Published: 06 / 20 / 2010 
  • 
    
    
    125 p.

    
    

    
    
    Edit10-06-13 Survey of the Prisoners' Booking Log, Marin County, California, Sheriff's Department - Glaring Deficiencies in Validity and Integrity s

    The record includes a short analysis, the complete prisoners' log, and records of a random sample of 20 prisoners which were analyzed in the study. Introduction The online Marin County, California, Sheriff’s Department Booking Log was inspected through data mining of records provided online. Interest in the Marin County Sheriff’s Department records was primarily as comparison to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department records, which were previously inspected, and which were found lacking in integrity. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Table of Contents 3. Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion 6. Endnotes 7. Appendix 7.1 Comprehensive Booking Log 7.2 Records of prisoners in the sample used in the study, in alphabetical order. Conclusions The data provided in the Marin County online Booking Log is far from meeting basic standards of integrity. However, it must be deemed by far superior to the system of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff Departments' inmate registration systems must be deemed vital for the safeguard of liberty. Such systems should be subjected to publicly accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification). Validity of the Marin County system is dubious at best.

     Reads: 292 Published: 06 / 13 / 2010