10-01-25 Conduct of the Equity/Enterprise Track of the LA-JR (LA Judiciary Racket)

   
The Chancery Court, London


At 014:32 1/25/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:32:21 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Calif Constitution Art I sec 10

Dear Brad:

Again, with all due respect, you refuse to see the obvious.  None of the proceedings that led to the abduction and false hospitalization of Richard Fine was under law of the State of California or the United States.

There is no need therefore, to get into any of the detailed theoretical scholastic considerations of why this false hospitalization was unlawful. It was unlawful on its face.

This is rehashing and rehashing what was already discussed a couple of months ago.  At that time, I challenged Attorney Ronald Gottschalk to prove that Marina v LA County (BS109420), in ancillary proceedings of which Attorney Richard Fine was purportedly jailed, was a case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  He could not provide any valid record to establish such fundamental fact.

All the rest is nonsense.

However, since scholastic and sophistic discussions are the favorite pastime here, let me offer the following:

For lack of better term, I call the numerous cases, which I identified as falling into the same category as Marina v LA County as part of the LA-JR (Los Angeles Judiciary Racket) Equity/Enterprise Track:  

Enterprise -  in this context refers to RICO Enterprise, and
Equity -  in this context refers to the extinct Equity Courts of England, since the judges of the LA-JR conjured up this delusional authority to run equity courts in Los Angeles.

The conduct of the LA-JR's Equity/Enterprise Track was the subject of my complaint to US Dept of Justice in early 2008, and the subject of inquiries by Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Watson on FBI and US Dept of Justice,  over a year before Richard Fine was arrested. 

You may recall that one of the major differences between Equity Courts and Common Law Courts was that Equity Courts were limited to actions ad hominem - against the person.  Therefore, Equity Courts routinely engaged in imprisonment for debts. In fact, protest against the conduct of Equity Courts and imprisonments for debt was the routine subject of Charles Dickens literature.  Likewise, the US Constitution article that you quoted was meant to put an end to such practice in the United States.

jz

At 01:32 PM 1/25/2010, Attorney Brad Henschel wrote:

There is a line of cases in which some states tried to tax the paper and ink used by printers to try to get around the prohibition against abridgement of the press, which includes no taxation and which is there basis for no taxes on newspapers.  The US Supremes held that taxing the implements of the press, namely paper and ink was the same as taxing or abridging the freedom of the press.
   I was researching some constitutional issues for an appeal I am writing and came across Art I sec 10 prohibiting imprisonment for debt.  I saw the imprisonment of former Atty Fine as being an extension of being imprisonsened for debt for Fines refusal to answer the debtor exam questions.
   I find the entire Fine scandal odd because I had conversations with Richard Fine during his State Bar discipline case and he told me he was out of money and hurting financially.  Being in jail can't help him financially in such a situation. 
   Moreover, there are statutory exceptions, exemptions, and restrictions to what assets may be seized to pay such debt.  The well known Homeowner exemption with Richard Fine being a senior that exemption doubles in Calif.  There is an exemption for social security benefits and payments.  Tools of his trade are exempt, an automobile of a certain value and more.  I can't imagine that Richard Fine doesn't know these exemptions, really has no money, or simply intends to tax the system until they let him out of the LA county Jail.
  However, I have not fully researched the issue, but I would be happy to work pro bono with an attorney in LA to get Richard out with a Writ on this point, if the research indicates what I expect it to indicate.  Moreover, the Writ might allow an investigation into judge Yaffe, who does not enjoy a very good reputation among those who know him or have had dealings with him before he became a Judge.  When I was practicing law I appeared before him in a family law case and his ruling was quite amateurish and surprisingly wrong in that matter if I remember correctly.
    I am quite surprised that this group seems to be so contentious since all roads lead to mecca, there are many answers to the problems of government not abiding by the constitution, when it is run by flawed human beings.  For example, the main source of fixing government wrongdoing or overreaching is the election process as happened in Mass.  They elected a Republican Senator in a hugely Democratic area with a record turnout.  That large turnout tells me that the people were angry to get them off their couch to go vote.
    the first thing to do is come to a consensus on the action to take then acting as a group you can make a significant change.
    By just getting 12-20 of my friends to write letters in the 1980s we stopped a number of bad laws before they got past the introduction stage in the Calif legislature.  After Prop 13 passed they were running scared.  I had them write from many counties in the State to show there was no support for their bill.
    Understand that when a bill is first introduced few people know about it.  So one letter equals about 1/2 to One million voters.  When we sent 12-20 letters ALL in opposition to a bill it got dropped right away.  In fact one tax bill that would have taken taxpayers rights away was stripped of all the taxing language and turned into a state income taxpayers bill of rights.  It depends on how long you wait.
    Most bad bills are allowed to sit, so when the government begins to enforce those bad laws, the government argues that nobody complained during the legislative process, until the enforcement began.
The place to stop bad laws is early and often. 
    With that said, I am sure we all realize that what is being done to Richard Fine can be done to all of us.  So there needs to be some limit to Judge Yaffe jailing Richard Fine, some error in his ruling, some limit to his power of civil contempt. 
     Our economy is going to take care of the Judges taking unconstitutional money as that money is drying up fast.  The Judges told me last month that in LA County alone 150 courtrooms will be closed, 1500 clerks will be fired and more cuts will be coming.  Already the judges are donating 1 days salary a month to help pay their clerks as a voluntary matter.  The chickens they are coming home to roost.
     So what can we do to put everyone together on some track, at least the letter writing track?  I propose that personal attacks be stopped and in it's place the statement, I disagree with you because ......... I don't agree with your position.  On the issues and strategies you agree with you should then decide what action to take, no matter how minor it may seem, it is the JOINT ACTION that government fears.
     For judicial Action I like Quo Warranto or other writs.  For the legislature I like to talk to candidates, especially judicial candidates and give them some contributions, and I like letters.  Most who run for office have giant egos but they want that office for emotional reasons.  They need such recognition and they are willing to support whoever supports them, good or bad. 
     Those are my suggestions for unity.  It is still true that United we Stand and Divided we fall.  The founders gave their lives and fortunes so we could have freedom, be left alone and to reap the bounty of that freedom.  So maybe the first order of business is to try and get Richard Fine out of Jail?  I am willing but I need an attorney to work with on it.
Brad Henschel, JD  currently an inactive member of the State Bar of California.

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

At 01:02 AM 1/25/2010, Attorney John Wolfgram wrote:

From: John Wolfgram
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com; Brad Henschel
Sent: Mon, January 25, 2010 1:02:16 AM
Subject: RE: Calif Constitution Art I sec 10

Actually, Joseph, I put Lawsters on Brad's message to solicit, ummmm, slightly more constructive input from you on the issue that Brad raised.  It was something of a compliment to you, which you kind of missed, recognizing you more or less as the resident authority on the factual issues and seeking your input on the legal issue.  I kind of expect that you are aware of whether any of the issues Brad or I raised have been addressed; and, he or I may have a standing issue that has been addressed; or we might address it in a first amendment context ... you know, the freedom to speak includes a freedom not to speak which neither Congress nor the states may abridge?

Ohhhh, is that what I am "clueless about"?  This can not possibly be a First Amendment case?  Has that issue been tried and failed and you are not just the resident expert on the facts, but on the First Amendment and on Habeas Corpus and on the Fifth Amendment? Are you so familiar with the 1950s Communist cases that you know that there is no right not to speak involved in those cases?  Well, you got me there, because I'm not so sure that there is not such a right tangently recognized, in those cases or elsewhere. 

Maybe you can just tell me so that I don't have to research it.

How utterly, utterly, utterly foolish of me to miss all of that expertise rolled up into one little Jose.

Wolf  

At 00:26 AM 1/25/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:

---

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:26:18 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: Calif Constitution Art I sec 10

Mr John Wolfgram:

With all due respect, you are clueless, as ever, which never stopped you from going full speed ahead.

Joseph Zernik

At 12:20 AM 1/25/2010, Attorney John Wolfram wrote:

I think the issue is that Fine refused to answer questions pertaining to assets.  Assuming that pertained to an attempt to collect a "debt", is being imprisoned for refusing to answer questions about assets the same thing as being imprisoned for debt within the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 10?  Think about it.  Does a debtor have the right to refuse to answer questions aimed at discovering his assets?  Is Art. I, Sec. 10 the same as to debt as the Fifth is to self incrimination?

 

There are some grave implications here Brad.  But you know, theoretically, the answer might be different as to government compelling answers on behalf of government.  That might raise a First Amendment issue.  Does the freedom to speak include a freedom not to speak?  Is compelled speech an abridgment of the First Amendment?  After all, upon the same kind of theory, the government can enslave people by threat to take all of their property for disobeying it.  Remember to Communist cases... Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?"  I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of the First Amendment.  Was that all freedom of association, or a right not to speak?

 

Huummm: As I think about it, putting a person in jail for not disclosing assets presumes that he has assets.  Compelled speech is to make him declare under penalty of perjury that he has none, or forfeit them.  There is something resembling the Fifth Amendment here. I can just imagine putting a person on the dunking chair until he answers with sufficient answer of property to pay the alleged debt.

 

First, what are the relevant Fine facts on this point?

 

Second, what have the cases held as to this point, Brad? 

 

Wolf

---

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:40:24 -0800

From: crusaderjd@yahoo.com

Subject: Calif Constitution Art I sec 10

To: gzerman@hotmail.com; johnwolfgram@hotmail.com; jefflustman@yahoo.com; DrshirleyM@aol.com; rifinelaw@earthlink.net

The Calif Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt, even if it is couched as contempt of a debtor hearing as is happening to Richard Fine.  Anyone for a Writ of Habeas Corpus?  - Brad

Calif. Const. Art. I, section 10- SEC. 10.  Witnesses may not be unreasonably

detained.  A person may

not be imprisoned in a civil action for debt or tort, or in peacetime

for a militia fine.

 

HENSCHEL NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY:

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

10-01-25 English, Castellano, Français, Deutsch: Double BD - This blog crossed the 10,000 visitors, and the Scribd account passed the 5,000 reads today.

   

English
Topping the list of most read papers were the following postings:

10 01 04 Los Angeles Sheriff Department - 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 "Jose Rodriguez" http://www.scribd.com/doc/25064776/10-01-11-Inmate-Information-Center-data-survey-Jose-Rodriguez-s Public Category: Business & Law   Published: 2010-01-05 Reads: 433

01 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. Public Category: Business & Law   Published: 2010-01-07 Reads: 209


10 01 05 Sheriff's Department of Los Angeles County, 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. Public Category: Business & Law   Published: 2010-01-05 Reads: 198


09 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 Public Category: Research   Published: 2010-01-03 Reads: 195

   

Castellano:
Doble de cumpleaños - Este blog cruzó los 10.000 visitantes, y la cuenta de Scribd pasó de los 5.000 lecturas de hoy.


Encabezando la lista de artículos más leídos fueron los siguientes anuncios:


10 01 04 Departamento del Sheriff de Los Angeles - Internos del Centro de información - datos de la encuesta-José Martínez s En el curso de tratar de garantizar los derechos humanos de Richard Fine, se hizo evidente que el sistema de gestión de casos del Sheriff de Los Angeles Departamento, como la gestión de bases de datos los sistemas de los tribunales, sufre de falta de integridad. El sistema de Sheriff debe ser de particular interés - que permitía la privación arbitraria de la libertad. Ver la serie también similares construidas por "José Rodríguez" http://www.scribd.com/doc/25064776/10-01-11-Inmate-Information-Center-data-survey-Jose-Rodriguez-s Pública Categoría: Negocios y ; Ley de publicación: 2010-01-05 Lecturas: 433











   


Français,


Double anniversaire - Ce blog a franchi les 10.000 visiteurs, et le compte Scribd passé les 5000 lectures aujourd'hui.


En tête de la liste des plus lire les journaux étaient les affectations suivantes:


10 01 04 Los Angeles Sheriff Department - Centre d'information des détenus - des données d'enquête-Jose Martinez s Dans le cadre d'une tentative de garantir les droits de l'homme de Richard Fine, il est devenu évident que le système de gestion de cas du département du shérif de Los Angeles, comme base de gestion systèmes des tribunaux, souffre d'un manque d'intégrité. Le système du shérif doit être une préoccupation particulière - elle a permis la privation arbitraire de liberté. Voir série ont également semblables construits pour "Jose Rodriguez" http://www.scribd.com/doc/25064776/10-01-11-Inmate-Information-Center-data-survey-Jose-Rodriguez-s public Catégorie: Business & ; loi de publication: 2010-01-05 Reads: 433




   

Deutsch:


Doppel-Geburtstag - Dieser Blog über den 10.000 Besucher, und die Rechnung ging Scribd der 5000 liest sich heute.


Ganz oben auf der Liste der meistgelesenen Zeitungen wurden die folgenden Beiträge:


10 01 04 Los Angeles Sheriff Department - Inmate Information Center - Datenerhebung-Jose Martinez s Im Laufe der Versuch, die Menschenrechte von Richard Fine sichern, wurde deutlich, dass der Fall-Management-System des Los Angeles Sheriff Department, wie Datenbank-Management Systeme der Gerichte, leidet unter dem Mangel an Integrität. Der Sheriff's System muss ein besonderes Anliegen sein - es darf willkürlichen Freiheitsentzug. Siehe auch die entsprechende Serie für "Jose Rodriguez gebaut" http://www.scribd.com/doc/25064776/10-01-11-Inmate-Information-Center-data-survey-Jose-Rodriguez-s Öffentliche Kategorie: Business & , Gesetz Veröffentlicht: 2010-01-05 Aufrufe: 433

10-01-25 What is: Hefker Petruschke?

Translation: 
Fruit in this garden are "Hefker"! 
You are welcome to enter and take some. 
Enjoy

For lack for better term, I recently found myself resorting to the colloquial Yiddish term "Hefker Petruschke" to describe conditions of the US justice system today. For those not fluent in the dead dialect, here is the etymology and meaning:

"In case comparative law is of interest to you, in Babylonian Talmudic terms the judges are engaging in conduct asserting that the courts and the dockets were "Hefker Petruschke".  I looked up the English definition:

Hefker: Ownerless property. This situation results from renunciation of ownership, a court decision, or the death of a proselyte with no Jewish heirs.

A derivative used in colloquial Yiddish was:
Hefker Petruschke - which meant total chaos.  :)

jz

10-01-25 Kindly requesting Inspector General, US Dept of Justice, Glenn A Fine's timely response in re: November 2009 Complaint of Misconduct by Kenneth Kaiser - Assistant Director of FBI and Kenneth Melson - Director, US Attorney General Office, alleging Misconduct:

 

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:55:10 -0800
To: "Attention: Glenn A Fine, General, Inspector (OIG)"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Kindly requesting Inspector General, US Dept of Justice, Glenn A Fine's response re: Complaint of misconduct by Kenneth Kaiser - Assistant Director of FBI and Kenneth Melson - Director, US Attorney General Office in re: the LA-JR (alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket). Timely response requested.
Cc: "US agencies, law school faculty, NGOs, and others"

The favor of response within 10 business days is requested.

RE: Kindly requesting Inspector General, US Dept of Justice, Glenn A Fine's timely response in re: November 2009 Complaint of Misconduct by Kenneth Kaiser - Assistant Director of FBI and Kenneth Melson - Director, US Attorney General Office, alleging Misconduct: (a) Fraud in their responses to US Congressional inquiries of August 2008, and (b) Refusal to accord the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County Equal Protection, in view of incontrovertible evidence of conduct of the LA-JR (alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket).

TO Glenn A Fine, Inspector General, US Dept of Justice, and the DOJ/DIG Investigations Division.
By email: "Attention: Glenn A Fine, General, Inspector (OIG)"

Dear Mr Fine:

Thank you very much for the first ever written response from your office, dated January 25, 2010, copied below.  My January 24, 2010 email note: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), also copied below, was explicitly stated as an addendum to complaint, which was filed with your office in November 2009, alleging Misconduct by senior US Officers: Mr Kenneth Kaiser - Assistant Director of FBI, and Mr Kenneth Melson - Director of US Attorney General Office.  Please accept instant notice as a request for a timely response regarding the receipt and disposition of the November 2009 complaint. Please also note that instant request is fully consistent with "Restoring Confidence in the Department of Justice" listed as a "Top Management Challenge in the Department of Justice" for 2009.  Please also notice that such request for Equal Protection was fully consistent with FBI policy, stated in December 2008 (underline added): "FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society".

Brief Chronology:

1) In early 2008, Complaint was filed with US Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, including incontrovertible evidence of the operation of the LA-JR - alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket. In view of such serious conditions, only minimal enforcement actions by US Department of Justice were requested: Providing Equal Protection through enforcement of the right to access court records - to inspect and to copy - in Los Angeles County, California. It was  claimed that enforcement of such right, in and of itself, would paralyze the LA-JR. 

2) US Department of Justice and Office of the US Attorney General refused to respond at all. 

3) Around August 2008, the Hon Dianne Feinstein - US Senator and the Hon Diane Watson - US Congresswoman, filed on my behalf  Congressional Inquiries on the same matter, which were answered by Messrs Kaiser and Melson.  Responses of Messrs Kaiser and Melson to US Congress were the subject of the November 2009 complaint to your good offices. The complaint alleged that upon review by your office, such responses must be deemed as Misconduct by Messrs Kaiser and Melson: Fraud and Deceit upon US Congress, and refusal to accord Equal Protection to the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County California.

4) Events that consequently transpired, confirmed my allegations in re: the LA-JR, beyond any reasonable doubt:

a) In October 2008, California Court of Appeals, 4th District ruled that ALL judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles had been taking for over a decade payments, which were "not permitted".  Such "not permitted" payments continue to this date, to the tune of >$45,000 per judge per year.  Such payments by Los Angeles County, California, were matched by conditions, where it became practically impossible to win a case against LA County at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

b) On February 20, 2009, the California Governor signed Retroactive Immunities/Pardons for ALL judges who took the "not permitted" payments, in fact affirming their criminality.

c) On March 4, 2009, less than two weeks later, 70 yo former US Prosecutor, Attorney Richard Fine, who was the one who had exposed such widespread corruption of ALL the judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, was abducted in open court by the Los Angeles Sheriff Department, albeit with no warrant, with no conviction, and with no sentencing. He has been held locked up in a hospital room in Los Angeles ever since, albeit - with no medical justification for the false hospitalization.

d) Since October 2009, Los Angeles Sheriff, Lee Baca, has denied multiple requests to access the California Public Records which were the arrest and booking papers of Inmate Richard Fine.

e) In January 2010  following formal Inquiry by Los Angeles County Supervisor, the Hon Michael Antonovich, the office of Lee Baca finally provided written responses -  stating that California Public Records Act did not require that it produce papers which did not exist.

5) In November 2009, complaint was filed with your office, alleging Misconduct by Messrs Kaiser and Melson.  By phone staff of your office was willing to confirm receipt of my complaint, and further stated that the complaint was "under review".  However, your office so far refused to provide any written acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint.  Likewise, no response whatsoever was received regarding the disposition of the complaint.

I therefore again request your written response regarding receipt and disposition of the November 2009 complaint alleging Misconduct by Mr Kenneth Kaiser and Mr Kenneth Melson: (a) Fraud in their responses to US Congressional Inquiries of August 2008, and (b) Ongoing refusal to accord the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County Equal Protection, through enforcement of the right to access court records - to inspect and to copy -  in view of incontrovertible evidence of conduct of the LA-JR (alleged Los Angeles Judiciary Racket).

The favor of a response within 10 business days is requested.

Dated: January 25, 2010 in La Verne, Los Angeles County, California,
  
By:____________
  Joseph Zernik
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine


At 06:45 AM 1/25/2010, US Dept of Justice, Office of Inspector General wrote:

Dear Mr. Zernik -

Thank you for your correspondence.  The Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General investigates allegations of misconduct by employees of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as waste, fraud and abuse affecting a Department of Justice agency or program.
 
The matters that you raised are outside of our investigative jurisdiction, therefore no action will be taken by this office. 

Please contact our office in the future with any information that relates to our investigative jurisdiction. 

Sincerely,
DOJ/OIG Investigations Division
 ___________________

_ _ _ _ _ _  At 07:57 PM 1/24/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:

From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 7:57 PM
To: David Pasternak; Samuels, Sandor - Legal; Boock, Todd A -Legal; Shatz, Sanford -Legal; Modisett, Jeffrey A, Managing Partner- LA; Jenna Moldawsky; Amberg, John W.; John A Clarke- Clerk of the Court; Charles McCoy -Presiding Judge ; Mohammad Keshavarzi; Wachtell, Michael
Subject: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Kindly request to cease and desist racketeering.

Please take notice of digitally signed letter, attached, and copied below.
jz
______________

Sunday, January 24, 2010
10-01-24 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) kindly requesting Bank of America Corporation, Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg, Deputy Clerk Ruth Miklos, and Atty David Pasternak to cease and desist racketeering.


Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 801 998-0917; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-01-24 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400): Kindly request to Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg, to Deputy-Clerk Ruth Miklos, to Attorney David Pasternak, and others - to Cease and Desist Racketeering
Bryan Cave, LLP;  Buchalter Nemer; John A Clarke Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; Mara Escrow Company; Charles McCoy Presiding Judge; Ruth Miklos Deputy-Clerk;  Brian Moynihan President;  Bank of America Corporation;  David Pasternak, Gerald Rosenberg Supervising Judge;Nivie Samaan; and Sheppard Mullin .           
TO PARTIES LISTED ABOVE:
Please take notice of instant repeat request to cease and desist racketeering, pertaining to false and deliberately misleading January 21, 2010 purported Minutes by Judge Gerald Rosenberg and Deputy-Clerk Ruth Miklos, in collusion with David Pasternak and others, which upon review should be deemed fraud and forgery of a court record, and as part of a scheme of extortion. [1] 
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was falsely claimed to be a case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The facts in the matter demonstrated that no such caption as Samaan v Zernik ever existed under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Under such false caption, Attorney David Pasternak and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles were opined by fraud expert, second to none, as conducting real estate fraud. [2] Countrywide Financial Corporation, and later Bank of America Corporation, were alleged as central to the racketeering at the Court in this matter. [3] [4]
Regarding alleged fraud and forgery in the January 21, 2010 purported Minutes, [1] please notice the following:
1)      The January 21, 2010 purported Minutes were listed under caption Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The evidence demonstrated that such caption never existed as a case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
2)      The January 21, 2010 purported Minutes listed Gerald Rosenberg, in his capacity as Judge, as presiding in such caption.  None of the judges that purported to preside in such caption held an Assignment Order, neither does Judge Rosenberg. His conduct in this regard must be deemed non-judicial conduct, and therefore, not covered by any judicial immunity.
3)      The January 21, 2010 purported Minutes were listed as a Ruling of the above named court on Submitted Matter Regarding Receivers Request for Bonus.  However, there was nothing properly before Gerald Rosenberg, in his capacity as judge, to rule upon.
4)      The January 21, 2010 purported Minutes designated David Pasternak as Receiver in Samaan v Zernik. Even had there been such valid caption as Samaan v Zernik, no Appointment Order for David Pasternak as Receiver had ever been entered by the Court. Therefore, David Pasternak could not possibly be designated as Receiver.
5)      The January 21, 2010 purported Minutes stated that David Pasternaks purported request for Bonus was Denied.  The purported grounds for such Denial were:
The Receiver's (DAVJJD J. PASTERNAK) Request forBonus Compensation is DENIED. There is no legal authority submitted for the award of said bonus.
Even had there been a valid caption such as Samaan v Zernik, and even had there been an Appointment Order entered for David Pasternak as Receiver, such ruling would have contradicted all previous court actions under the same purported caption: There had never been any legal authority submitted for any of Mr Pasternaks actions under the false caption of Samaan v Zernik. Neither was there any legal authority for any of Gerald Rosenbergs conduct under such false caption.
6)      The January 21, 2010 purported Minutes ended with a purported: Clerks Certificate of Mailing/Notice of Entry of Order, which was signed by Ruth Miklos, on behalf of John A Clarke, Clerk of the Court. Upon comparison of such paper to a collection of Minutes of the Court, [5] the format of the signature box and the service list clearly showed that the January 21, 2010 purported Minutes were never adequately issued in Sustain, the case management system (CMS) of the court. Instead, the signature box and the service list were typed in the word processing capacity of the CMS. In fact, the paper should be deemed a forgery, generated through false use of Sustain.
7)      The purported January 21, 2010 purported Minutes ended with an invalid, false and deliberately misleading Service List:
-DAVID J. PASTERNAK
Receiver
1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, California 90067-2523

-MOE KESHAVARZI, ESQ, Attorney at Law
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
333 South Hope Street, 48th. Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1448

-BRYAN CAVE LLP Attorneys at law
120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, California 90401-2386

-JOSEPH ZERNIK Defendant, in Pro-Per Status [sic jz]
P.O. Box 526 La Verne, California 91750

-MICHAEL WACHTELL, ESQ Attorney at Law
BAUCHALTER & NEMER
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, California 90017-2457

California Rules of Court required that each and every party be listed with its designation in the Service List. The purported counsel listed above should have been listed with their purported clients and purported party designations, as such:
-BRYAN CAVE LLP Attorneys at law
120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
Appeared, and purported to be Counsel of Record for:
Bank of America Corporation, Non Party, Real Party in Interest, Defendant, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant - interchangeably all with no legal foundation at all.

-JOSEPH ZERNIK Defendant, in pro per
P.O. Box 526 La Verne, California 91750

-MICHAEL WACHTELL, ESQ Attorney at Law
BAUCHALTER & NEMER
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, California 90017-2457
Appeared and purported to be Counsel of Record for:
Mara Escrow Company, subsidiary of Old Republic International with no party designation at all.

-MOHAMMAD KESHAVARZI, ESQ, Attorney at Law
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
333 South Hope Street, 48th. Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1448
Appeared for Nivie Samaan purported Plaintiff.

The January 21, 2010 purported Minutes are a repeat with variation of the December 8, 2009 purported Reassignment Order to Judge Richard Stone. [6]  The December 20, 2009 Notice to Cease and Desist Racketeering, which was consequently issued, [7] appeared to have been ignored by the Hon Rosenberg, albeit, the false case of Samaan v Zernik was never moved to Judge Richard Stone, either.

In short:
The January 21, 2010 purported Minutes upon review should be deemed as forgery, and as additional evidence of various predicated acts pursuant to RICO, and in addition - as deprivation of rights under the color of law, and as deprivation of implied guarantee for honest services.
The January 21, 2010 purported Minutes also demonstrated the ongoing fraud in operation of Sustain, the case management system (CMS) of the LA Superior Court, and the need to subject all CMSs of the courts to publicly accountable validation (certified functional logic verification)..

Dated: January 24, 2010.
Truly,

Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Patriotic pics of  Sharon  Stone, Beyonce Knowles, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music! 

CC1:
1)      John A Clarke Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
        By fax and by letter USPS First Class mail
2)      Bryan Cave, LLP
        By email 
3)      Buchalter Nemer
        By email
4)      Mara Escrow Company
        By fax and by letter USPS First Class mail
5)      Ruth Miklos - Deputy-Clerk
        By fax and by letter USPS First Class mail
6)      Charles McCoy Presiding Judge,
        By fax and by letter USPS First Class mail
7)      Brian Moynihan President, Bank of America Corporation,
        By email
8)      David Pasternak,
        By email
9)  Gerald Rosenberg Supervising Judge,
        By fax
10)  Nivie Samaan
        By email
11)  Sheppard Mullin
        By email

CC2:
1)      FBI Los Angeles as a request to investigate overwhelming evidence of racketeering at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
2)      Robert Mueller, III, Director, FBI - as a request to investigate overwhelming evidence of racketeering at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
3)      Glen A Fine US Dept of Justice Inspector General in re: Complaint against Kenneth Kaiser and Kenneth Melson.
4)      Mary Schapiro SEC Chair in re: Complaint against Bank of America Corporation.
5)      David Kotz SEC - Inspector General in re: Complaint re: SECs refusal to investigate Bank of America Corporation.
6)      Kevin Bailey Deputy Comptroller of the Currency in re: Complaint against Bank of America Corporation.
7)      Eric Thorson Dept of the Treasury Inspector General in re: Refusal of Thrift Supervision and Federal Trade Commission to investigate Countrywide.
8)      Jon Leibowitz, Chair, Office of Federal Trade Commission
        By Email
9)      Basel Accord Committee in re: US government failure to conduct banking supervision as a good faith party to the Basel Accords.
10)      Central Banks, Analysis Departments slim prospects for early emergence of the US from current depression, absent measures to safeguard government integrity.

Linked Records:
[1]  January 21, 2010 purported Minutes by Judge Gerald Rosenberg in Samaan v Zernik(SC087400), alleged as fraud and forgery:
http://inproperinla.com/10-01-21-minute-order-by-judge-rosenberg-s.pdf
[2]  December 17, 2007 Grant Deed by David Pasternak Opinion letter of fraud expert James Wedick regarding fraud being committed by David Pasternak.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24991238/07-12-17-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-David-Pasternak-Grant-Deeds-opined-as-fraud-by-James-Wedick-ss
[3] Six Key Records, which were all filed or produced by Bank of America and/or Countrywide  inSamaan v Zernik, and were all alleged as fraud, were the subject of complaints pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), filed with Bank of America Audit Committee with a request to either authenticate or repudiate the records:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25286689/09-04-17-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Bank-of-America-List-of-six-key-records-alleged-or-opined-as-fraud-submitted-in-complaint-to-BAC-Audit-Committee
[4] Bank of America and/or Countrywides records in Samaan v Zernik that were opined as fraud by fraud expert:
a. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25695526/04-09-27-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Samaan-s-fraudulent-loan-applications-as-filed-with-Countrywide-s
b. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25696045/04-09-27-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Nivie-Samaan-s-fraudulent-loan-applicaitons-opinion-letter-by-fraud-expert-s
c. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25694933/04-10-26-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Opinion-Letter-Country-Wide-Frauduent-Underwriting-Letter-s
d. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25694599/04-10-26-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Countrywide-s-Fraud-in-Underwriting-Letter-Dkt-44-Country-s        
[5] Collection of Minute Orders by the Los Angeles Superior Court, none of them is claimed to be an honest valid and effectual, yet they demonstrate the alleged forgery in the January 21, 2010 purported Minutes. 

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-electronic-case-file-08-11-14-full-certif-s.pdf

[6]  December 8, 2009 purported Reassignment Order to Judge Richard Stone:
http://inproperinla.com/09-12-08-notice-by-keshavarzi-reassignment-to-stone-samaan-v-zernik-s.pdf
[7] A notice to cease and desist racketeering, separately issued for the fraudulent December 8, 2009 Reassignment Order.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25692157/09-12-20-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Zernik-s-Notice-to-Sheppard-Mullin-judges-and-others-re-Dec-8-2009-purported-Reassignment-Order-to-cease-and-d

The Usual:
 
IN SHORT - KOZINSKI MUST RESIGN!
 

"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.