Large-scale fraud on the People in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles – Sustain - enables the deprivation of liberty and property with no due process of law.
Sustain, the electronic record system of the LASC, is
believed to be one of the earliest in the nation, implemented around 1985. According to the web site of Sustain
Corporation, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Daily Journal Corporation (NASDAQ:
DJCO), and the
system are by now implemented in 11 states and 3 nations. Who in fact controls
Sustain Corporation remains unknown.
Previous reports documented the invalidity of Sustain: The
LASC publishes its legal public records online, subject to a
"disclaimer", stating that such records are not valid and
authoritative court records. (Fig 1) In
parallel, the LASC denies public access to records, e.g. the Register of
Actions (California civil docket), which the LASC considers the valid court
records, by concealing them in the case management system of Sustain.
Figure 1. Disclaimer in Sustain online public records "…this site…
does not consitute the official record of the court…" [[i]]
In parallel, the LASC has ceased almost universally from
service and authentication/notice of entry of minutes, orders, and judgments by
the Clerk of the Court.
At the systems level, it is also be noted that the public
records of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (LASC), are
maintained on servers, whose identity is uncertified. [[ii]] In
response to inquiries, the LASC claimed that the servers are under custody of
the County of Los Angeles, not the LASC.
A. The case of Barbara Darwish (1998-2006)
In Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) in the LASC, a
group of judges and the clerks colluded to take the 6-unit Santa Monica rental
property of Defendant Darwish. The hallmark of the simulated litigation in the
LASC took place on May 13, 2002: Defendant Darwish appeared that morning at the
LASC for the scheduled Jury Trial, but was deceived by the LASC and attorneys to
proceed to the Municipal Court of Culver City, where an anonymous “Muni Judge”
conducted on the same afternoon a simulated “Court Trial”. (Fig 2) Darwish later identified the "Muni
Judge" - John Segal.
Superior Court records showed that neither a
judgment, nor an appealable order was ever entered in the manner required by
California law to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd
District (Los Angeles) took three (3) simulated appeals in the case – two of
them were denied, and the third was voluntarily dismissed. (Table 1) One of the simulated appeals
produced a "published decision", which permits "oral
modifications" of real estate contracts, overturning hundreds of years of
common law, distilled into the Statute of Frauds (1677).
The case of Barbara Darwish commenced in 1998, a full
decade prior to the onset of the "sub-prime crisis". The case shows that the routines of real
estate fraud under simulated litigation in the LASC were already well
estabslihed, involving large number of attorneys and judges.
The LASC continues to deny access to the paper court
file in this case. Regardless, due to
its extensive documentation, the case was key part of the evidence, repeatedly submitted
since 2008 to the US Attorney General and FBI Director with requests for Equal
Protection of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California,
against racketeering by judges of the LASC.
Figure
2. Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - Register of Actions
[California docket – jz] in Sustain - the electronic record system of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. In this civil real property matter, Ms
Darwish appeared on the morning May 3, 2002 for a scheduled jury trial. Instead, she was deceived by attorneys and
the Court to appear on the same afternoon for a "Court Trial" in the
Culver City Municipal Court before "Muni Judge" , who remained
anonymous. Declaration of Ms Darwsih
clarified that it the "Muni Judge", who decided to take her 6-unit
Santa Monica rental property was Judge John Segal. [[iii]]
Appeal #
|
“Judgment Date” */ Notice of Appeal/ Trial
Court Judge
|
California Court of Appeal Justices
|
Disposition
|
B163970
|
09/05/02
12/19/02
Segal, John
|
Curry, Daniel
Vogel, Charles (Concur)
Hastings, J. (Concur)
|
Affirmed in full
Final
Signed Published
113 Cal.App.4th 1331
|
B179667
|
None Listed
11/24/04
Segal, John
|
Curry, Daniel
Epstein,
Norman (Concur)
Hastings, J. (Concur)
|
Affirmed in full
Final
|
B191327
|
04/26/06
11/24/04
Segal, John
|
None Listed
|
Voluntary dismissal
Final
|
Table 1: Summary of Appeals in Galdjie v Darwish
(SC052737) as they are recorded in the online public access system of the
California Court of Appeal, 2nd District. None of the appeals was lawfully taken
from a valid, entered judgment or appealable order of the trial court. [[iv]]
* The public access system of
the California Court of Appeal does not list any Dates of Entry of Judgments.
B. The case of Susan Lomas (2011-2012)
In Lomas v Bank of America Corporation (KC0559379) in the LASC, Susan Lomas
attempted to protect her property against fraud by Bank of America. Judge Peter Meeka conducted on Lomas
proceedings, which, as was later discovered, were secretly noted in the
simulated minutes in Sustain, "off of the record". (Fig 3) The
minutes were not served on Lomas, neither were they authenticated by the Clerk
of the Court. Lomas's access to the
Register of Actions (California civil docket), was and continues to be denied
by the LASC.
Figure
3. Lomas v Bank of America (KC0559379) – Minutes of August
12, 2010 "Ex Parte Motion to Stay Enforcement of Write for Possession…". The Minutes state "The ex parte
application is read and considered in chambers and off of the record…" The
Minutes were never duly served or noticed by the Clerk of the Court, and are
missing the integral authentication record "Certificate of Mailing and
Notice of Entry by Clerk. [[v]]
Access to the Register of Actions (Califronia civil docket) in this case and
most others in LASC is denied, even to parties in their own litigation.
The case
of Susan Lomas commenced over 10 years later than the case of Barbara
Darwish. The methods of conducting
simulated litigation in real estate matters remained the same. However, in the case of Lomas, a bank was the
primary beneficiary. The case is also of
interest, since it commenced after FBI issued testimonies to the US Congress of
no criminality by sub-prime lenders underlying the current crisis, while Bank
of America Corporation was recipient of hundreds of billions of USD in US
taxpayer bailouts, under representations of no fraud in its operation, and while
large-scale fraud by lenders and the courts on the People were
"settled" by the US government and the attorney generals of the
several states.
C. The case of Richard Fine (2007-2011)
In litigation of Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420), former US prosecutor
Richard I. Fine, Attorney for Plaintiff, exposed and rebuked the taking by Los
Angeles judges of "not permitted payments", which were labeled by
media "bribes".
Consequently, the State Bar of California disbarred Fine in
2007, and starting March 4, 2009 Fine was held by Sheriff Lee Baca of Los
Angeles County in solitary "coercive confinement", which was then
said to be indefinite. Eventually, Fine
was released on September 17, 2010. No valid
warrant, valid conviction, valid sentencing, valid booking records, or valid
order for his release were discovered, only simulated legal public records. (Fig 4, Appendix 9)
Figure
4. Online Inmate Information Center, Sheriff of Los Angeles County
– fraud in booking records of Richard Fine.
Richard Fine was placed under
indefinite coercive solitary confinement, which ended up lasting 18 months,
purportedly arrested and booked on location and by authority of the
"Municipal Court of San Pedro", which did not and does not exist. The
image is an excerpt from formal response by Sheriff Lee Baca to Michael
Antonovitch, Supervisor of Los Angeles County. [[vi]]
Repeated requests were forwarded to Los Angeles Sheriff Lee
Baca and to the LASC during the period of Fine's imprisonment, to correct the
simulated legal public records and release Fine. The requests were ignored. Public access to
the Register of Actions (California civil docket) continues to be denied by the
LASC.
The case of Richard Fine was also part of the evidence,
forwarded to the US Attorney General and FBI with requests for Equal Protection
of the People of Los Angeles against racketeering by the LASC.
References
[i] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles –
online public records disclaimer, accessible at:
[ii] Web page of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, at:
[iii] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Galdjie
v Darwish (SC052737) Register of Actions (California Civil Docket),
accessible at:
[iv] Zernik, J., "Galdjie
v Darwish (SC052737) - Complaint for Public Corruption against Justices and the
Clerk of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, RE: Conduct of three
pretense appeals alleged real estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts." (2011)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/
[v] Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Lomas
v Bank of America (KC0559379) Minutes, accessible at:
[vi] Antonovich, M, Los Angeles County Supervisor,
"January 8, 2010 response from Sheriff Lee Baca in re: Arrest and booking
records of Inmate Richard Fine (1824367)", including attachments,
accessible at:
Appendices
[1]
Human Right Alert (NGO), Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human
Rights in the United States – Los Angeles County, Califronia, as incorporated
into the 2010 Human Rights Council Report with a note referring to
"corruption of the courts and the legal profession…" (2010)
[2]
Zernik, J., "The Los Angeles Superior Court - Widespread
Corruption, Patronized by the US Government" (2012)
[3]
Zernik, J., " Beyond voting machines -
case management systems of the courts - Sustain and the Los Angeles Superior
Court"
(2008)
[4]
Zernik, J., " Computers & the
courts: Sustain - case management system of the Los Angeles Superior Court -
Registers of Action"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110475097/
No comments:
Post a Comment