U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, followed the example of LA Superior Court - and repeatedly denied Party's right to access court records - to inspect and to copy. Calling upon U.S. Congress to carefully monitor the appointment of new U.S. Attorney, Central District of California and new Head, FBI office, Los Angeles.
- Executive Summary
- Correspondence copied below documents ongoing denial of access to court records in the past month by the office of the Clerk/Executive of the U.S. District Court, LA, Terry Nafisi. The records that are the subject of the requests for access are the digital signatures that are the attestation/authentication of court records in CM/ECF - one of the dual docketing systems (the other one being Pacer) by now practically fully implemented at the U.S District Courts and U.S. Courts of Appeals. Such dual docketing systems are separate and unequal, and are used by the U.S. courts to segregate parties in violation of Human Rights pursuant to ratified International Law. it is incomprehensible what justification that is even remotely related to furtherance of justice could be found for the expenditure of precious resources to establish such travesty of due process. As discussed below, it is suspected that such dual docketing systems enabled additional alleged criminality and abuse relative to the conduct of captions Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914), which were suspected to have been invalidated most likely from day one, yet involved the engagement of parties in sham court actions at the U.S. District Court- LA. In both cases, the subject matter of the complaints was allegations of severe abuse of Civil Rights under the Color of Law by State of California judges in Los Angeles. It is alleged that the U.S. District Court, LA, in an attempt to cover-up alleged criminality of LA Superior Court judges, inflicted on Plaintiffs additional severe violation of Human Rights. Both captions were most likely invalidated as U.S. Court cases from day one. And the denial of access to records of attestation/ authentication was most likely an attempt by the Clerk of the U.S District Court, LA, Terry Nafisi, to cover-up such suspected criminality by U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle and various staff members of the Clerk's office. Of note, complaints were filed with FBI Los Angeles office regarding the conduct of Zernik v Connor et al at the U.S. District Court already in mid 2008, but there was no indication of any follow up by FBI on the matter.
- Almost identical alleged criminality was noted in recent weeks by the Court of Judge Richard J Leon and Clerk of the Court Mr David Scott, U.S Court, Washington DC, in relationship to caption of Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805).
- The common features of all three captions listed above - they all stem from what is alleged to be widespread criminality that amounts to alleged racketeering by judges of the LA Superior Court. Furthermore, the conduct of such captions at the U.S. Courts in all three cases represents the alleged collusion and cover-up of such criminality by U.S. Courts and senior officers of U.S Department of Justice and FBI.
- U.S. Congress is called upon:
- To carefully monitor the appointment of the new U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California and the new Head of FBI Office, Los Angeles. The remarkable turnaround at CIA should be the guiding example. FBI must become part of the solution, not part of the problem.
- To press for enforcement of the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC § 2071-7 on all case management systems at the U.S. Courts - since such systems are large aggregates of Rules of Courts in programming languages, yet Rules of Courts they are nevertheless.
- To press for enforcement of Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) - the right to access court records To Inspect & To Copy - on all court records in such computerized systems.
- To immediately secure enforcement of public access to court records in LA County, California, through the appointment of a Special Counsel, as proposed below, or through any other feasible method within the law.
- Conditions in Los Angeles County, California, amount to Human Rights abuse of historic proportions by the U.S. Government in violation of ratified International Law.
The
U.S. Constitution, Art.IV §I declares:
- Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
By the U.S. Congress
Act of May 26, 1790, it is provided,
- That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records are, or shall be taken.
It looks more and more likely by the hour, that the U.S. District Court LA engaged in alleged criminality in both
Zernik v Connor et al and
Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County, and that the essence of such alleged criminality was in the issuance of ineffectual court records, but concealing the fact that such records were ineffectual by: First -- during litigations - through failure to notice and serve the attestations on Pro Se Plaintiffs, Joseph Zernik and Richard Fine, respectively, who were excluded from access to CM/ECF. Second, now- through denial of access to the attestations, as a lame attempt to cover up such alleged criminality.
Such alleged criminality had to involve a large group of judges, clerks, and attorneys, and it was enabled by the dual docketing systems created by the U.S. Courts - Pacer, and CM/ECF, separate and unequal, and the segregation of parties into such systems by the U.S. Courts.
Conditions reflected in the denial of access to court records to party in litigation, first demonstrated in recent weeks in LA Superior Court, and now at the U.S. District Court, LA, evidence the regression of LA County Courts (at a time that the LAPD has shown substantial progress in compliance) to what may be comparable to early post-medieval period as far as court integrity and compliance with Due Process. In parallel, it widespread criminality at the courts is alleged. The Common Law right to access such records, the public record status of court records, as well as the segregation of authorities of the judicial and ministerial arms of the court - all of which were basic safeguards for the integrity of the courts, found their origin at that historic period. And such basic safeguards are now directly undermined by the courts.
Such regression of the courts was enabled by the introduction of computerized case management systems in the courts, with no public oversight, and the deliberate failure by the courts to recognize that such systems had to be treated as Rules of Court, and their installation had to involve compliance with the Rule Making Enabling law, State, or Federal, respectively. Likewise, the courts had to recognize that court records in such systems were subject to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), where the U.S Supreme Court re-affirmed the right to access court records to inspect and to copy, as anchored in Common Law right that is older than the U.S. Constitution, in First, Sixth, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments rights.
One should also note that such conditions were allowed to evolve with the full knowledge of senior U.S. Department of Justice officers under the Bush administration. Request was filed over a year ago - for the appointment of a Special Counsel, pursuant to 28 CFR 600, with a short-term, limited and well circumscribed mandate - to secure public access to public court records at the LA County Courts, to investigate and if necessary prosecute those who abuse the Civil and Human Rights of the 10 million residents of LA County by denying such access to court records. It was recommended that FBI NOT be relied upon in any such actions, and that units from Dept of Treasury, which captured the computers of failing banks, be relied upon instead. It was estimated that the critical phase of such operation could last overnight, or at most over a weekend, and that public access could be secured, from court locations terminals only, within 1-2 weeks, and with that - bringing to fruition the core mandate of such Special Counsel. It was also recommended that in parallel - "Truth and Reconciliation Commissions" be instituted, since such records are likely to expose widespread criminality of the judiciary in LA County.
U.S. Department of Justice failed to respond.
When inquiries were issued by U.S. Congress - the Honorable Diane Feinstein and Dianne Watson on my behalf, senior U.S. Officers of the U.S Department of Justice, who are Kenneth Kaiser and Kenneth Melson, issued responses that must be deemed upon review fraud and criminality by senior U.S. Officers of the Justice Department.
Therefore on May 1, 2009, complaint was filed in U.S. Court, Washington DC "to compel U.S. Officers to perform their duties". Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) was initially assigned to Judge Richard J Leon, but request for disqualification was immediately filed, based on service of the judge as minority counsel on related issue that is discussed in the complaint.. The handling of Zernik v Melson et al by Judge Richard J Leon and Clerk of U.S Court DC, Mr David Scott, was almost exact repeat of the conduct of Magistrate Carla Woehrle at the U.S. District Court , Los Angeles - severe abuse and alleged perversion of justice and denial of access to the court, to fair trial, and denial of the right to file papers in court.
Most recently - request was filed for access to authentication records of the U.S. Court, Washington DC. No response was received so far. The handling of caption Zernik v Melson et al at the U.S. Court, Washington DC deserves its own negotiation by the Public Integrity Unit of the Justice Department.
Notice must be taken of the fact that the appointment of Mr Leon Panetta led to what appeared as expedient turn around at CIA in re: compliance and truthfulness in reporting to U.S. Congress. Implementing similar measures at FBI and U.S. Department of Justice is long overdue. Yesterday, August 19, 2009, news was released that Salvador Hernandez, who headed the FBI's Los Angeles office, was retiring to take a job in the private sector, and the office of U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Californa is already vacant.
Therefore, U.S. Congress is called upon:
- To carefully monitor the appointment of the new head of FBI Office, Los Angeles. The remarkable turnaround at CIA should be the guiding example. FBI must become part of the solution, not part of the problem.
- To press for enforcement of Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC § 2071-7 on all case management systems of the U.S. Courts - since such systems are large aggregates of Rules of Courts in programming languages, yet Rules of Courts they are nevertheless.
- To press for enforcement of Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) - the right to access court records to inspect and to copy - on court records in such computerized systems.
- To immediately secure public access to court records in LA County, California, through the appointment of a Special Counsel, as proposed below, or through any other feasible method within the law.
Conditions in Los Angeles County, California, amount to severe violations of Human Rights by the U.S. Government, of historic proportions, in violation of ratified International Law.
Joseph Zernik-------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Dr Zernik's 4th request for access to court record To Inspect & To Copy
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:36:54 -0700
To: terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
From: joseph zernik
Subject: U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, followed the example of LA Superior Court - and repeatedly denied Party's right to access court records - to inspect and to copy.
Cc: Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov, Danalyn_Castellanos@cacd.uscourts.gov, Dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov
August 19, 2009
Terry Nafisi
Clerk of the Court/Executive
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
It is now close to a month since my first phone inquiries with the office of the Clerk/Executive, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, as part of my ongoing efforts to access my own litigation records, to inspect and to copy. It is now 20 days since my first recorded written request was forwarded to you in the same matter. As shown below, you so far failed to respond to my requests, and staff of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, attempted to deny my rights to access such records to inspect and to copy, on various false grounds.
The writer of the most recent response from U.S. Courts, California Central District, Dawn Bullock, like Ms Danlyn Castellanos before her, responded to messages addressed to you, but failed to state that she did so with your authorization. Moreover, Ms Bullock's position title failed to include the ministerial "Clerk" in it, and she also failed to visibly copy you on her response.
Needless to say, I find such combination of facts of concern, particularly on the background of complaint I filed recently with you, regarding conduct of Ms Donna Thomas at the Chamber of Magistrate Carla Woehrle. I believe that Ms Thomas was not a Deputy Clerk, and that she engaged in various transactions on U.S. District Court records that she was not authorized to engage in, and that such transactions were likely upon review to be deemed as part of efforts to obstruct and pervert justice in Zernik v Connor et al and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County.
Both cases involved allegations of widespread corruption of LA Superior Court judges, both involved allegations of severe abuse of civil and human rights by the judges of the LA Superior Court, and both were allegedly perverted at the court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle.
Therefore, I would not directly address the message below, dated August 19, 2009, from Ms Bullock, unless I am re-assured that such communication and the ones from Danalyn Castellanos before it, were forwarded to me with your authorization and reflected your positions on the matters at hand.
In case the opinions which were expressed by Ms Dawn Bullock indeed reflected your position on my request to access U.S. District Court records - to inspect and to copy, I request that you provide authorities, since the opinions expressed in Ms Bullock's note on their face were false, legally invalid, and defied reason.
Furthermore, if communications below were authorized by you, I request that you also provide a brief, simple language explanation for the following three questions:
1) Why was I denied service of such court records in Zernik v Connor et al, during litigation, when all other parties were served such records?
2) What reason(s) could lead the Executive/Clerk of U.S. District Court to deny today my right to access - to inspect and to copy - the digital authentication/endorsement by the Clerk of the Court of records of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-015550), purportedly a court litigation where I was named Plaintiff? Could any such reason(s) be even remotely related to administration justice in compliance with the law? Could any such reason(s) be even remotely related the furtherance of justice?
3) In case the responses from Ms Bullocks and Ms Castellanos, copied below, were indeed authorized by you:
Please provide a reasonable explanation why I would have been allowed access to the requested records, had I agreed to skip my right to inspect, and agreed instead to rely on your good offices to produce copies, but my right to access the records would be denied if I insist on my right to inspect the records before accepting copies produced by the court, but now am told I would be denied access to the same records, after I insisted on my right to inspect, prior to accepting copies produced by your good offices.
I expect a response by 5:00 pm today, Thursday, that would allow me to access the records tomorrow, Friday, August 21, 2009. As stated before, the denial of access to the requested court records may be deemed abuse of Common Law right to access such records, as well as abuse of the right to access such records as part of First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as re-affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
Thanks for your timely care of the matter.
Joseph Zernik
My previous requests:
6) U.S. Court response to 3rd request to access court records To Inspect & To Copy
At 10:36 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote:
Mr. Zernik,
Anyone has access to the public records between the hours of 10 and 4.
Both of the below cases were filed electronically so there are no paper documents and you can use the public terminals located in the Records Department to view these files. All documents filed in the case are available. You do not need to make an appointment and you do not need to inform anyone of when you are coming in. Anyone may come to the Records Department and use the public terminal to view a case file. There is no fee to view these Records. If you would like copies of anything you may either purchase regular copies from our copy service or certified copies from the Records Department.
What needs to be researched is the NEF because the NEF is not part of the case file itself. Also, in your letters you raise more issues than just viewing the record.
Dawn Bullock
Records Supervisor
5) Dr Zernik's 3rd request for access to court records To Inspect & To Copy
joseph zernik
To: terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
08/19/2009 10:22 AM
cc Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov
Subject Request by party to access his own
litigation records, which the
court failed to ever notice him of
- to inspect and to copy.
August 19, 2009
Terry Nafisi
Clerk of the Court/Executive
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
Let me try to simplify the request. I am not asking your office to
research anything at all.
I am asking the office of the Clerk of the Court to allow me access to
public records that are my own litigation records. Our correspondence
shows that on July 31, 2009 I made my first request to access my own
litigation records at the U.S. District Court, LA in Zernik v Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550), where I am named Plaintiff, as they appear in CM/ECF
docket. By law, I am permitted to appear anytime during business hours at
the Office of the Clerk, and request to see such records, and the Office of
the Clerk is required to allow me such access.
I would like to believe that my right to inspect such records is not
doubted by your office. Please advise me if I am wrong in such belief.
Once I see the records, I will decide if I would like to obtain copies, and
I will pay accordingly.
Do I have to pay to exercise my right to inspect my own court records which
the court failed to notice or serve me, while noticing and serving all
other parties? Please cite authorities for fees for such inspection by
party of his own litigation records.
If I came to the clerk's office during business hours, and asked to see the
paper court file of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), would I have to
pay $26.00 first as well?
Similarly, in Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) the
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit accepted my request for being designated
party in interest. Therefore, the same logic applies.
Please be advised that I intend to appear on Friday, August 21, 2009 during
business hours, and request to access the records listed above and in
previous communications, to inspect and to copy. Please let me know if
there is any particular preferred time for addressing such request by your
office.
Any further delays in allowing me access to my own litigation records would
likely be deemed as violation of my rights.
Joseph Zernik
CC: Att Richard Fine
4) U.S. Court response to 2nd request to access records To Inspect & To Copy
At 08:30 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote:
Dear Joseph:
The NEF copy quote that was provided to you below were for the case
numbers that you had provided on your July 18th request. However, for
information about Nixon v. Warner Communication, we need a U.S. District
case number to further research your request. Please provide me with a
case number. Otherwise, please be advised that a non-refundable processing
fee of $26.00 per case, name, or item researched is required before we can
complete your request.
The above quoted rates are established pursuant to Title 26, Section 1914
of the United States Code. Please make remittance in the form of a
cashierâs check, certified bank check, business ss or corporate check, or a
money order drawn on a major American bank or the United States Postal
Service, payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court." Personal checks or checks
drawn on non-business accounts will not be accepted.
Forward a self-addressed stamped envelope of sufficient size to hold the
request and a copy of this e-mail to the attention of: Correspondence
Clerk, Western Division, 312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8, L.A. CA 90012.
Thank you,
Correspondence Clerk
3) Dr Zernik's 2nd request to access court records To Inspect & To Copy
joseph zernik
To terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
08/18/2009 09:22 PM
cc Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov,
Subject Re: NEF Requests
Attached please find second request to access court records to inspect and
to copy, per Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
(See attached file: 09-08-18-second-request-nafisi-us-dist-ct-la-access-court-records-s,pdf.pdf)
2) Response by U.S. District Court to request for access to records.
At 02:24 PM 8/18/2009, you wrote:
Dear Mr. Zernik:
We received your correspondence request dated July 31, 2009 for NEF
copies of case numbers 2:08CV01550 Zernik v. Connor and 2:09CV01914. Please
see quotes below to further complete your correspondence request.
The cost of service requested is $53.50. This reflects the following:
2:08CV01550 Photocopies numbering 107 pages at a cost of $0.50 per page (total:
$53.50).
The cost of service requested is $24.50. This reflects the following:
2:09CV01914 Photocopies numbering 49 pages at a cost of $0.50 per page (total:
$24.50).
The above quoted rates are established pursuant to Title 26, Section
1914 of the United States Code. Please make remittance in the form of a
cashierâs check, cercertified bank check, business or corporate check,
or a money order drawn on a major American bank or the United States
Postal Service, payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court." Personal checks or
checks drawn on non-business accounts will not be accepted.
Forward a self-addressed stamped envelope of sufficient size to hold
the request and a copy of this e-mail to the attention of: Correspondence
Clerk, Western Division, 312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8, L.A. CA
90012.
Thank you,
Correspondence Clerk
