09-11-05 LATEST DRAFT:Request for Appointment of Special Counsel to Restore Public Access to Court Records in Los Angeles County

ERIC HOLDER

U.S. Attorney General

__________________________________

Please notice that concerns regarding Human Rights and compliance were augmented with concerns pertaining to integrity the legal profession, and integrity of financial institution.

Major changes were introduced in paragraphs B. 2, 5, 6; C. 3, 4, 5.

Seeking immediate comments and suggestions on the DRAFT below, particularly from indivuals and other parties named below. Much of the evidence was posted or linked in blog http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

Joseph Zernik

__________________________________

TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

We respectfully request that Attorney General Eric Holder, on behalf of the Government of this Country, perform its duties pursuant to ratified International Law, and also pursuant to international accords, to which this Country and its Government claim to be parties in good faith.

A. Our Rights are deprived. We allege:

1) Deprivation of our Human Rights –

For Liberty (Article #3), Security of Person (Article #3), Equal Protection under the Law (Article #7), Effective National Tribunals for Effective Remedy of Acts Violating Human Rights & Rights Granted by the Constitution of this Country and its Amendments (Article #8), Not Be Subjected to Arbitrary Arrest (Article #9), Fair and Public Hearing by an Independent and Impartial Tribunal, in the Determination of our Rights and Obligations and of any Criminal Charge against us (Article #10).

2) Deprivation of our Common Law Right –

To Access Court Records to Inspect and to Copy.

B. Such alleged deprivation of Rights is affected by those who were charged with the protection of our Rights. We allege:

1) Ample, credible, material evidence documents the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles judges’ conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity -

Which the Government of the State of California is not ready, willing, or able to address, involving the following judges, retired judges, and Commissioners of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles:

a) Jacqueline A Connor;

b) Gerald Rosenberg, Supervising Judge – West District

c) Terry Friedman – in Samaan v Zernik and in Hanks v Woods

d) David Yaffe in Marina v LA County (BS109420), and in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

e) Murray Gross - Marina v LA County (BS109420)

f) John Segal – Samaan v Zernik, Galdjie v Darwish

g) Flynn

h) Patricia Collins – Samaan v Zernik , Galdjie v Darwish

2) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was documented, at least back to the Rampart Scandal (1998-2000) and its aftermath -

Including, but not limited to:

a) The massive Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) - which ended with no final report;

b) The First Rampart Trial (2000) - which was derailed;

c) The ongoing false imprisonment of the victims - many thousands, almost exclusively Black and Latinos, who were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - through framing of false evidence, through torture to extract of false confessions, and through routine false testimonies;

d) Official reports - the latest of which - the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) documented the role of the judges in preventing the release of those who had been falsely imprisoned by them, called for an “External Investigation” - which was never instituted, and singled out the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - as requiring “Examination.”

3) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was more recently documented in secret payments to all judges, by the County of Los Angeles, for over a decade, which were ruled “not permitted” and labeled “bribes” (1990s – present) - and in the judges’ conduct after the matter was exposed -

Derailing of the litigation in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which stemmed from this matter, and enactment of a law, which passed through the efforts of a high-priced lobbyist, in violation of the California Senate’s rules of debate, and which pardoned all judges for past transgressions, and was designed to circumvent the ruling of the California Court of Appeals relative to future transgressions.

4) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was more recently documented in a collection of individual cases –

Most of which were real estate-related, with wide-range, established collusions of judges, attorneys, financial institutions, and law-enforcement, including, but not limited to banking regulators. Each of these cases may initially appear legitimate, but detailed review soon documents judges and referees presiding with no Assignment Orders and Appointment Orders, and sequences of false on their faces orders and judgments that were issued by judges, filed by clerks and executed by referees and judicial officers nevertheless:

a) In Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) – Defendant Ms Barbara Darwish appeared for trial – marked in the Register of Actions as Jury Trial at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in a matter of real estate dispute. She was then deceived by judges and attorneys to proceed to the Municipal Court of Culver City, where a person, who remained anonymous in court records – listed only as Muni-Judge purported to conduct a “bench trial” to affect a judgment to take her 6-unit Santa Monica rental property. He is now identified as Judge John Segal.

b) In Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) – Judge John Segal purported to appoint Attorney David Pasternak as Receiver to execute such false and deliberately misleading judgment. Attorney David Pasternak then proceeded to purport to convey the title to the property, but no Grant Deed for such conveyance can be found in the office of Registrar Recorder of the County of Los Angeles today.

c) In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – Judge Jacqueline Connor purported to issue a judgment for the taking of the Beverly Hills residence of Defendant Joseph Zernik, and later issued false and deliberately misleading minute order purporting that such judgment was entered, while Plaintiff’s Counsel – Sheppard Mullin, LLP (the Presiding Judge’s former law-firm) stated on the record in open court, and as documented in transcripts, that such judgment was neither served, nor noticed, and that he was in fact pressing for the execution of an “entered oral judgment” based on an “understanding”, reached through a “dialog” between Judge Connor and him.

d) In Samaan v Zernik (SC097400) based on such facts and such arguments, Judge John Segal, colluding with Sheppard Mullin, LLP, and Attorney David Pasternak, issued a false and deliberately misleading Order Appointing Receiver, which bears a false and deliberately misleading Proof of Service, but was never the less filed, and certified by Clerk John A Clarke, and which neither the Clerk, nor the Presiding Judge, would agree to take any corrective action on.

e) In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) then proceeded to issue Grant Deeds, two of them, entirely different, both were opined as fraud by acclaimed fraud expert, each separately, and the two as a pair.

f) In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Att David Pasternak, when Defendant refused to cooperate with his conduct, opined as fraud – had Judge John Segal issue yet another false on its face order- for the Sheriff Department of Los Angeles County to take actions to remove Defendant from his residence, as if it were after entry of judgment.

g) In Marina v LA County -to be completed

h) In Sturgeon v LA County – to be completed

i) In Hanks v Woods – to be completed.

5) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise, pertaining to collusion with corrupt elements in U.S. financial institutions, large and small documents unreasonable risks to financial systems at home and abroad –

Credible evidence through records filed in court under the false caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), includes, but is not limited to:

a) A false and deliberately misleading December 7, 2007 “Indemnity Agreement” - for future criminalities – purported to be approved by the court through the joint efforts of counsel: On behalf of Plaintiff - Sheppard Mullin, LLP (former law-firm of the Presiding Judge, which engaged under the same caption in various alleged frauds, of which the Presiding Judge was routinely informed); On behalf of Mara Escrow Company - a subsidiary of Old Republic Title Holding Company, Inc – Buchalter Nemer, PLC, and on behalf of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles itself - Attorney David Pasternak.

b) A false and deliberately misleading December 7, 2007 “Grant Deed” – to be employed by Mara Escrow Company, for the execution of conveyance of title, which was opined by fraud expert – arguably the most decorated FBI veteran alive - “fraud being committed”, and in regards to which recommendation was also issued that “investigation be immediately instituted” – which was never implemented by law enforcement, including FBI itself, for reasons, which were also detailed by the same decorated fraud expert – not to expose the alleged widespread corruption of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles.

c) A large volume of false and deliberately misleading court records, which were filed over the past 2.5 years through routine false appearances of Counsel (while not authorized as Counsel of Record) by Bryan Cave, LLP, on behalf of a subsidiary of Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC), and later - to this date - on behalf of Bank of America Corporation (BAC), under a false, fabricated, self-applied party designation of “Non Party”, while the judges interchangeably designated these two financial institutions as “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Cross-Defendant”, “Intervenor”, “Real Party in Interest”, “merely a witness”, and more… all with no legal foundation at all;

d) The same court records, filed by Bryan Cave, LLP, provide detailed documentation of alleged obstructing and perversion justice, continuing to this date, by BAC - the largest consumer bank in the U.S., through the employment, false outside counsel - diametrically contradicting BAC’s published Outside Counsel Procedures, and diametrically contradicting BAC’s published Code of Ethics, while Officers of BAC, who were repeatedly noticed (Office of Kenneth Lewis, President of BAC, even responded) signed periodic certificates of no fraud, pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002).

e) The production of thousands of pages of false and deliberately misleading banking/legal records of CFC in legal subpoena, and later – refusal of BAC and its Audit Committee to review complaints filed pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), which provide:

(i) A fine detail picture of the operations of the Underwriting and Legal Departments, as well as a Wholesale Branch of the Countrywide Home Loans, Inc – the sub-prime division of CFC from 2004 to this date working in concert to obstruct and pervert justice;

(ii) Fully documented loan applications opined as fraud by a nationally acclaimed fraud expert, their respective, detailed, retroactively fabricated underwriting histories, which are misrepresented by CRC and BAC to this date;

(iii) Full documentation of the employment of “Edge” - an underwriting case management system, as a corrupt tool that portrays compliance with Regulation B of the FRB, but permits non-compliance with the law;

(iv) Full documentation of the employment by CFC and later BAC at the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to this date, of litigation practices similar to those which were previously documented and rebuked in courts in Texas and Pennsylvania, but on a grander scale; Of such litigation practices the Honorable Jeff Bohm, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Houston, Texas, stated in his March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion in Borrower Parsley (4-05-bk-90374) : Countrywide and its outside counsel “have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system” (p8);

(v) Close collusion of CFC and BAC with outside counsel, regulators, and law enforcement – in alleged obstruction and perversion of justice at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, under the guidance of judges of the court;

(vi) The filing by Bryan Cave, LLP, through false appearance on behalf of CFC, and also on behalf of Sandor Samuels, former Chief Legal Officer -CFC, and today Associate General Counsel – BAC – of a false and deliberately misleading “Notice of Person in Interest”.

f) Full collusion in the fraudulent conveyance of title – as opined by fraud expert by other financial institutions as well – Union Bank and USC Credit Union, and alleged breach of fiduciary duties to depositor/borrower – such financial institutions executed transactions in account holder funds with no authorization and with no legal records to support their conduct. USC Credit Union further engaged in the production of various false and deliberately misleading banking records and in thei misrepresentation of such banking records in the aftermath.

6) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise, documents the alleged corruption of the legal profession in the County of Los Angeles in law-firms large and small –

The false appearances and false and deliberately misleading conduct of law-firms large and small, as well as individual attorneys who had held significant professional distinctions, in collusion with judges, or on behalf of financial institutions, or law enforcement, including, but not limited to:

a) Attorney Aaron Fontana – on behalf of the Sheriff Department, County of Los Angeles

b) Attorney David Pasternak – former President - Los Angeles County Bar Association – opined as committing real estate fraud, ongoing to this date - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);

c) Attorney John Amberg – Bryan Cave, LLP - former Chair, Los Angeles County Bar Association - Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee, - in case that was opined as real estate fraud - Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)

d) Attorney Frederick Bennett – Counsel for the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – issued letter that were false and deliberately misleading to affect the denial of access to court records.

e) Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham – falsely appearing as Counsel of Record on behalf of Judge David Yaffe and the LA Superior Court – in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914);

f) Bryan Cave, LLP – falsely appearing as Counsel of Record on behalf of CFC and later BAC – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud –in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)

g) Buchalter Nemer, PLC – Counsel for Mara Escrow – subsidiary of Old Republic Title Company, Inc – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud – in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);

h) Ezer in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737);

i) Green & Marker, LLP – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud – in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737);

j) Jeff Modisett – Bryan Cave, LLP - former Attorney General, State of Indiana – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).

k) Joshua L Rosen – Counsel for Del Rey Joint Venture and Del Rey Joint Venture North – in affecting the false arrest and jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v LA County (BS109420), and in derailing the habeas corpus petition in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914);

l) Legal Department, BAC – Timothy Mayopoulos, Ed O’Keefe, Phil Wertz, Carolyn Johnson - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);

m) Legal Department, CFC – Sandor Samuels, Sanford Shatz, Todd Boock - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550);

n) Rhonda Walker – in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737);

o) Sheppard Mullin, LLP – Counsel for Plaintiff – in a case that was opined as real estate fraud - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

p) Ukon Loritz, LLP – Legal Counsel – USC Credit Union - in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400);

7) Ample, credible, material evidence of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise, is documented in the most notorious of these individual cases – the ongoing false jailing of Attorney Richard Fine –

With only false and misleading records to form its legal foundation, but no valid, effectual records at all, where Lee Baca - Los Angeles County Sheriff to this date refuses to correct false and deliberately misleading arrest and booking data - which his department posted online, refuses to allow access to the arrest and booking records, public records by California law – which are evidently non-existent, and refuses to put an end to what is by now evidently false jailing - which originated from the derailed litigation in Marina v LA County (BS109420), and where corruption and/or criminal conduct of judges, attorneys, and law enforcement is alleged.

C. We are readily familiar with the causes of such conditions in the County of Los Angeles, California. We allege:

1) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was enabled by the Court’s computerized case management systems -

First installed ~1985, including, but not limited to “Sustain”, which must be deemed upon review as fraud on the people, which the Court falsely established as “privileged”- through false unpublished, unauthorized Local Rules of Court, and to the records of which the Court falsely denies public access for the past quarter-century.

2) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was facilitated by elimination of the public records of the Court –

Which are prescribed by California law, including, but not limited to:

a) The Book of Judgments;

b) Index of All Cases;

c) Calendar of the Courts, and

d) Registers of Actions (California dockets).

3) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that of the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was facilitated by inadequate and/or false and/or missing Local Rules of Court –

Defects which the Presiding Judge and the Clerk of the Court refuse to address, including, but not limited to:

a) False unpublished rules which established the court’s computer records as “privileged”;

b) False unpublished rules pertaining to the Entry of Judgment – which the Court refuses to disclose, and

c) False published rules pertaining to routine Assignments and Referrals in the Central District, which were intended to circumvent the Law, where Assignment Orders and Appointment Orders are required.

4) We allege that conduct of such judges was routinely founded on false on their face orders and judgments -

With mismatching dates and signatures, missing proofs of services, which could be deemed by a naive observer as "errors", but which a reasonable person, upon review of the data as a whole must conclude were no "errors" at all. Such false court orders and judgments which are void, not voidable are routinely filed, and even certified by John Clarke, the Clerk of the Court, and both the Clerk and the Presiding Judge of the Court refused to take corrective actions when such records were explicitly brought to their attention.

5) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that what is now represented as two litigations of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, are in fact public displays, which are produced with no legal authority at all, and which are intended to undermine the justice system of the County of Los Angeles for the foreseeable future -

a) Marina v LA County (BS109420) - Which was the direct cause of the false jailing of Attorney Richard Fine, and where the judges are trying to enforce their false claim to the right to preside in legal proceedings with no Assignment or Appointment Orders, and

b) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) – Where the judges purport to establish their right to take payments from Los Angeles County, which were ruled by court “not permitted”, which were shown to affect serious bias, and which were labeled by media “bribes”.

6) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that the judges’ conduct of an enterprise is enabled by the Sheriff Department’s computerized case management system -

Which allows to deprive persons of Liberty with no legal foundation, while generating the false representation of compliance with the law.

7) Ample, credible, material evidence documents that the judges’ conduct of an enterprise was was enabled by the Sheriff Department’s denial of access to records that are public records by California Law -

Such as the arrest and booking records of inmates held by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department.

D. Our requests for help, previous to your term in office, were frustrated. We allege:

Responses on this matter, provided in August-September 2008 by senior U.S. Department of Justice Officers to U.S. Congress – to the Honorable Diane Watson and the Honorable Dianne Feinstein - were false and deliberately misleading.

E. Therefore, we respectfully request the help of your good offices:

By immediately appointing a Special Counsel pursuant to 28 CFR §600 for a limited time, limited mandate, to guarantee, through investigation - and prosecution - if needed:

1) Public access to court records, to inspect and to copy;

2) Integrity in operations of the offices of the Clerk and the Presiding Judge of the Court, with honest, published Local Rules of Court, and

3) Integrity of the case management systems of the Court and the Sheriff Department.

Conditions in Los Angeles County, California are extreme, but we hear the plight of the People everywhere in this Country. We pray that repair of the Justice System in Los Angeles County, California, will set a new course for Justice all over these United States, faithful to the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.

09-11-03 J Edgar Hoover on Liberty and beyond...

To make my collection of quotes complete, a friend sent me this J Edgar Hoover quote on the dangers facing Liberty in the U.S.

The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.

09-11-03 Brennan: A Legacy of Liberty

Brennan: A Legacy of Liberty

By Nat Hentoff

Washington Post Columnist

Tuesday, July 29, 1997; Page A15

We had been talking about the increasing number of dissents he was writing on the Rehnquist court, and I asked Justice Brennan whether he was getting discouraged. I should have known better. He smiled and said the court had these cycles, but it would come around again. He paused and added, "Look, pal, we've always known -- the Framers knew -- that liberty is a fragile thing. You can't give up."

Then William Brennan quoted from a scene in Yeats's play "Cathleen ni Houlihan": " 'Did you see an old woman going down the path?' asks Bridget. 'I did not,' replies Patrick, who came into the house just after the old woman left it.

'But I saw a young girl and she had the walk of a queen.' "

Justice Brennan looked fondly into the distance. "That passage has always meant a great deal to me."

His conviction remained that the living, evolving Constitution -- not frozen in time more than 200 years ago -- will surely rejuvenate liberty in the decades ahead. After all, despite the best years of the Warren court -- when Brennan was its defining force -- so much had been left undone even then. Let alone since.

Eleven years ago, he said in a speech, "We do not yet have justice, equal and practical, for the poor, for the members of minority groups, for the criminally accused, for the displaced persons of the technological revolution, for alienated youth, for the urban masses. . . . Ugly inequities continue to mar the face of our nation. We are surely nearer the beginning than the end of the struggle."

For all his passionate concern about injustice across the board, Justice Brennan was not a flinty moralist in person. Talking to him, as I frequently did during his last years on the court, I felt entirely at ease in the presence of one of the most powerful figures in the nation. He had no side, as the British say. Genuinely curious about the interests of people he talked to, he was the most naturally friendly person I have ever known.

Brennan was also interested in what happened to some of the litigants in cases he had judged. For instance, Harry Keyishian, an instructor who had been fired because he would not sign a New York state loyalty oath.

Brennan, in that 1967 case, Keyishian v. Board of Regents of New York, had ruled that the loyalty oath and other anti-subversive New York state statutes violated First Amendment protections of academic freedom. Twenty years later, Keyishian was on a televised Bill Moyers series, "In Search of the Constitution." I saw Brennan at the court soon after the program aired, and he was excited at having seen the actual person behind the name on his decision.

"It was fascinating," Brennan told me. "It was the first time I had seen him. Of course, it's rare that I ever see the people in the cases we deal with. Hearing him on the television program, I had no idea that he and the other teachers would have lost everything they had ever done if the case had gone the other way."

To Brennan the law was more than briefs and oral arguments. He may have seen hardly any of the litigants before him, but he searched for a sense of them in the

cases that reached him. Whenever he was asked for his definition of the Constitution, his answer was: "The protection of the dignity of the human being and the recognition that every individual has fundamental rights which government cannot deny him."

That's why Brennan had so deep and abiding a revulsion against capital punishment. Execution by the state, he said, "treats members of the human race as non-humans. Even the vilest criminal remains a human being possessed of

common human dignity."

By contrast, no one on the present court has refused, as Brennan did, to be an accomplice in what Harry Blackmun called "the machinery of death." And it is difficult to imagine that anyone now nominated to the court by a president of

either party could get Senate approval if he or she were against the death penalty.

When Justice Brennan retired seven years ago, he said it was "the saddest day of his life." It was sad for the nation as well, even though relatively few Americans knew anything more about him than his name -- if that.

Brennan, having a quick sense of humor, appreciated irony. He might have savored the president's tribute to him when he died: "Justice Brennan's devotion to the Bill of Rights inspired countless young law students, including myself."

Like Bill Clinton's evisceration of habeas corpus? His persistent devotion to the death penalty? His ardent advocacy of greatly expanded FBI wire taping powers?

Justice Brennan's legacy included none of these, but the president does confirm Brennan's conviction that liberty is indeed a fragile thing.

© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company

09-11-03 Proposed Advanced Reading

1) Sturgeon v LA County and Marina v LA County - Two litigations that hold the prospect of future honest court services in Los Angeles County at bay.

William Brennan Louis Brandeis Benjamin Cardozo

2) Brennan, Brandeis, Cardozo - Liberty as a guiding principle in the U.S. Constitutional tradition

3) The Great Writ & Common Law Rights - Liberty as a key concept inherited from the English legal tradition

____________________

The great achievement of the English-speaking people is the attainment of liberty through law. It is natural, therefore, that those who have been trained in the law should have borne an important part in that struggle for liberty and in the government which resulted . . .

Louis Brandeis, Address to law students and others at Harvard, 1905.

____________________

It will perhaps not surprise you that the text I have chosen for exploration is the amended

Constitution of the United States, which, of course, entrenches the Bill of Rights and the Civil

War amendments, and draws sustenance from the bedrock principles of another great text,

the Magna Carta. So fashioned, the Constitution embodies the aspiration to social justice,

brotherhood, and human dignity that brought this nation into being. The Declaration of

Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States

to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority. In

all candor we must concede that part of this egalitarianism in America has been more

pretension than realized fact. But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress.

Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations.

William Brennan, Symposium at Georgetown, 1985.

____________________

The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles.

Benjamin Cardozo

09-11-03 Jailing of Atty Richard Fine - Evidence for the conduct of an enterprise in a pattern of racketeering activity.

Count the Frauds:

1) How many fraud instances were alleged in the case of Richard Fine as narrated below?

2) What was the minimal number of individuals who at least at this time knew that the arrest was based on false/non existent records?

Winner will be arrested, but not booked, yet jailed for a 2 weeks stay in solitary confinement at Twin Towers Jail - world- famous retreat destination since it hosted celebrity Inmate #1824367 - Ricahrd Fine...

No papers required...

Forget about Elvis and Graceland... Be part of today's Urban Myth - stay at Twin Towers, where Atty Fine was hosted by Sheriff Lee Baca...

Seven months in solitary confinement... Off the count... Off the record...

Does it count as a criminal record?
JAILING OF ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVIST, ATTY RICHARD FINE - ALLEGED AS THE PRODUCT OF A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY BY THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Los Angeles, November 2. RICHARD FINE- 70 YEAR OLD FORMER U.S. PROSECUTOR, EXPOSED WIDESPREAD CONDUCT OF THE JUDGES OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, which was ruled in October 2008 "not permitted" by California Court of Appeal, and which led to the signing into law of wholesale pardons for the judges on February 20, 2009. Less than two weeks later - on March 4, 2009, Atty Fine was jailed by the Warrant Detail of the LA Sheriff Department, at the end of proceedings in the Central Courthouse in downtown LA. He has been held by the Lee Baca - Los Angeles County Sheriff in solitary confinement ever since. On October 13, 2009, Joseph Zernik, not a party to the case, submitted to Sheriff Lee Baca an open appeal - alleging that the Sheriff had no papers whatsoever to support the confinement of Atty Fine, and that the Sheriff held both the authority and the duty to review the matter and, if the confinement failed to conform to the fundamentals of the law - to immediately release the prisoner. In parallel, Zernik requested to inspect and to copy the arrest and booking papers of Inmate Fine, pursuant to the California Public Records Act. In the three weeks that passed since the submission of the appeal, it became clearer by the day that the claim of no papers was very likely to be the fact in the matter. While the Sheriff's office in fact retracted the data posted online regarding the arrest and booking, which Zernik claimed all along was false and misleading, the Sheriff continues to this date to deny the right to access the arrest and booking papers, but never admits that none existed.

Litigation Chronology

Richard Fine exposed secret payments by LA County to all ~425 judges of the LA Superior Court - the largest in the nation - for over a decade, at about $45,000 per judge per year. None of the judges listed such payments on their annual Outside Income Disclosure Forms, and none disclosed the payments to parties in litigation involving LA County. Atty Fine also demonstrated that it became practically impossible to win a case against LA County at the LA Superior Court during those years. Such payments were labeled by media "Bribes". The pardons signed in February into law passed in record speed, at the urging of the California Judicial Council, out of concern that all LA Superior Court judges were liable. The passage of the bill was the end result of high-priced lobbying (claimed to be $60,000 for a week's efforts) paid for by the judges, in violation of California Senate rules - with no debate on the floor and with no referral to committee. It was inserted in the last minute into the much larger budget bill.

The arrest took place at the end of proceeding in Marina v LA County (BS109420), where Atty FINE represented Marina Del Rey Homeowners Association - Plaintiff, who sought injunction against LA County - Defendant, for permitting Del Rey Joint Venture and Del Rey Joint Venture North - Real Parties in Interest, the development of high density dwellings on a land parcel near the Marina that had been previously an open space. Atty Fine repeatedly sought the disqualification of Judge Yaffe in this litigation, since Judge Yaffe took payments from Defendant - LA County. Judge Yaffe ignored such demands, and imposed on Atty Yaffe serious sanctions - exceeding a total of $50,000. Subsequently, Atty Fine was ordered to appear before Commissioner Murray Gross - Debtor Examiner, to provide information regarding his financial assets for collection of such sanctions/judgment. Atty Fine appeared, but refused to respond to questions by Commissioner Gross. Later, Atty Fine stated the reason: Gross failed to obtain an Appointment Order, as required by law, and therefore, was void of authority. In contrast, on March 4, 2009, in open court, Judge Yaffe ruled that it was sufficient that he referred Atty Fine to Dept 1A, pursuant to the latest version ofLocal Rule of Court 2.5(d) to construe the authority of Commissioner Gross as Referee/Debtor Examiner, since Gross was assigned to Dept 1A since January 2008.

Media largely reported the case as an example of extreme bias by Judge David Yaffe, who refused to disqualify, insisted on not issuing an Appointment Order, and attempted to force Fine to obey Gross nevertheless. The case was also represented as retaliation against Fine for his role in exposing the payments to LA Superior Court judges. The case was characterized by further peculiar traits - Fine was held in solitary confinement for the whole period since his arrest, in a hospital room that was separate from the central jail facility. He was also denied access to pen and paper in the first couple of months, and hardly allowed any contact with the outside world, which undermined his ability to file a habeas corpus petition at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, and later the Emergency Petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Both of these actions were filed by dictations by phone to friends, who were not attorneys, and who then committed the dictation to paper, without Atty Fine's final review of the papers or endorsement of such papers with his signatures.

On March 19, 2009 the habeas corpus petition Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) was filed. The petition rightly named the Sheriff - who held Fine jailed - as Respondent. In an unprecedented turn of events, the Sheriff refused to respond. Instead of immediately releasing Fine, the U.S District Court in LA delayed the proceedings, till on May 1, 2009, the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe filed a response through Att Kevin McCormick. By June 12, 2009 Magistrate Carla Woehrle recommended denial of the habeas corpus petition, with prejudice, and Jude John Walter, who presided after several recusals, adopted the recommendations into a judgment on June 29, 2009. Finally - by June 30, 2009 Atty Fine's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) then pending, was denied under the names of a panel of three - including Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and Circuit Judges Richard Tallman and Richard Paez.

Alleged Fingerprints of the LA-JR

With all that for a backdrop, now, new allegations were raised by Dr Joseph Zernik - who had no formal legal education at all - that Richard Fine's jailing was the product of a pattern of racketeering activity by Judge David Yaffe, Clerk John Clarke, and the LA Superior Court. The alleged activity involved the deliberate issuance of false and misleading papers by Judge David Yaffe, or at times by Atty for Real Parties in Interest - Joshua L Rosen, which were rulings, orders, and judgments that were false on their faces, and the deliberate and wrongful filing of such papers by clerks. Consequently, Judge Yaffe, Atty Rosen, and Clerk Clarke, deliberately caused the execution of such invalid papers, albeit - consistently keeping all such proceedings and procedures off the record, and always keeping a plausible deniability through the claim of naive errors.

Dr Zernik demonstrated that all eight (8) executable orders, judgments and writs in Marina v LA County, including the purported Order and Judgment for sanctions, and the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine were false on their faces court records - invalid based on superficial defects that required no real knowledge of the law - e.g. wrong signature, wrong date, incomplete or mismatched records. Zernik claimed that such pattern of activity could be deemed the "Fingerprints of the LA-JR" - (the alleged LA Judiciary Racket). He claimed that the very same pattern could be readily documented in a series of cases that were claimed to be subjected to racketeering by the LA-JR: (a) most of them involving real estate matters, like the case at hand, and all of them involving (b) false on their faces judgments and orders, (c) the wrongful execution of false judgments and orders, and (d) presiding by of Judicial Officers with no Appointment Orders and with no authority at all to affect judicial acts that were contrary to the law - as pretending judges, referees, receivers, or debtor examiners.

Dated: March . . .

The false on its face Judgment for jailing of Richard Fine - Filed - March 4, 2009, endorsed - March 24, 2009

Zernik alleged that such conduct by Judge Yaffe and others, effectively generated "double books" - false trial court litigation records. On the one hand - Judge Yaffe's pronouncements in open court, as recorded by media, and also in Reporter's transcript, clearly reflected sentencing of Atty Fine on March 4, 2009, to continuous confinement by the Sheriff. However, such records, with no written, effectual orders and judgment were void, not voidable. Also the false on its face Judgment for jailing of Fine could be seen as part of the false record for jailing of Fine. On the other hand, Judge Yaffe generated equally invalid written records to the opposite effect - reflecting no sentencing of Fine on March 4, 2009. Albeit - none of it was served or noticed. Judge Yaffe (a) deleted the whole March 4, 2009 proceeding from the official records of the litigation, (b) he issued a March 4, 2009 Minute Order that was invalid - but read as if no sentencing at all took place, and (c) he issued a false on its face Judgment for jailing - endorsed in multiple copies as dated March 24, 2009, but stamped "FILED" by Clerk Connie Hudson with the date of March 4, 2009. Both the minute order and the judgment were also invalid for missing their end portion called Proof of Service, absent which, orders and judgments were not effectual for any purpose by California law. The alleged pattern of racketeering activity that was the Fingerprints of the LA-JR therefore involved the consistent production of double books - therefore false litigation records - that were on the one hand vague and ambiguous, but could also be used in dual, opposite capacities. which were sufficiently convincing to deceive the victims in most cases.

Appeal to Sheriff Lee Baca

Zernik alleged that the Sheriff was fully aware of the circumstances, although probably only after the fact, and for such reason the Sheriff refused to respond to the habeas corpus petition. Zernik also demonstrated that the Sheriff's case management system (CMS) held false and misleading entries regarding Fine's arrest and booking - placing them at a fabricated San Pedro agency. Such entries were contradicted by media reports and were factually impossible - there were no booking facilities such as listed in San Pedro at all. The Sheriff's procedures called for arrest and booking papers to be held by the booking agency. Zernik contended that the fabricated booking agency was a convenient place to hold no arrest and booking papers at all.

On October 13, 2009, Zernik filed an open petition with Sheriff Lee Baca, calling upon him to respect the Human Rights of Atty Richard Fine, and review the arrest and booking papers in his possession. If none existed, Zernik claimed that the Sheriff held both the authority and the duty to immediately release the prisoner. Zernik also requested to obtain copies of the arrest and booking papers per california law. Moreover, Zernik alleged that the strange holding conditions - in solitary confinement in a hospital room - separate from the main jail facility, stemmed from the fact that Atty Richard Fine was never duly booked. He was therefore held off the record that was the inmate count list, and off the three times a day inmate mandatory counts at the Twin Towers and Central Jail facilities. The Sheriff's office never responded in writing, but in daily phone calls, first tried to convince Zernik that the papers were held in San Pedro. Then - that the papers could not be released out of concern for the inmate safety. Finally, the Sheriff's office abandoned the claims of arrest and booking in San Pedro, but would not answer where, when, and by whom the arrest and booking took place.

Denial of Access to Sheriff's Public Records

Dr Zernik was supported in his efforts by a civil rights organization which advised him that the arrest and booking records were public records by California law - the California Public Records Act, and that Sheriffs in other California Counties indeed compiled with the law on this matter. LA Superior Court records were public records also pursuant to Common Law rights - older than the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, which were affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). In the historic 1978 Nixon Tapes ruling, the Court re-affirmed the public's right to access court records to inspect and to copy.

The Sheriff office's final position was that the Sheriff practiced "full transparency" and "if you want to obtain copies of the arrest and booking papers you would have to get a court order for that".

Denial of Access to LA Superior Court's Public Records

Similarly - the LA Superior Court refused to allow Zernik to inspect and to copy the Register of Actions (California docket) of Marina v LA County the definitive litigation record that was never produced in the habeas corpus petition. Such records are integeral part of the LA Superior Court's CMS - Sustain. Repeated requests to access the record, or provide explanation for the denial generated no response at all. The Counsel for the Court - Frederick Bennett sent Dr Zernik a letter stating that his requests constituted "ex parte communications" and would therefore not be answered.
In addition - Zernik alleged that the appearance of Atty Kevin McCormick on behalf of the LA Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe in Fine v Sheriff at the U.S. Court was founded in fraud. McCormick was not authorized by Yaffe and the Court as Counsel of Record, but conveniently appeared and filed false papers, under his own signature - with no authority at all, Therefore - he absolved Yaffe and the court for any accountability for such fraudulent filings at the U.S. Court. He also filed a declaration that he was not authorized to sign - since he was no competent witness of the facts in the matter. Zernik claimed that through such fraud the habeas corpus petition was denied. He directly approached Judge Yaffe, the Presiding Judge of the court, and McCormick with such allegations, but none would answer at all.

Denial of Access to U.S. District Court, Los Angeles Public Records

On top of all that, Zernik alleged dishonest manipulation of Fine's papers by the Clerks of the U.S. Court in LA. In August 2009 he raised concerns with the Clerk's Intake Room Supervisor - Sharon McGee, who supported such concerns. Subsequently, Zernik filed with the Clerk of the U.S. Court a request for investigation of such concerns. No response was received. Therefore. on September 18, 2009 Zernik attempted to exercise his right to access the record of the petition - to inspect and to copy. Deputy Clerk denied the request, stating that the Fine paper records had already been shredded.

Dishonest CMSs Linked to Denial of Access - Proposed Solution

Zernik alleged that his claims were founded on analysis of the LA Superior Court's computerized case management system, which he alleged was fraud by design and by operation, as was the case management system of the Sheriff. Zernik claimed that the public had to insist on the right to inspect such systems, which were the root cause of racketeering at the court, by the court. Further measures were contemplated, in effort to obtain the access prescribed by law to the arrest and booking papers of the sheriff, the Register of Actions of the LA Superior Court, and the petition papers at the U.S. District Court - access to all these papers was repeatedly denied. Zernik held that the right to access public records, more fundamental than any of the Civil Rights in the Amendments, was under siege in the U.S. today, and he provided examples from California, New York State, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania, two state courts, on county sheriff, four U.S. District Courts, and One U.S. court of appeals who denied him access to specific records he requested to inspect and to copy.

The root cause of such conditions according to Zernik, was in the introduction of computer systems that lack elementary validation (logic verification). Zernik suggested that the solution could be found in regulation of such systems through public oversight, based on the rule making enabling laws. Such law should be promulgated to affect public regulation of computers at the courts. Computer programs were assembly of rules by definition, and case management systems of the courts were assemblies of Rules of Courts.

be (-iyX2 O{ted in a series of cases that were claimed to be subjected to racketeering by the LA-JR: (a) most of them involving real estate matters, like the case at hand, and all of them involving (b) false on their faces judgments and orders, (c) the wrongful execution of false judgments and orders, and (d) presiding by of Judicial Officers with no Appointment Orders and with no authority at all to affect judicial acts that were contrary to the law - as pretending judges, referees, receivers, or debtor examiners.

09-11-02 HOW ABOUT A CORRUPTION PAGEANT?

At the end it always boils down to the same thing... California? or Texas?

Los Angeles, County, California

Would win a corruption pageant any day of the week...

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:03 AM, joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net> wrote:

Mr Mellen:

I realized that the story you sent me regarding the habeas corpus petition was not the only alleged perversion of justice in your county, in Texas. It is the same pattern in Los Angeles County - false imprisonments - and alleged real estate frauds by the court go hand in hand.

False imprisonments in Los Angeles County are on a large scale - PBS program FRONTLINE estimated in 2000 the number of those who were falsely imprisoned in what came to be known as the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) between 8000-16,000 - the Rampart- FIPs. Hardly any of them were released (less than 200 by estimate), although the evidence was conclusively generated in the investigation that they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to long prison terms. It is an ongoing Human Rights disgrace of historic proportions, which still awaits its resolution.

More recently - we have the false jailing of Att RICHARD FINE - with no papers whatsoever to support his arrest or booking - over half a year in solitary confinement - off the inmate count, and off the records...

At the same time - we alleged racketeering of the Los Angeles Superior Court in real estate in the past 25 years - enabled through its case management systems, which the court wrongfully declared "privileged", With it - it concealed for the past 25 years the Registers of Actions (California dockets) in both civil and criminal litigation, the Books of Judgments - in both civil and criminal litigations, and also - it concealed the Rules of Courts pertaining to Entry of Judgment! To me - it sounds unbelievable every single time I write it.

I allege that the Los Angeles Superior Court managed an unprecedented feat, The traditions of Books of Judgment, and court records as Public Records go back to the early post medieval period. Through the introduction of digital technology, the court took the liberty of ceasing to comply with such ancient laws, and with that - took the court into the deep past. I recite all of these facts as a warning to all residents of the U.S. - because in my research I could not find a single computer system in the courts that was adequately validated (logic verified). It appears that what the Los Angeles Superior Court did 25 years ago, in various forms, and to various degrees was repeated in courts across the U.S. For example- in California there are over 70 such systems, each created by a court with no supervision. I was told that in Texas - the state courts may use more than 100 different case management systems - none of them, according to what I was told, was developed or installed following reasonable public scrutiny. You cannot underestimate the power of such systems in allowing alleged perversion of justice.

I recently sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court, JOHN CLARKE and to the Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY, and kindly asked that they finally, after a quarter century, disclose to the public the Rules of Court in re: Entry of Judgment.

I also pointed out to them a number of alleged Fraud on Their Faces records issued by the court - to deprive one person of Liberty, and another - of his home. I requested that they remove such records from the court files. It is obvious that the court treated such records as invalid on their faces, but by placing such records in court file - they allowed others to abuse the records to inflict harm, with the court's full knowledge and cooperation.

I also noticed the Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY and Judge DAVID YAFFE of the alleged fraud in their representation in the Habeas Corpus Petition of RICHARD FINE. Att KEVIN MCCORMICK appeared and filed false and deliberately misleading papers, evidence, and a declaration, on behalf of Judge DAVID YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT under his own signature with no signature of Judge DAVID YAFFE or any Officer of the Court - while he was Attorney, but NOT Attorney of Record, and had no authority to file such papers, evidence and declaration under his signature. Through such alleged fraud - Judge DAVID YAFFE, the LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, and Atty KEVIN MCCORMICK deprived RICHARD FINE of his Liberty.

Countrywide, the Los Angeles-based sub-prime-lender, who shares with the LA Superior Court the "Spirit of Los Angeles", was caught in 2007 in Houston Texas engaging in the same alleged fraud - allowing appearance in court by Attorney who was not Attorney of Record, and then felt at liberty to file false papers in court. In a March 2008 Memorandum Opinion, the Honorable JEFF BOHM, U.S. Judge, Houston, Texas, said of that scheme:

Countrywide and their counsel "have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system."

However, in Los Angeles County, such alleged fraud is legitimized and routine. The Los Angeles Superior Court, allows Countrywide - now a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation to continue such alleged fraud to this very day - through the appearances of BRYAN CAVE, LLP - Attorney - but not Attorney of Record, who has appeared under the false and deliberately misleading Party Designation "NON PARTY" for over two years before judges of Los Angeles Superior Court, purported to file motions, to enter judgments, etc. However, in the Habeas Corpus Petition of RICHARD FINE - it was not Countrywide- an alleged corrupt corporation - but the Los Angeles Superior Court itself, and Judge DAVID YAFFE, who were parties to the litigation - and who engaged in the same scheme - to deprive RICHARD FINE of Liberty.

In my recent letters - I addressed the Presiding Judge a and the Clerk of the Court in their administrative capacities, Similarly, I addressed Judge Yaffe and the Presiding Judge regarding their conduct in the Habeas Corpus petition of RICHARD FINE - as parties to litigation, not as judges in any case.

The Clerk - JOHN A CLARKE - the Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY and Judge DAVID YAFFE refused to answer. Instead - they send me a letter by Counsel for the Court - FREDERICK BENNETT - stating that my letters amounted to "ex parte communications". It reminded me of the response I got last year from Mr ROBERT REED - Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee - he compared complaining about the alleged widespread corruption and racketeering of the Los Angeles Superior Courts - to "politization of the courts".

I usually disregard the letters for CARL BENNETT - the counsel for the court - since they are routinely false and deliberately misleading - simply a way to cover up the refusal of the Clerk of the Court and the Presiding Judge of the Court to be held accountable.. Here the issues were too heavy to ignore - I allege that the hiding of the Book of Judgments and the Rules of Court in re: Entity of Judgment and the Registers of Actions, in fact turned the court into an alleged racket, with ample evidence for conduct of an enterprise in pattern of alleged racketeering activity.

Case Management Systems of the Courts Must be the Center of Attention

The reason I state all of this is because I believe we need to start a site where readers would be able to rank of alleged corruption in different courts, based on the different reports. I claim Los Angeles is leading the pack leaving all others in the dust, but the stories form Texas are not far behind...

Of note - the former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of our neighbor San Bernardino County - former member of the California Judicial Council, was also tied in a recent newspaper report to numerous real estate fraud cases. I believe that San Bernardino County is very close to LA County in the qualify of justice prevailing in it, but in general it suffers from under-reporting. I did receive several informal accounts - 2 cases regarding the family courts, and one regarding civil matters. If there is any truth in these accounts, then San Bernardino County is definitely up there as well.

Creating a Competitive Site - for Ranking Corruption of the Courts - Getting More Voters Involved

A site that would bring the true American tradition of Beauty Pageants to Court Corruption... would encourage people to report their cases, and it would allow readers to engage in an interactive manner. It will also create a database of individuals who are willing to make a statement and take a stand and probably also vote based on representatives responsiveness - or lack thereof - regarding alleged corruption of the courts. It is not meant to slight any of the cases, it is just a way to allow many more readers in California and Texas to become involved, and also in other states- it would greatly enlarge the group of identified voters of hold court corruption as a key issue in the U.S. today.

Request for a Special Counsel for Los Angeles County Public Records/Rules of Court/Integrity of Court Records

Otherwise - we are planning on sending a formal request to Attorney General Eric Holder in the very near future - to appoint a Special Counsel - to enforce in Los Angeles County the law pertaining to Access to Court Records, and Published Rules of Court,

Linking Alleged Court corruption to the Current Financial Crisis - which in fact is an Integrity Crisis.

The current "Financial Crisis" is in fact Justice System Crisis/Financial Crisis or simply stated - INTEGRITY CRISIS. Until the issue of integrity of the justice system would not be addressed in a meaningful way, the current malaise is not likely to be relieved. If Countrywide can continue today to appear in the Los Angeles Superior Court for the third year in a row as "NON PARTY", purport to file motions and enter judgments, which obviously demonstrates that the litigation as a whole is racketeered - with wholesale production of false and deliberately misleading court records, while SEC continues to refuses to investigate any complaints against Countrywide or Bank of America Corporation for the third year in a row, in this regard, then obviously not much changed in re: Banking Regulators and integrity of the U.S. banking system. Such conduct is also out of compliance with international Banking Accords that the U.S. claims to be good faith party to;

Going Abroad - International Human Rights Court

If there would be no response on that matter - we are in the process of trying to identify a group of 10 cases of the Los Angeles Superior Court, where alleged racketeering can be unequivocally demonstrable - based on routine creation of false and deliberately misleading court records by the court - by comparing the paper file and the hidden Registers of Actions and Electronic Minute Orders. It is a double/triple books system - which is why the Registers of Actions are hidden. We are getting close to the that target number. With 10 cases in place, we would try to identify an International Human Rights Court that would be willing to hear the case against the U.S. .Government - relative to allowing alleged abuse of the residents of Los Angeles County for over quarter century.

Establishing and maintaining fair and impartial tribunals, and also national tribunals for protection of Human Rights and Rights founded in the Constitution of the Country (and its Amendments in the case of the U.S.) are essential Human Rights pursuant to ratified International Law, binding the U.S., who in fact was the driving force behind the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - through Elenor Roosevelt.. We allege severe deprivation of Human Rights in LA County,. California. Obviously - allowing large scale false imprisonment - of the Rampart-FIPs - a decade after the investigation ended - would be a major part of such allegations. However, alleged racketeering by the LA Superior Court would be inseparable from that story as well - we allege that had the Registers of Actions and Book of Judgment been public records, as required by law, we would have been able to speedily identify the Rampart-FIPs, and take up their cases with the U.S. Courts. As things stand - they are all anonymous.

Mr Mellen - I hope to hear your comments on the agenda above.

Joseph Zernik