Request for peer review of Affidavit (Dkt #10) by Prof Joseph Grundfest in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:59:55 -0700
To: [list of Stanford Law Faculty- redacted; jhz]
From: joseph zernik

Subject: Request for peer review of Affidavit (Dkt #10) by Prof Joseph Grundfest in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

__________________________________________

To: Stanford Law School Faculty, and faculty of other law schools.

From: Joseph Zernik

RE: Affidavit (Dkt #10) by Prof. Joseph Grundfest, Stanford Law School, in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

Links are provided below for the Affidavit referenced above [1], and for a letter I wrote today to Prof Grundfest and to Counsel for SEC and BAC, requesting a re-write or a withdrawal of the affidavit. [2]

As his peers, I request your help in assessing the integrity, including, but not limited to Academic Integrity, of the Affidavit. Included in such request is the request for assessment of the integrity of filing such paper in proceedings where there is no publicly visible Summons and no publicly visible Assignment to a Judge, and with no party filer appearing on the face of the paper.

Needless to say, the proceedings in SEC v BAC pertain to matters that are critical for the economic future of the U.S.

I would be grateful for your response in this matter, no later than Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 5:00pm, so that I may incorporate it in my letter to the Honorable Jed Rakoff, U.S. Judge.

Joseph Zernik

________________________________________


[1] Affidavit of Prof Joseph Grundfest in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-ny-sec-v-bac-09-08-24-doc-10-affidavit-joseph-grundfest.pdf

[2] September 2, 2009 Letter to Prof Grundfest, counsel for SEC and BAC, requesting re-write or withdrawal of the Affidavit
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-zernik-to-counsel-sec-v-bac-grundfest-re-affidavit-s.pdf

Please support our petition:
CALLING UPON PRESIDENT OBAMA -
FREE THE 10,000 RAMPART-FIPs, FREE ATTORNEY RICHARD I FINE
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
References
1) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from Guild Practitioner
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15,000 by criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001, updated 2005) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
4) Full Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine from jail
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD , Fax: (801) 998-0917;

In re: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) demands for Clerk John Clarke’s compliance with the law

1) Demand to remove any reference to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from LA

Superior Court “Case Summaries” online;

2) Demand to ensure that no Deputy Clerk be present in purported Case Conference

on September 23, 2009, and

3) Demand that no Deputy Clerk enter any additional Minute Orders in John

Clarke’s name in Sustain under such caption.

September 2, 2009

John A Clarke

Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court

Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles

<>

<>

(by fax and by email)

Timely compliance with the law is demanded, no later than Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:00 pm

Mr Clarke:

I have recently noticed that the “Case Summaries”[1] of the LA Superior Court still carries

reference to matter of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), moreover, a “Case

Conference” is listed there as a “Future Proceeding” on September 23, 2009.[ 2,3]

You have continuously refused to certify the case as an Action of the Superior Court

of California, refused to certify Judge Terry Friedman as duly assigned Presiding

Judge (and there never was an Assignment Order on file either), and refused to

certify the August 9, 2007 Judgment as a Judgment of the Superior Court of

California.

Additional credible evidence demonstrated that such matter was never a valid

effectual action of the Superior Court of California. The Grant Deeds issued by Att

David Pasternak on behalf of the court, likewise, were opined by decorated FBI

veteran, fraud expert James Wedick as “fraud”.[ 4] Likewise, period reports issued by

Att David Pasternak are primary evidence of the alleged racketeering predicated

acts of monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity.[ 5]

There simply is no explanation within the realm of the law for the ongoing conduct of

the court and Att David Pasternak.

For lack of better term, I refer to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and other similar

cases, such as Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), [6] as the “Enterprise Track” of the

LA Superior Court. Upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, such cases

surely would be deemed racketeering pursuant to RICO - Racketeer Influenced

and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 USC §1961-8.

_____________________________

1 “Case Summaries” are published by the LA Superior Court with a disclaimer (see Footnote #2) stating that such are not court records, and should not be relied upon. In parallel, the LA Superior Court denies for the past quarter century public access to the Registers of Actions – which are public records by law (see Footnote #3). Therefore, the “Case Summaries”, which should not be relied upon, are the only non-record available to the public.

2 Copy of the case summary of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-a-online-case-summary_09-08-24-not-a-court-record.pdf

3 Denial of access to Registers of Actions, to inspect and to copy:

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-04-requests-to-access-court-file-in-sturgeon-v-la-county-denial-of-access.pdf

4 December 7, 2007, and December 17, 2007 Grant Deeds issued by Att David Pasternak, opined as “fraud” by decorated FBI veteran James Wedick:

http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opinion-s.pdf

5 June 22, 2009 - The latest report by Att David Pasternak:

http://inproperinla.com/09-06-22-att-david-pasternak-report-holding-$360000.pdf

6 The central role in Galdjie v Darwish of Judge John Segal, listed anonymously as “Muni Judge”, and Att David Pasternak, parallels their roles in Samaan v Zernik. Other common features of the two cases can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-enterprise-track-samaan-v-zernik-&-galdjie-v-darwish-s.pdf

_____________________________________________

The complete letter can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-demand-for-clerk-clarke-to-remove-case-summary-samaan-v-zernik-s.pdf

Letter to Counsel and to Prof Grundfest: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) Request for withdrawal or re-writing of affidavit by Prof Grundfest.(Dkt #10)

Executive Summary

The collapse of Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) in January 2008, signaled a turning point in the current financial crisis. It allowed the public world-wide first clue to allow any estimate of the scope of the escalating financial disaster. On the other hand, it demonstrated the failure of U.S. banking regulation, and also involved actions by senior Bush administration officials to usher, some say to coerce, the merger of CFC with Bank of America Corporation (BAC). Similar events recurred in the collapse of Merrill Lynch, which led to an April 2008 letter by NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. [1] In response to that letter – some media called for criminal indictment of senior U.S. and BAC Officers, including FRB Chair Henry Ben Bernanke, and BAC Chair Kenneth Lewis. Evidence from various court actions and a year long study by the U.S. Trustee, documented conditions at CFC in the years preceding its collapse, which included non-functional external and internal audit structure, headed by Chair Mozilo, underwriting department that disregarded the law, large data processing systems that were crippled, and a Legal Department, headed by Chief Legal Officer Samuels, which was routinely engaged in undermining the integrity of court actions across the U.S.[2] , [3] Disregarding such mounting evidence of alleged racketeering at CFC, involving its most senior officers, including those holding direct reporting duties to SEC, law enforcement and banking regulators, routinely refused to investigate complaints. Given the nature of operations at CFC, the insistence of senior U.S. officers on merging it into BAC, instead of letting it be liquidated, with no indication of any attempt at enforcement before or after the merger, remains inexplicable, or worse. Concerns regarding ineffective banking regulation in the U.S., which poses risks to financial markets at home and abroad, were repeatedly raised, e.g. during the recent visit by U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner to Beijing.

In proceedings of SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829), filed on August 3, 2009 at the U.S. District Court, NY, SEC appeared to engage in enforcement action against BAC. The parties came before the Court for approval of a proposed settlement. To assist the Court in reviewing whether the proposed settlement was “fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest”, Prof Joseph Grundfest, Stanford Law School, former Commissioner of SEC, produced an Affidavit (Dkt #10), filed by BAC August 24, 2009. The affidavit supported approval of the settlement. Dr Joseph Zernik, a Los Angeles County, California resident, asked and received Court permission to provide his input as well. Dr Zernik filed complaints with FBI, SEC, Thrift Supervision, and Federal Trade Commission, starting January 2007, providing credible documenting of alleged large scale fraud by CFC against U.S. Government, which in early 2007 he estimated at hundreds of billions, and which involved CFC officers holding direct reporting duties. He filed further complaints with the Audit Committee of BAC after the merger, regarding alleged violations of the law that involved Mr Kenneth Lewis, Mr Joe Price, and Mr Timothy Mayopoulos – all holders of direct reporting duties. Furthermore, in February 2009 Dr Zernik and Prof Grundfest engaged in discussion of the refusal of SEC to engage in enforcement in re: BAC and its subsidiary CFC, and records were forwarded to Prof Grundfest, as credible evidence of material violations by officers holding reporting duties. Prof Grundfest later stated that he forwarded the records to the Head of Enforcement at SEC. SEC again refused to investigate complaints against CFC and BAC. [4]

Dr Zernik forwarded instant letter to Prof Grundfest, BAC, and SEC, requesting that the Affidavit (Dkt #10) either be rewritten or entirely withdrawn. Dr Zernik stated that the Affidavit in its current form, in the docket as it appear online in Pacer, [5], [6] is false and deliberately misleading in itself, and also provides legitimacy to proceedings which so far fail to demonstrate the essential elements of a valid, effectual U.S. Court Action. Such Affidavit lends support to one in chain of events where certain senior U.S. officers and some members of the U.S. and California judiciary, with CFC and BAC officers, conduct U.S. banking in a manner that is contrary to public policy interest - recklessly setting up the grounds for a new, bigger financial calamity, which may leave the U.S. entirely crippled.

This letter was also forwarded as requests to:

1) Stanford Faculty – to assess the academic integrity of Prof Grundfest’s Affidavit, and its potential harm to U.S. financial markets and law enforcement.

2) General Tommy Frank, and Admiral Joseph Frueher – to issue “Farewell Addresses” to the public at large, in relationship with their departure from the Audit Committee of BAC.

3) Basel Committee and U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights – to send a delegation, including banking regulators, Human Rights experts, and court administrators, to observe conduct of U.S. and State agencies in the current financial crisis. It is proposed that such observation start in Los Angeles County, defined by FBI as “the epicenter of the epidemic”.

---

[1] April 23, 2008 letter of NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Senate

http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf

[2] 1) Borrower Sharon D Hill ( ), U.S. Court, Pittsburgh, PA, and related actions by U.S. Trustee.

2) Borrower William A Parsley () U.S. Court, Houston TX, Memorandum Opinion of the Honorable Jeff Bohm (Dkt #248), and related year-long study by U.S. Trustee.

3) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) LA Superior Court

4) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) U.S. District Court LA, CA

5) Zernik v U.S. Dist Court ((08-72714) U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit

6) Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) U.S. District Court, Washington, DC

[3] Many of the court records in (2), above, were copied under index in:

http://inproperinla.com/

[4] February 2009 - Correspondence Zernik-Grundfest-Bezek:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-compiled-corresopndence-grundfest-bezek-2009-s.pdf

[5] date Letter to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, NYC, requesting access to records:

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-31-cover-emai+-zernik-requests-explanation-from-bryan-cave-llp-s.pdf

[6] date Letter to SEC, BAC, requesting records and actions in re: Docket of SEC v BAC.

___________________

The complete letter can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-zernik-to-counsel-sec-v-bac-grundfest-re-affidavit-s.pdf

Confer letter in re: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829 )

09-08-27 Confer letter in re: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829 ) –

Filing a letter with the Hon Jed Rakoff in re: Settlement

TO:

1) SEC (by email)

Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by Joseph O. Boryshansky Phone:(212) 336-0113

Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by David Rosenfeld

2) BAC (by email)

Defendant: Bank of America Corporation represented by Shawn Joseph Chen

Defendant: Bank of America Corporation represented by Lewis J. Liman

CC:

1) FBI [1] (by fax)

2) US Department of Justice (US DOJ) [2] (by email)

3) Basel Committee [3]

4) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights [4]

5) Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in the U.S.[5]

Please take notice:

A. Proposed schedule for exchange of comments prior to submitting letter to court.

Dr Zernik proposes the schedule listed below for exchange of comments with the parties on his planned letter to the Court of the Honorable Judge Rakoff. The reason Dr Zernik is soliciting such comments is that the claims made in such letter are of high public policy significance, and he would like to ensure that the parties mentioned had a chance to correct him, in case of errors:

1) Zernik will fax to parties his DRAFT letter to the Hon Jed Rakoff no later than 9:00am EST of business on Monday, August 31, 2009.

2) Parties will fax to Zernik (801-998-0917) comments or objections, if any, no later than 5:00pm EST, on Friday, September 4, 2009.

3) Zernik will fax parties and the court his FINAL letter no later than 9:00am Tuesday, September 8, 2009.

Please respond by Friday, August 28, 2009, 5:00 pm, if you would be interested in engaging in the proposed exchange.

...

The Honorable Jed Rakoff expressed his concern regarding the lack of transparency in the settlement agreement. Dr Zernik would like to focus attention on another presumed agreement that remains entirely concealed:

BAC agreed to acquire Countrywide on January 11, 2008, in the context of markets turmoil, after the publication of the fact that Countrywide attorneys filed in a Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Court three (3) “recreated letters” as evidence. [1] And while media elaborated on the financial aspects of the transaction, there was no mention of the evident – that BAC had to be concerned about assuming criminal liabilities in the process of acquiring Countrywide.

Already in February 2009, Dr Zernik provided his opinion to a former Commissioner of the SEC, that in their short-sighted conduct, U.S. officials most likely made promises or representations to senior BAC Officers that amounted to indemnity for future criminality. The former Commissioner dismissed such notion as unreal. However, Dr Zernik believes that the April 23, 2009 New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo letter to U.S. Senate provides support to such notion. Regardless if such provisions are within or without the realm of the law, it appears that U.S. agencies such as SEC, FBI, and US DOJ conduct their business with BAC under such terms.

...

Finally, It is only in the context of such understanding that one may comprehend the proposed settlement now before the Court.

The complete binder of three papers can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-27-binder-schedule-initial-requests-six-key-fraud-records-s.pdf

---

[1] It is estimated that in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), Countrywide, and separately BAC in the period since July 1, 2008, each filed in court at least 100 fold more false records than in the case of S D Hill (01-22574), in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Pittsburgh, PA.

---

[1] FBI - Added to the list since allegations are stated pertaining to FBI’s cover-up of criminality at CFC/BAC.

[2] US DOJ - Added to the list since allegations are stated pertaining to DOJ’s cover-up of criminality at CFC/BAC.

[3] The Committee should be interested in being informed regarding the state of integrity, or lack thereof, in the U.S. financial system, and enforcement, or lack thereof, by the U.S. Government – even at a time of crisis such as we witness now.

The Committee is asked to consider sending a delegation to the U.S. including banking, human rights, and court administration experts. There is a need for all involved inside the U.S. to hear the perspective of an objective, friendly, outside body regarding events now taking place in the U.S., which are of historic proportions. In addition, conditions in the U.S. are rapidly shifting, and the international community, needs to better understand such facts, in order to conduct its business in an informed and effective way.

[4] The comments below detail severe violations of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Los Angeles County, California, largely related to widespread corruption of the courts. Details are provided regarding the involvement of Countrywide in corruption of the courts.

[5] The People’s Bank of China is standing to be the single biggest loser from the recklessness of U.S. Financial institutions such as Countrywide, due to the size of deposits in dollar denominations. Therefore, the People’s Republic of China has direct interest in the integrity of the U.S. banking system, and in effective enforcement of the law. On the other hand, the People’s Republic of China is the partner whose cooperation the U.S. government needs more than any other, in shoring the current crisis –through adjustment of exchange rates. According to media, the Chinese government expressed its concerns during the visit in May 2009 of Treasury Secretary Geithner, regarding banking regulation in the U.S., its efficacy, and reliability of U.S. government data and control systems. All parties to the case must realize that it is being watched and would be assessed as indicative of the U.S. government resolve to assert its authority in the current financial crisis.

BoA - Doing the Right Thing...

Timely response requested, by Tuesday, September 8, 2009

RE: Alleged material violations of the law by CFC, and later Bryan Cave under

the name of BoA in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA Superior Court*

Dear Officer, Director, or Independent Auditor:

This letter is addressed to you as one of the individuals who hold the duty to

safeguard the integrity of operations at BoA. Integrity of operations of U.S. financial

institutions today are more important than ever before. However, the past two years

generated challenges to the integrity of operations the like of which have never been

encountered by BoA before.

It is exactly for that reason that it is critical for BoA “to do the right thing”. Requests

that are elaborated in the attached papers, are elementary, but they make a clear

distinction between right and wrong. During the past two years, in Los Angeles,

deceitful court proceedings were conducted, which were initiated by CFC, but

lingered under the BoA name, where Bryan Cave, LLP continued to appear,

claiming to be counsel of record for BoA, which it was not. It also falsely selfdesignated

as “Non Party” for the past 2 years – while the court interchangeably

designated it “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Intervenor”, “Real Party in Interest” and other

designations, with no legal foundation at all.

Request is that BoA respect the rights of the residents of LA County, CA, and that it

prohibit conduct in LA that it would never have allowed in Charlotte, NC, since it

violated both the BoA Code of Ethics1 and the BoA Outside Counsel Procedures. 2

Otherwise, it is requested that BoA state who is assigned to communicate with Dr

Zernik on this matter, and have the Audit Committee review the CFC involvement in

this case, claimed to have been material violation of the law: It directly involved

Mozilo and Samuels and the CFC Legal Department. It is alleged to have involved

the production of hundreds of pages of false banking records, a full set of false

declarations and the fabrication of loan underwriting histories. Such efforts were all

for the cause of perpetrating real estate fraud on Dr Joseph Zernik, who had no

business with CFC whatsoever.

This letter is also copied to others who concern themselves with the integrity of BoA

during these trying times, from analysts, to the Basel Committee, the NY District

Court, U.S. Congressional Committees, and last but not least - the Charlotte

Observer.

Trusting that you “do the right thing”,

___/s/______

Joseph Zernik

1 http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-00_09-08-22-bac_code-of-ethics-cover-text-a.pdf

2 http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-08-12-20-outside-counsel-procedures-s.pdf

A copy of the complete letter can be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-25-letter-to-bac-officers-directors-s.pdf

U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, denies plaintiff access to litigation records

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:

http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-request-to-access-records-s.pdf

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-18-second-request-nafisi-us-dist-ct-la-access-court-records-s,pdf.pdf

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