Discovering, archiving, and disseminating knowledge regarding abuse of the People by governments and corporations in the Medieval Digital Era//
גילוי, ארכיבאות, והפצת מידע על התעללות בציבור על ידי ממשלות ותאגידים בימי הביניים הדיגיטליים
At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout.
The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivallent population size.
Clegg did not rule out the possibility of an inquiry into the actions of British forces in Iraq, but said it was up to the US administration to answer for the actions of its forces.
His comments contrasted with a statement from the Ministry of Defenceyesterday, which warned that the posting of classified US military logs on the WikiLeaks website could endanger the lives of British forces.
Clegg told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show: "We can bemoan how these leaks occurred, but I think the nature of the allegations made are extraordinarily serious. They are distressing to read about and they are very serious. I am assuming the US administration will want to provide its own answer. It's not for us to tell them how to do that."
Asked if there should be an inquiry into the role of British troops, he said: "I think anything that suggests that basic rules of war, conflict and engagement have been broken or that torture has been in any way condoned are extremely serious and need to be looked at."
He added: "People will want to hear what the answer is to what are very, very serious allegations of a nature which I think everybody will find quite shocking."
Vince Cable, the business secretary, also said allegations of abuse should be investigated and criticised the way in which they were leaked. He told Sky News Sunday Live: "The Liberal Democrats were strong opponents of the Iraq war and we do feel vindicated by what's happening."
He added: "I think there have been several investigations already but I think, clearly, if there have been abuses taking place they need to be investigated – that's obvious enough."
British involvement in the alleged torture and unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians may also be the subject of legal action. Lawyers said the reports embroiled British as well as US forces in an alleged culture of abuse and extrajudicial killings in Iraq.
Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, appearing alongside theWikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a press conference in London yesterday, said some of the deaths documented in the reports may have involved British forces and could now go through the UK courts. The Iraq war logs, Shiner said, indicated that British as well as US commanders were likely to have ignored evidence of torture by the Iraqi authorities, contrary to international law.
"Some of these deaths will be in circumstances where the UK have a very clear legal responsibility. This may be because the Iraqis died while under the effective control of UK forces – under arrest, in vehicles, helicopters or detention facilities," he said.
The Ministry of Defence said the publication of the records was reckless and put the lives of British military personnel in danger, adding that it investigated any allegations made against British troops. It said: "There is no place for mistreatment of detainees. Any civilian casualty is a matter of deep regret and we take any incidents extremely seriously."
As Assange defended the decision to disclose the documents – saying it was of "immense importance" to reveal the truth about the conflict – the UN warned that if the logs pointed to clear violations of the UN convention against torture, Barack Obama's administration had a clear obligation to investigate them.
Manfred Novak, the UN special rapporteur on torture, said: "President Obama came to power with a moral agenda, saying we don't want to be seen to be a nation responsible for major human rights violations." A failure to investigate credible claims of complicity in torture, Novak suggested, would be a failure of the Obama government to recognise US obligations under international law.
The US defence department condemned the WikiLeaks release, describing the documents as raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events. Assange said the snapshots of everyday events offered a glimpse at the "human scale" of the conflict. He told the news conference his motive for the disclosure was "about the truth".
Iraq Body Count, a private British-based group that has tracked the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the war began in 2003, said its analysis of the logs had raised its total of civilian deaths from 107,369 to more than 122,000. IBC, which worked with WikiLeaks, said the war logs showed there were more than 109,000 violent deaths between 2004 and the end of 2009. They included 66,081 civilians, 23,984 people classed as "enemy", 15,196 members of the Iraqi security forces, and 3,771 coalition troops.
John Sloboda of IBC said: "They [the documents] show the relentless grind of daily killings in almost every town or village in every province."
WikiLeaks yesterday promised to publish 15,000 more documents about the war in Afghanistan.
Judge Gerald Rosenberg;Clerk John Clarke;Judge Jacqueline Connor; _ _ - - - - - - - Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles_
Kenneth Melson_ _ _ Kenneth Kaiser_ Director, USAO_ _ _ _ _ Assistant Director, FBI 10-10-21 Ongoing denial of First Amendment/Common Law rights to access court records - to inspect and to copy, and Due Process/Fair Hearings rights - for notice and service - in Los Angeles County, California, are keys to the alleged racketeering at the Courts.
Los Angeles, October 21 - Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) released records as evidence of Public Corruption and Racketeering by Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG, Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE, Judge JACQULINE CONNOR, and others of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Through deprivation of the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records - to inspect and to copy, combined with denial of the Due Process/Fair Hearings rights - for notice and service, and routine issuance of invalid minutes, orders, and judgments, which were never authenticated by the Clerk, but were nevertheless enforced, the Court routinely conducted pretense litigations. The records also detailed refusal of US Department of Justice to enforce such fundamental Human Rights in Los Angeles County, California - the most populous in the United States, with over 10 million residents. The records, which detailed involvement of Bank of America, and Countrywide before it in alleged racketeering at the courts elaborated on evidence, which was previously provided to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, and led to a statement in its recent report on Human Rights in the United States referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" in California.
The records originated from the caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), however, the practices, which were documented, were pervasive at the Los Angeles courts. [[i]] In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), a group of judges of the Los Angeles Court conducted for almost 5 years (2005-10) a pretense real-estate litigation, the outcome of which was opined as "fraud being committed" [[ii]] by a Fraud Expert - FBI veteran, who had been decorated by US Congress, by US Attorney General, and by FBI Director. The beneficiaries of the opined real- estate fraud and the alleged racketeering included, but were not limited to Countrywide Financial Corporation, and later Bank of America Corporation. ANGELO MOZILO (then CEO of Countrywide), SANDOR SAMUELS (then Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, today- Associate General Counsel of Bank of America), and BRIAN MOYNIHAN (then General Counsel, today - President of Bank of America), were all directly involved in the matter. [[iii]] The US Department of Justice continues to deny Equal Protection in the case, and according to a letter by the Fraud Expert, [[iv]] such denial stemmed from refusal to expose or address the widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California.
1. Denial of access to court records - to inspect and to copy
Defendant in Samaan v Zernik was entirely denied access to the paper and electronic Court files for almost the full first two years of the litigation, regardless of attempts to access the court file through counsel, through legal services, and by personal appearances at the Office of the Clerk. Declarations by legal services providers documented the denial of access to such records. [[v]] [[vi]]
Therefore, on August 31, 2007, Defendant filed at the court of Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG complaint under the caption of Samaan v Zernik, pertaining to abuse at the Court, including, but not limited to the denial of access to court file records - to inspect and to copy. [[vii]]
On August 31, 2007, Judge ROSENBERG therefore conducted an Ex Parte proceeding on the Complaint. [[viii]]
a) Access to electronic court records in SUSTAIN: [[ix]][[x]]
On August 31, 2007, Judge GERALD ROSENBERG denied Defendant's request to access the electronic court file in SUSTAIN - the court's case management system - under the false claim:
Sustain is privileged - for the Court only.
The exact same response, was provided around the same time by staff of the office of then Presiding Judge J STEPHEN CZULEGER, in what should be deemed an unpublished Local Rule of Court, violating both the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records and the Due Process/Fair Hearings rights.
When limited access was gained to SUSTAIN electronic records, in particular - the Register of Actions (California civil docket), litigation records were discovered, which were entirely removed from the courtroom reality. SUSTAIN, where records were maintained out of public view, enabled the Los Angeles Court to retroactively alter the Register of Actions, and to introduce minutes, which were back-dated by days, weeks, or months, and also to enter fictitious notations of the records filed and the proceedings held under the caption: Of particular note were fictitious, false notations by the court of Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR of records filed by Countrywide Financial Corporation, designated as "Real Parties in Interest" - at the same time that Judge CONNOR in open court denied any interest by Countrywide in the case. [[xi]] Judge CONNOR, likewise, introduced at least twice fictitious, false notations in the Register of Actions of proceedings, which had never taken place in reality. Of particular note were fictitious, false minutes, which were introduced on September 11, 2007, a day after Judge CONNOR was recused from the case following Disqualification for a Cause. In such fictitious minutes, she falsely recorded a September 10, 2007 hearing that had never taken place in reality, and a ruling that had never been ruled - of no fraud in Countrywide banking records, which were discovered in the case. In contrast, Fraud Expert's opinion supported the allegation of extensive fraud in the respective Countrywide banking records. [[xii]]
Based on review of SUSTAIN records, a qualified opinion was later issued by Prof Eliyahu Shamir, Hebrew University, Department of Computer Science, who made seminal contributions to Computer Science, including, but not limited to the development of fundamental tools in language analysis.
The Prof Shamir April 20, 2009 Opinion states:
Dr. Joseph Zernik produces credible documentary evidence and raises serious
allegations concerning existing, rather old computerized systems in the Los
Angeles courts, both civil and criminal divisions: Material deficiencies in safety
against possible fraudulent actions on records, documents, and data by the court
staff.
Such allegations deserve thorough and objective investigation.
We know for fact that the USA has excellent experts able to design, check and
verify the integrity of such systems.
Integrity and public trust of such computer systems are essential for preserving justice, human rights, and a law abiding community.[[xiii]]
The case as a whole therefore documented the denial of access to electronic court records in SUSTAIN as key to enabling the alleged racketeering at the Los Angeles Court.
The failure of the Los Angeles Court for some quarter century to publish Local Rules of Court pertaining to the operation of SUSTAIN was inherent to the fraud alleged in the operation of the case management system. All US and the state courts in the United States, whose records were inspected, uniformly failed to publish rules pertaining to the operation of their respective online public access and case management systems, in what was alleged as serious violations of Due Process/Fair Hearing rights. Therefore, in recent years, Dr Zernik repeatedly called upon the US Congress to enact such rules instead. [[xiv]]
b) Access to paper court file records:
On August 31, 2007, Judge GERALD ROSENBERG informed Defendant that the paper court file included at that time six volumes, and eventually agreed to permit Defendant limited access - only to three of the earlier volumes.
However, as it later turned out, Judge ROSENBERG deceived Defendant regarding the number of court file volumes held by the Court at the time. The court file in fact held at the time seven volumes. One of them, "Volume IV Continued" - by far the largest court file in the case (over 700 pages) - was discovered only later. [[xv]] "Volume IV Continued" was created out of any chronological order, in disregard of the law, and concealed in it were various particularly incriminating records, including, but not limited to:
i. Large volume of records filed by Countrywide Financial Corporation, which filed papers in the case under the fraudulent party designation of "Non Party", while the Court interchangeably designated it in its records "Plaintiff", "Defendant", "Cross-Defendant", "Intervenor", "Real Parties in Interest", and more, all with no legal foundation at all.
ii. Records pertaining to a pretense August 9, 2007 Summary Judgment proceeding conducted by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR.
2. Physical harassment and intimidation:
At the end of the August 31, 2007 proceeding, Judge GERALD ROSENBERG demanded that Defendant withdraw his Complaint, which was stamped "FILED" by the Court, and which served as the basis for the ex parte proceeding, which he conducted. When Defendant refused to withdraw the papers, two armed Sheriff Deputies engaged in physical harassment of Defendant in an empty courtroom, in attempt to plant the papers on his body, in what Defendant at the time perceived as a life-threatening incident. Through passive disobedience Defendant managed to safely exit the Court without accepting the papers. [[xvi]] Defendant consequently filed a complaint with Presiding Judge J STEPHEN CZULEGER regarding conduct of Judge GERALD ROSENBERG in the matter. Presiding Judge CZULEGER referred the complaint to Assistant Presiding Judge CHARLES MCCOY, who in turn referred it to Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG for review. Supervising Judge ROSENBERG found that the complaint was based on vague facts and [is] unsupported by even the smallest shred of evidence. [[xvii]]
3. Denial of the Due Process/Fair Hearings right for notice and service
No minutes were ever served or noticed by the court of Judge GERALD ROSENBERG for the August 31, 2007 proceeding, as was the practice of the court throughout under the caption of Samaan v Zernik.
Of note, on September 5, 2007, Defendant appeared before Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR in an Ex Parte Application for Enforcement of the Due Process right for Notice and Service. Judge CONNOR promptly denied the Application.
4. Conduct of off the record court proceedings:
Later it was also discovered that Judge ROSENBERG failed to create any record of the August 31, 2007 ex parte proceeding - it was in fact conducted as an off the record, off the calendar court hearing. [[xviii]]
Review and analysis of the Register of Actions in the case showed that a large number of the proceedings, which were conducted in open court, were in fact registered in the official docket of the Court in a deliberately invalid manner, with no adjudication at all. However, litigants, counsel, and the public at large, who are routinely denied access to the Registers of Actions of the Los Angeles Court, cannot discern such conduct of the Court. [[xix]]
Of particular note in this regard was the July 6, 2007 proceeding, which was conducted by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR under the guise of Ex Parte Application for "Protective Order" by Countrywide Financial Corporation. The application, which in fact should have been deemed a request for an abusive gag order, [[xx]] was later found to have been conducted in a dark courtroom, off the calendar and off the record. It was recorded by Judge CONNOR in the Register of Actions with the notation "Proceeding not recorded". [[xxi]]
5. Denial of Access to National Tribunals for Protection of Rights
Records, which were previously released, documented the effective denial of access to the US courts in efforts to protect Human Rights in the matter at hand, from the US District Court, Central District of California, through the US District Court, Washington DC and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, to the Supreme Court of the United States. [[xxii]]
6. Refusal of US Department of Justice to enforce the law.
Starting 2008, Dr Zernik filed with US Department of Justice requests for Equal Protection of the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California. The requests alleged racketeering by the judges of the Los Angeles Court, and claimed that enforcement of the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records, in and of itself, would be sufficient to put an end to such conduct.
US Department of Justice refuses to this date to enforce the First Amendment/Common Law right to access court records - to inspect and to copy - in Los Angeles County, California, even after inquiries by US Congress. Moreover, responses on the matter, which were provided by senior US Department of Justice Officers, KENNETH KAISER - FBI Assistant Director for Criminal Investigations and KENNETH MELSON - then Director of US Attorneys Office, to the US Congress, were alleged as fraud on the US Congress. [[xxiii]]
A series of complaints were separately filed with US Department of Justice regarding the conduct of judges, officers of the court, and/or financial institutions in particular cases of the Court. [[xxiv]] US Department of Justice continues to refuse to acknowledge receipt or respond on the complaints. Such refusal of US Department of Justice and FBI to provide Equal Protection explained in the August 21, 2008 letter by Fraud Expert and FBI veteran James Wedick in their reluctance to expose the widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California. [[xxv]]
7. Conditions in Los Angeles County, California, may be extreme, but are not unique at all.
The case at hand was part of evidence, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations as part of the first ever, 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States. Consequently, Staff report of the HRC later noted "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" in California. [[xxvi]] Likewise, in a July 2010 keynote address to the Annual Conference of Chief Justices of the state courts, Prof Laurence Tribe, in his capacity as Senior Counsel, US Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, warned that the state courts in the United States might become indistinguishable from courts in "third world" nations. [[xxvii]]
8. "Corruption of the courts" is tightly linked to abuse of Human Rights and failing banking regulation.
The case at hand also documented the tight linkage between corruption of the justice system, abuse of Human Rights, and failing banking regulation in the United States.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.
LINKS
[[i]] Records released herein pertained to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). However, the denial of access to court records at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, is pervasive. Of particular concern was the denial of access to the Registers of Actions (California civil dockets), for example, in the following two cases, also claimed as pretense litigations of the Court:
a) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) � a case pertaining to the taking by judges of the Court of �not permitted� payments (�bribes�), which required the enactment of �retroactive immunities� (�pardons�) for all judges of the Court. The conduct of Sturgeon v LA County was claimed to undermine any prospect of honest court services at the Court in years to come. See [xxiv] (g), below.
b) Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420) � including, but not limited to pretense ancillary proceedings, which led to the imprisonment under solitary confinement for 18 months of former US prosecutor, 70 yo Richard Fine with no warrant and no judgment/conviction or sentencing ever entered. Incredibly, the Court refused to release the Register of Actions of the case throughout the purported review of the habeas corpus of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Central District of California, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. See [xxiv] (e), below. [[ii]] 07-12-17 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, David Pasternak�s Grant Deeds in re: 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, opined fraud expert and FBI veteran as fraud by James Wedick.
In pertinent parts, the James Wedick�s Opinion states:
Accordingly, based on above observations MR. WEDICK opines an immediate investigation should be instituted in an effort to ascertain the circumstances behind any fraud being committed so that appropriate local, state, and federal authorities can be notified, including the appropriate court. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24991238/
See also [iv], below. [[iii]] ANGELO MOZILO and SANDOR SAMUEL, both Officers of Countrywide at the time, were named among Defendants in 27 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California. See details regarding their involvement at:
08-05-27 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt # 062: First Amended Complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30766354/ [[iv]] August 21, 2008 informal letter by fraud expert and FBI veteran James Wedick, informed Dr Zernik that FBI Special Agent, who was assigned to the case agreed with Mr Wedick that the case involved real estate fraud. However, Mr Wedick�s letter expressed the concern that FBI would not provide Equal Protection in the case, since it would involve addressing widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California.
08-08-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Email letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, regarding refusal to Investigate FBI to provide Dr Zernik protection against real estate fraud: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29713733/ [[v]] Attempts to access the Court file in Samaan v Zernik were conducted through counsel, through legal services providers, and in person. On August 6, 2007, Mr Alex Rodriguez, Office Manager of DDS Legal Services, Los Angeles, California, provided a declaration pertaining to denial of access to the Court file.
The August 6, 2007 Alex Rodriguez Declaration states:
I, Alex Rodriguez, do declare as follows:
1. I am the Manager for the Los Angeles office of DDS Legal Support.
2. A DDS client, law Offices of Deborah R. Bronner, requested
that copies of certain documents from the court file in Samaan v.
Zernik Case No. SC087400. These requests were made numerous
times between March 2007 and July 2007.
3. After each request, I directed an Attorney Service runner to fulfill
the client's order and make the requested copies. However, each time,
the DDS Attorney Service runner was told by the clerk in the clerk's
office that the file was not available.
4. On Monday August 6, a DDS representative picked up copies from
Volume One and Volume Two. However, the DDS representative was
informed that Volumes Three and Volume Four are not available.
Executed this 6th day of August, 2007 in Los Angeles, California.
I declare under penalty of the perjury of the law of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
[signature]
Alex Rodriguez
07-08-06 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Declaration of Alex Rodriguez, Office Manager, DDS Legal Services in re: Denial of Access to Court file. http://www.scribd.com/doc/39846787/ [[vi]] The Office of the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court, likewise, to this date, refuses to provide certified copies of minutes, orders, judgments, docket. Attempt to obtain such certified copies were made through counsel, through legal services, and in person.
On February 13, 2008, Jose Salazar, Manager, Court Services, at DDS Legal Services, Los Angeles, provided a declaration in the matter.
The February 13, 2008 Jose Salazar Declaration states:
I, JOSE SALAZAR, hereby declare as follows:
1. Tam an employee of DDS LEGAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS, and
MANAGER, COURT SERVICES. .As such, I have personal knowledge of
the facts set forth herein, which I know to be true and: correct and, if called
as a witness, I could and would competently testify with respect thereto.
This declaration is submitted at the request of Joseph Zernik.
2. A request for certification of certain court file documents in Samaan v Zernik (SC08400) was first delivered by DDS Legal Support Systems to
Debbie Witts, Court Manager, Civil Unlimited, Los Angeles Superior Court,
West District, on Peb 1, 2008.
3. Almost every other day after that DDS Legal Support Systems attempted to
retrieve the documents requested for the certification and/or the certificates
themselves from Ms Witts herself, or from other court employees at the
Clerk's Office, Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, Santa Monica.
4. As of this date, no documents and no certificates were ever obtained from
the court. Normally, such certificates are obtained the very same day or
within a few days. In 7 years that I have worked as employee of DDS Legal
Support Systems, I have never encountered a case where DDS Legal
Support Systems asked for such certificates on behalf of a litigant or a
counsel and certificates were delayed this long and/or denied.
I make this declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California. Signed here, in Los Angeles, California, February 13, 2008.
[signature]
JOSE SALAZAR
MANAGER, COURT SERVICES
DDS LEGAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS
08-02-13 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - denial of access to court record: Declaration of Jose Salazar, DDS Legal Services http://www.scribd.com/doc/39848713/ [[vii]] The Common Law right to access court records � to inspect and to copy - was re-affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) as inherent in the First, Sixth, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. [[viii]] 07-08-31 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Ex Parte Appearance before Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG, in re: Complaint filed by Defendant regarding denial of access to court file records, and declaration regarding physical harassment at the proceedings: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39887992/
See also [xiv], below. [[ix]] Of note, SUSTAIN, the case management system of the Superior Court of California, is produced and maintained by The Daily Journal � the largest daily legal newspaper in California. Today it is used by other state courts as well, e.g. in the State of Georgia. [[x]] SUSTAIN was implemented at the Los Angeles Court around 1985, at a time that California Supreme Court Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE served in leadership positions at the Los Angeles Court. Ronald George refuses to answer on any questions on the subject. The system must be deemed fraud in both its design and its mode of operation by the Court. See also [xiii], below. [[xi]] 08-04-17 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #046: Inexplicable under Assumption of Honesty - Sustain Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, page 1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/30971554/ [[xii]] Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) - fictitious minutes introduced by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR after Disqualification for a Cause, pertaining to a hearing that was never heard and a ruling that was never ruled regarding fraud in Countrywide banking records. See under:
Complaint against Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR pertaining to her conduct at both the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles http://www.scribd.com/doc/35592511/ [[xiii] ] 09-04-20 Prof Eliyahu Shamir, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Opinion Letter regarding electronic records of the Los Angeles Superior Court in Sustain - the case management system of the Court: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30454036/ [[xiv]] 01-07-31 Human Rights Alert�s Request for the Judiciary Committees to Establish Case Management and Online Public Access System of the US Courts by Law: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35149271/ [[xv]] 07-11-20 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Court file - "Volume IV-Continued" - evidence of Judicial Fraud on the Court and Racketeering: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39843935/ [[xvi]] October 10, 2007 Declaration of Joseph Zernik re: Harassment and Hostile Environment in Court, filed as part of complaint against Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBEG:
In parts pertinent to events of August 31, 2007 at the court of Judge GERALD ROSENBERG regarding Dr Zernik�s request to access court file, the Dr Zernik�s Declaration states:
41. �A bit later the supervising judge came in and Ruth presented to him the envelope. He opened it and started reading, and he was visibly upset. The main issue was access to Court File.
42. He angrily said to me he will show me that it was easily accessible. He called a few places, but seemed to have no luck. After that he said to me: �now I will show you hand on management� still in an angry tone. And he left the Courtroom, apparently searching for the file. Eventually, he came back, with only 3 out of 6 volumes. He was visibly even angrier than before when he came back.
43. He tossed the volumes on the table in the well in front of bench, and told me to mark the pages I wanted to copy, then the Clerk�s room will arrange the copying. I told him that I wanted to copy it all. He said fine. Then said that my understanding is that the copies will not be done on the spot, and I wanted to be able to compare the original and the copies at the time I pick up the copies.
44. He got even more upset with me. He said something to the effect that I was implying that they were going to cheat. I said that it was standard procedure, if later I had to declare that this was a full and complete copy. He then agreed, but was visibly very upset. Then before he was going to leave the room, he tossed at me my complaint and said that now, that he got me the court file, I could take my complaint back.
45. I refused to take it. I said that it was the copy that I filed with the court. And he said something like: are you trying to tell me that there is more there than just getting you to copy the file. And I said: yes, there are a number of issues. He then got more and more upset, and said I had to take it back, and I repeated my position.
46. Immediately, the two armed guards in the courtroom approached me, and tried to force me to take the complaint back. I was fearful. I did not know these two particular guards. I also did not even notice them as individuals, it was just persons trying to force me to do something against my will. I was not going to yield. But I immediately raised my hand to my head. I was very fearful that somehow they will fake an incidence of Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse violence on my part and shoot me. I slowly retreated from the courtroom, with my hands
all the time still up to my head.
47. I was walking to the Clerk�s Office to ask them to copy the file. I was still with my hands up on my head. And the two sheriffs were still around me all the time, trying to plant the complaint on my body, but I was no longer afraid, since there were people around us.
48. At the clerk�s office (Room 102) they left that brown envelope on the counter, next to me, and left the room. I finished my business, and then left that room as well. I left the brown envelope behind me. Within seconds, Darlene was running behind me, asking me to take the envelope. I told her that it was not mine, that it belonged to Dept A.
07-08-31 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Ex Parte Appearance before Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG, and declaration regarding physical harassment at the proceedings http://www.scribd.com/doc/39887992/ [[xvii]] October 15, 2007 Response by then Assistant Presiding Judge McCoy and Supervising Judge ROSENBERG on complaint against Supervising Judge ROSENBERG:
a) In pertinent parts, the Assistant Supervising Judge Charles McCoy October 15, 2007 letter states:
I have referred your most recent letter to the Honorable Gerald
Rosenberg, Supervising Judge of the West District.
�
I have asked Judge Rosenberg to review your letter and respond directly to you after
he has had an adequate time to consider your request.
b) In pertinent parts, the Judge ROSENBERG October 19, 2007 response on the complaint for physical abuse at his court states:
Dr. Zernik, your references to willful misconduct, subversions of justice, fraud,
deceit, venal corruption, the concealment of abuses, and the manipulations of entry of
court data are based on vague facts and are unsupported by even the smallest shred of
evidence.
I have witnessed first hand your unsupported allegations when you claimed that
you had no access to the court files�
[[xviii]] Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Register of Actions (California civil docket) in Sustain. No mention is found of the August 31, 2007 ex parte proceeding before Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG for Access to Court Records:
10-01-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Register of Actions (California civil docket) with a preface: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29712101/ [[xix]] The Court routinely denies access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) and other court records. Therefore, litigants, counsel, and the public-at-large must resort to reliance on records, which are provided by the Court in its online public access system. However, the online records are published by the Court with disclaimers, which make it clear that such records were never deemed as true and valid court records by the Court itself.
In pertinent parts the standard online Court Disclaimers states:
"COURT disclaims all warranties, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of... accuracy and fitness for a particular purpose..."
"COURT and the County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this web site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis, does not constitute the official record of the court and cannot be used as evidence in court."
"COURT and the County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this web site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis, does not constitute the official record of the court and cannot be used as evidence in court."
"In no event shall COURT, Los Angeles County or any other governmental agency, entity or body or any vendor or service provider associated with any of our online efforts be liable for damages of any nature based on any theory of liability, including but not limited to contract, negligence or other torts (including intentional torts)..."
10-09-19 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: Standard Disclaimer, as it appears on the on the Courts web site http://www.scribd.com/doc/39881015/ [[xx]] The July 6, 2007 Countrywide�s Ex Parte Application for Protective Order sought to prohibit Defendant from any communications with persons �associated� with Countrywide and its then Chief Legal Counsel SANDOR SAMUELS. Conduct of Defendant, which was listed in the Application as justification for the request for �Protective Order�, included, but was not limited to Defendant�s communications with a retired Judge, with a rabbi � in his Chambers, and with a Senior Countrywide Underwriter, who had been dismissed a couple of years earlier from her job. The record of the Countrywide July 6, 2007 Application was later eliminated from the paper court file records under the caption of Samaan v Zernik.
07-07-06 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Countrywide: Ex parte application for a Protection/Gag Order http://www.scribd.com/doc/25002347/ [[xxi]] Samaan v Zernik (SC08700) - Register of Actions entries by Judge JACQUELINE CONOR pertaining to the July 6, 2007 �Non-Party� Countrywide�s Ex Parte Application, which was recorded with the notation: �Proceeding not recorded� http://www.scribd.com/doc/35589304/ [[xxii]]10-10-20 The US Courts established a policy excluding any papers pertaining to judicial corruption from the First Amendment right to file petitions: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39788364/ [[xxiii]] 10-03-04 Dr Zernik's Complaint Filed with US Department of Justice Inspector General against KENNETH MELSON and KENNETH KAISER for fraud on the US Congress: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29660111/ [[xxiv]] US Attorney Office, Central District of California, refuses to acknowledge receipt, or provide any answer on any of the complaints below.
a) 10-06-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Complaint against David Pasternak � for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law Pursuant to US Law, and Deprivation of Human Rights Pursuant to Ratified International Law: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33354641/
b) 10-06-28 Complaint against Los Angeles County Sheriff�s Department and the Los Angeles Superior Court � for public corruption, deprivation of civil rights under the color of law, and deprivation of human rights through large-scale false imprisonments, including, but not limited to the ongoing imprisonment of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Person). http://www.scribd.com/doc/33647477/
c) 10-07-04 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) Complaint against Attorney Kevin McCormick and the California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George � for public corruption, deprivation of civil rights under the color of law � Pertaining to Habeas Corpus Petition of 70 Year Old Former US Prosecutor Richard Fine. http://www.scribd.com/doc/33879469/
d) 10-07-06 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Complaint against Brian Moynihan, Bank of America, and Attorneys Jenna Moldawsky and John
Amberg - for public corruption and financial institution fraud, relative to their conduct in at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33971099/
e) 10-07-07 Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Assn vs County of LA (BS109420) - Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Los Angeles Superior Court, and Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca and others � for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/
f) 10-07-12 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Complaint against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and others at the US District Court, Central District of California � for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34194403/
g) 10-07-16 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Complaint for Public Corruption against James A Richman � Justice of California Court of Appeals, Charles McCoy � Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke � Clerk, of the Los Angeles Superior Court in RE: Conduct of pretense litigation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34408770/
h) 10-07-18 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) Complaint for Public Corruption against John Segal � Judge, John A Clarke � Clerk, Attorney David Pasternak and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, RE: Conduct of pretense litigation � alleged real estate fraud by the Court. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/
i) 10-07-22 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - Complaint for Public Corruption against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, RE: Conduct of three pretense appeals � alleged real estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/
j) 10-08-09 Complaint for Public Corruption and racketeering against Judge Jacqueline Connor and Others at both the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles http://www.scribd.com/doc/35592511/
k) 10-08-13 RE: Karimi v Mithawaila (BD518503) - Complaint against Attorney David Pasternak and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and racketeering in pretense receiverships at the Court. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35828312/
l) 10-08-22 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) - Complaint against former Judge Patricia Collins, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Attorney David Pasternak, Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI) and others - for public corruption and racketeering by judges, financial institutions, and large law-firms in pretense proceedings at the Court. http://www.scribd.com/doc/36266839/ [[xxv]]08-08-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Email letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, regarding refusal to Investigate FBI to provide Dr Zernik protection against real estate fraud http://www.scribd.com/doc/29713733/ [[xxvi]] 10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States - "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" in California http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/ [[xxvii]] 10-07-26 Prof Laurence Tribe's Keynote Remarks at the Annual Conference of Chief Justices s http://www.scribd.com/doc/35916291/
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:21:55 +0300
To: Zach Jaeger , lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: [Lawmen: 3943] Joseph Zernick blows whistle on US Courts for excluding judicial corruption from first amendment complaints
Do you include in "these judges" the Conference of the Supreme Court of the United States?
______________
At 02:29 PM 10/21/2010, you wrote:
The people have the right to have these judges removed immediately. Because many of them have violated the constitution, they are serving their positions illegally. I am waiting for the people to start rising up and have some balls to stand up to these bastards. We have a bunch of sheeple in this country for which I have no respect for.
Zach
______________
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:59:30 +0300
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: 10-10-20 The US Courts Established a Policy Excluding Any Papers Pertaining to Judicial Corruption from the First Amendment Right to File Petitions
Cc: "Smith, Darcy \(USMS\)" , "Shell, Thomas\(USMS\)"
I remember, a few years ago, when I first started studying the Rampart scandal, and realized that in Los Angeles County alone, they have falsely convicted between 10,000-30,000 black and latinos. Even after the truth came out in the investigation of 1998-2000, they refuse to release them to this date, and FBI and US Attorney Office colluded with the cover up.
The official excuse - it would cause collapse of the justice system...
I then decided that I needed to create a short name for these people, who are still in prison (they were sentenced to long terms, some were also tortured, some were killed). I called them Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons).
Later the case of Richard Fine showed up, which created some awareness, he was neither black, nor latino, and even had a law degree... and a PhD from London School of Economics... and former US prosecutor to top it off...
Then I started studying the computers of the courts, and came to the conclusion that there should be, on theoretical basis alone, a second class of persons:
CBP (Castle Basement Prisoners - alluding to the medieval condition that led to the demand of the lords for Habeas Corpus) - people who are held in prisons without anybody even knowing that they are in jail. I never identified them in LA (I had no authority to go and search the prisons - they may very well exist there).
Then I believe that I discovered them: When I started to systematically scan the records of various US District Courts, I found out a largely disproportionate number of MJ cases at the US District Court in LA. Those were cases where unidentified US agencies obtain approval from Magistrate judges in Los Angeles for the movement of cryptically identified persons and things from place to place, inside and outside the United States.
Then I concluded, on theoretical basis alone, that the US courts and some US agencies are likely to deem Los Angeles County an "Extraconstitutional Zone". It was zany, for a person living in LA, but it was the only logical conclusion from the large body of records that I reviewed (including the CIA drug trafficking to LA, the Rampart scandal, etc).
I wrote a short posting on it in my blog about a year ago.
Then I got an anonymous email (I got quite a few of these, some amazing tips, some dysinformation), from a person who sounded like an attorney, with reference to a US Supreme Court case, that ruled that large parts of LA County did not lawfully belong to the US gov... I still do not know what to make of it.
Then I started looking more deeply into banking regulation and international banking...
It was getting darker and darker, and I got death threats (the first was explicitly on behalf of Countrywide, another one was from an attorney who was well connected to the LA Superior Court - an email from him to some people I never heard of, talking about an "Execution Disengagement", with my name in upper case letters, and talking about the need to pay in advance for the contract, and also to supply flight tickets to London, and specify the date...)
Then I was told by an ex secret service person that I was designated a "Bad Guy" by FBI, not that it meant that I was really a bad guy, he told me, only that they designated me that way...
It was getting darker and darker... and also scarier and scarier...
My landline was bugged, my cell phone was bugged, my home was bugged, a series of white vans with totally tinted windows were parked in front of my front door 24/7 for almost a year...
Suffice is to say that I designated Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR as one of the leaders of the LA-JR (allege Los Angeles Judiciary Racket). She said about me: "He is a pest, and I will treat him accordingly". Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR, who I believe is central to both drug marketing and banking fraud in LA County sentenced a few people (I don't know the exact number) to death...
I decided that I was not ready, willing, able to touch capital punishment cases... It was simply too much...
______________ At 07:32 AM 10/21/2010, you wrote:
Psychologically, I decided that I would not be able to handle it.
____________
At 06:49 AM 10/21/2010, you wrote:
DNA has made the capital cases high profile.
The ABA also did studies of the Texas and Florida Courts and made substantive suggestions to improve them both.
The Florida Supreme Court has appointed a commission to study the situation. They suffer from "not invented here" and want to do nothing to publicize the ABA study and keep what they study within boundaries.
As a respectful suggestion, your work may get better coverage if you expanded to death penalty cases. The European Union financed the ABA studies.
Bill
__________
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:33:20 +0300
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: 10-10-20 The US Courts Established a Policy Excluding Any Papers Pertaining to Judicial Corruption from the First Amendment Right to File Petitions
Cc: LIST US MARSHALS
Hi Bill:
I read a bit about the history of the German courts prior and during WWII.
In recent years I have reviewed the dockets of hundreds, possibly thousands of court cases across the US, with emphasis on banking regulation and habeas corpus petitions. However, I made a conscious decision a while ago not to touch capital punishment cases. Not that they do not deserve attention, I simply left it for others to do.
Therefore, I would not go as far as you allude.
JZ
_____________
At 06:20 AM 10/21/2010, you wrote:
Dr. Zernik,
The American Bar Association did a film entitled "Hitler's Courts" for showing to its mid-year meeting in Miami a few years ago. You may wish to get a copy...
Bill
____________ From: lawsters@googlegroups.com [mailto:lawsters@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of joseph zernik Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:38 PM To: lawsters@googlegroups.com Cc: Smith, Darcy (USMS); Shell, Thomas(USMS) Subject: 10-10-20 The US Courts Established a Policy Excluding Any Papers Pertaining to Judicial Corruption from the First Amendment Right to File Petitions 10-10-20 The US Courts Established a Policy Excluding Any Papers Pertaining to Judicial Corruption from the First Amendment Right to File Petitions.
Los Angeles, October 20 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, released records documenting that the United States courts have effectively established a policy excluding from the First Amendment right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” papers, which documented judicial corruption.Moreover, to accomplish such policy, the records showed US judges and court personnel colluding in Fraud on the Court, and tight linkage was demonstrated between such conduct, abuse of Human Rights, and failing banking regulation in the United States.
The series of cases originated at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and was opined as real estate fraud [[i]] by a Fraud Expert – FBI veteran, who had been decorated by US Congress, by US Attorney General, and by FBI Director. The beneficiaries of the alleged racketeering at the Los Angeles Superior Court, led by California Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR, included Countrywide Financial Corporation, and later Bank of America Corporation. ANGELO MOZILO (then CEO of Countrywide), SANDOR SAMUELS (then Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, today- Associate General Counsel of Bank of America), and BRIAN MOYNIHAN (then General Counsel, today - President of Bank of America), were all directly involved in the matter, as was DAVID PASTERNAK (former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and former Member of the California Judicial Council). [[ii]] Regardless of the voluminous credible evidence of alleged racketeering by Countrywide, Bank of America, and judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, FBI and US Department of Justice refused to enforce the law in Los Angeles County, California, even after inquiries by the US Congress.
In contrast, official FBI policy, as stated in 2008, was "FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society…"
Therefore, in May 2009 petition was filed at the US District Court, Washington DC - Zernik v Melson et al (1:2009cv00805), under cause of action "To Compel US Officer to Perform His Duties". Among Defendants were KENNETH KAISER (Assistant Director of FBI for Criminal Investigations), KENNETH MELSON (then Director of US Attorneys Office), and SAMUEL BEZEK (Senior Counsel at SEC). Conduct of Judge RICHARD LEON at the US District Court, District of Columbia, was by then predictable – the US Court eliminated from the docket - with no Due Process/Fair Hearing - papers, which were duly filed, and which provided evidence of judicial corruption at the Los Angeles Superior Court. [[iii]]
At the US District Court, Central District of California, Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS and Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE had previously engaged in 2008-9 in similar conduct in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), where ten judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, ANGELO MOZILO and SANDOR SAMUELS were named among Defendants in complaint under cause of action of Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law. The evidence provide in the case effectively documented racketeering at the Los Angeles Superior Court.At the commencement of the litigation at US District Court, Central District of California, the “Pro Se Clerk” refused to issue valid summons presented to him. Later, papers, which provided evidence of judicial corruption, were dishonestly docketed – concealed under unrelated paper and docketing text in the online PACER docket. [[iv]] When that practice was protested, the US District Court, Central District of California initiated the practice of selectively refusing to file, and selectively issuing perverted pretense “Discrepancy Notices” on certain papers with no Due Process/Fair Hearing.The staff of the Office of the Clerk also explicitly informed Plaintiff that Magistrate CARLA WOEHRL instructed them to issue such “Notices” on any papers pertaining to allegation of judicial corruption. [[v]] Furthermore, Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE and Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS of the US District Court, Central District of California later issued a pretense “Order” - prohibiting Plaintiff from access to the US Courts in the matter. [[vi]] The records of the US District Court, Central District of California, also documented alleged Judicial Misconduct and Fraud on the Court – relative to the issuance and docketing of invalid pretense Court records by Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE and Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS in collusion with unauthorized court personnel. [4][5][6]
Conduct of the US District Court, Central District of California was therefore subject of a Petition, which was duly filed in June 2008 at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) – purportedly reviewed by Circuit Judges STEPHEN R REINHARDT, MARSHA S BERZON and MILAN D SMITH, JR. The Petition at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, sought to Compel Due Process Rights – issuing of valid summons and engaging in honest docketing at the US District Court, Central District of California.However, papers, which provided evidence of the denial of the right to file papers at the US District Court, Central District of California, and alleged widespread corruption at the Los Angeles Superior Court, were eliminated from the docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.Only unsigned orders were issued by the Circuit Judges, which were served and noticed with no authentication/certification by the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. [[vii]]
Later, in April 2010, similar conduct was documented at the Supreme Court of the United States, under caption of Fine v Sheriff (09-A827).The Application, purportedly reviewed by the Conference of the Supreme Court, pertained to the imprisonment in solitary confinement of former US prosecutor Richard Fine, with no warrant and no entry of Judgment/Conviction or Sentencing, after he had exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking of “not permitted” payments (“bribes”) by judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which required the enactment of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) for such judges.
Papers, which were duly filed as Motion to Intervene [[viii]] at the Supreme Court of the United States under the caption, referenced above, and which documented the parallels in alleged corruption of the Superior Court of California, of the California Judicial Council, of the US District Court, Central District of California, and of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Richard Fine and the cases pertaining to Dr Zernik, referenced above, were eliminated from the docket of the US Supreme Court by Court Counsel DANNY BICKELL with no authority at all. [[ix]] Furthermore, upon review of records of the file of the Application at the Supreme Court of the United States, no record was found of any judicial review at all. [[x]] Regardless, false and deliberately misleading notices of purported denial of the Application by the Conference of the Supreme Court of the United States was issued by unauthorized personnel.Denial of the Application was likewise falsely noted in the online dockets and journal of the Supreme Court. [[xi]] Therefore, the case also demonstrated disregard of the Habeas Corpus right –the “the cornerstone of the US Constitution” according to the late US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr.
The cases in all courts involved also documented the key role of online public access systems (e.g. PACER) and computerized case management systems (e.g. CM/ECF) in enabling such conduct, through exclusion from the online public access system of the clerks’ authentication/certification records, and denial of access to such records by the courts, combined with perverted notice and service practices.A reasonable person would conclude that today the clerks of all courts involved deemed themselves unaccountable for the validity and honesty of any of the records in the respective online public access systems.
In recent years Human Rights Alert repeatedly called upon the United States Congress to enact federal rules of online public access and case management systems, since both state and federal courts uniformly failed to publish such rules, in apparent violation of Due Process/Fair Hearings rights. [[xii]]
The cases at hand were part of evidence, which was submitted to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations as part of the first ever, 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States.[[xiii]]Staff report of the HRC later noted “corruption of the courts and the legal profession” in California.[[xiv]]
Likewise, in July 2010 Prof Laurence Tribe, in keynote address to the Annual Conference of Chief Justices of the state courts, in his capacity as Senior Counsel, US Department of Justice, Access to Justice Initiative, warned that the state courts in the United States might become indistinguishable from courts in “third world” nations.[[xv]]
However, the evidence now released by Human Rights Alert, showed that the even the highest United States courts - National Tribunals for Protection of Rights pursuant to ratified International Law -in fact patronized such conduct, through what must be deemed violation of the First Amendment right to file petitions, denial of Access to the Courts, denial of the Due Process/Fair Hearing rights, and Fraud on the Courts.
Moreover, combined, the cases at hand documented the tight linkage between corruption of the justice system, abuse of Human Rights, and failing banking regulation in the United States.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system.
LINKS
[[i]] 07-12-17 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, David Pasternak’s Grant Deeds in re: 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, opined fraud expert and FBI veteran as fraud by James Wedick:
See also the August 21, 2008 informal letter by fraud expert and FBI veteran James Wedick, informing Defendant Dr Zernik that FBI Special Agent, who was assigned to the case agreed with him that the case involved real estate fraud, and expressing concern that FBI would not provide Equal Protection in the case, since it would involve addressing widespread corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County, California.
08-08-21 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Email letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick, regarding refusal to Investigate FBI to provide Dr Zernik protection against real estate fraud:
[[iii]] a) 09-06-29 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) at the US District Court, District of Columbia – papers received by mail from US Judge Richard Leon, alleged as Denial of First Amendment rights and Judicial Fraud on the Court. - Papers Received by Mail From Judge Richard Leon - Alleged Judicial Fraud on the Court:
Please note: The records in a), above, are face pages of papers, which had been duly filed by Plaintiff in Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805), and were later returned by mail to Plaintiff with Discrepancy Notice and no form of authentication/certification by an authorized Deputy Clerk.
Each of the papers was hand inscribed on its face page "Leave to file denied" with the date “6/29/09”and initials of Judge Richard Leon.
Therefore, the records are alleged as evidence of Denial of First Amendment right and Judicial Fraud on the Court by Judge Richard Leon in collusion with Deputy Clerk David Scott.
The records, which Plaintiff was thus denied the right to file at the court, included, but were not limited to papers, which documented fraud by judges of the Superior Court of California in collusion with Countrywide Financial Corporation.
No mention of these papers, or the purported denial of their filing by Judge Richard Leon was ever noted in the PACER docket of the caption referenced above.
b) 09-06-29 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) at the US District Court, District of Columbia – purported Order by Judge Richard Leon as received by mail:
Please note: The record in (b), above, is provided as received by Plaintiff by mail from the Court.It included no form of authentication/certification by Clerk of the Court.
Regardless, the purported “Order” was docketed (Dkt #8) in the online PACER docket as “entered”.
The Court denied repeated requests for the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings), which are today deemed by the US courts as authentication/certification by the Clerk.
Therefore, the records are alleged as evidence of Judicial Fraud on the Court by Judge Richard Leon in collusion with Deputy Clerk David Scott.
[[iv]] a) Conduct of the US District Court, Central District of California, under Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), was detailed in the Petition to the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, see Footnote [5], Below.
b) Pretense March 21, 2008 “Minutes”, issued by Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, questioning the constitutional right for unbiased judge:
08-03-21 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #014 - Judge Virginia Phillips' Minutes Denying Temporary Restraining Order:
c)08-06-06 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California Dkt #063 - purported Magistrate Carla Woehrle "Minutes" - contriving novel dishonest docketing rules, alleged as Fraud on the Court:
Please note: The above two records of the US District Court, Central District of California are deemed as Judicial Fraud on the Court, since they were issued with no “Document Stamp” in the respective NEFs, which is required pursuant to the Court’s General Order 08-02 as authentication/certification by the Clerk,a fact that could not be discerned in the PACER docket of the US District Court.Moreover, the pretense March 21, 2008 “Minutes” (b), above, was issued with no authority at all by MARVA DILLARD, Courtroom Deputy, and not by a Deputy Clerk, as required by law. Likewise, the pretense June 6, 2008 “Minutes” (c), above, was issued with no authority at all by Donna Thomas, who was – upon information and belief – Courtroom Deputy, fraudulently identified in the “Minutes” as a “Deputy Clerk”.Clerk of the Court TERRY NAFISI, and Presiding Judge AUDREY COLLINS refused to respond on repeated requests to confirm or deny the fact, alternatively – to initiate corrective actions.
[[v]] See records of papers, which provided evidence of alleged corruption of the judges of the California Superior Court, and which were denied the filing though perverted “Discrepancy Notices” at the US District Court, Central District of California under:
09-04-09 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #105: Compiled Records of Perverted Discrepancy Notices:
[[vi]] 09-04-24 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Central District of California, Dkt #106 purported Judge VIRGINIA PHILLIPS Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of US Magistrate CARLA WOEHRLE, denying Plaintiff access to US Courts in the matter:
Please note: The above record of the US District Court, Central District of California, is deemed as Judicial Fraud on the Court, since it was issued with no “Document Stamp” in the respective NEF, which is required pursuant to the Court’s General Order 08-02 as authentication/certification by the Clerk, a fact that could not be discerned in the PACER docket of the US District Court.
[[vii]] 08-06-24 Zernik v USDC (08-72714) at the US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit - Alleged Fraud on the Court and Undermining of Banking Regulation:
d) 10-07-28 Fine v Baca (09-A827) Additional Evidence for Fraud at the US Supreme Court pertaining to purported denial of the Application in Conference of the Court:
[[ix]] a) 04-22 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court - Dr Zernik's Declaration RE: Court Counsel Danny Bickell and Filing at US Supreme Court:
b) 10-08-01 Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court - Further Evidence of Fraud, Misprision of Felonies - April 29, 2010 Letter by Court Counsel Bickell Indicating "Return" of Motion to Intervene and Related Papers:
[[x]]10-07-28 Fine v Baca (09-A827) at the Supreme Court of the United States - Declaration of George McDermott Re: Unsigned Letter dated April 26, 2010, by Supreme unnamed Deputy Clerk re: Denial of the Application:
[[xi]]10-08-13 RE: Fine v Baca (09-A827), Fine v Baca (09-1250), and Fine v Baca (10-A24) at the Supreme Court of the United States - October 2009 Term Journal - validity, or lack thereof:
[[xii]] 01-07-31 Human Rights Alert’s Request for the Judiciary Committees to Establish Case Management and Online Public Access System of the US Courts by Law:
[[xiii]]10-04-19 Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations:
[[xiv]]10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States - "corruption of the courts and the legal profession" in California
