Saturday, May 31, 2008

INVALIDATION Friedman's Order Striking and Answer

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS
2. Judge Friedman's Order Striking and Answering Disqualification - for a Cause,
Paper Court File - dated 3/19/08



In paper Court File records- dated 3/19/2008.
Here - in electronic Court File recrods -
Invalidated with a Date of 00/00/00

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW

INVALIDATION Friedman's Release of Funds

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS:
1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds.
b. In electronic Court File Records - Dated 00/00/00


1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds:

In paper Court File records dated - 1/30/08

Here - from electronic Court File Records -

Invalidated with a date of: 00/00/00

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW.

SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS: 1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds - a. From paper Court File - dated 1/30/2008

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS
1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds
a. From paper Court File - dated 1/30/2008

SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS:
1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds -

a. From paper Court File -

Valid Date - 1/30/2008

BACK-DATING Connor Re-assignment

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS:
1. Re-assignment to Judge Jacqueline A. Connor:
b. In electronic Court File - True Date: 1/30/06


SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS -
1. Re-assignment to Judge Jacqueline A Connor
b. Minute Order from electronic Court File -
Notice True Date of 1/30/06

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW

BACK-DATING Connor Re-assignment

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS

1. Re-assignment Order to Judge Jacqueline

a. Connor: a. In Paper Court File - False Date : 11/1/2005



SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS:
1. Minute Order: Reassignment to Judge Jacqueline A. Connor

A. From paper Court File -

Notice False Date of 11/1/2005

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW

NO VALID LITIGATION RECORDS

HOW COMES THERE ARE NO VALID TRIAL COURT LITIGATION RECORDS IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK?

There are no valid Trial Court Litigation Records in Samaan v Zerniks because:

1) The Minute Orders, as shown in paper Court File, are almost without exception back-dated and therefore invalid


Sustain
allowed the Judges to back-date Minute Orders. For example - Minute Order: Re-Asssignment to Judge Jacqueline A. Connor, a key document, purportedly establishing the authority of Judge Connor in this case, appears in the paper Court File with a date of 11/1/2005
. This document is in fact dated 1/30/2006, almost 3 month later, as seen in the electronic file of that Minute Order.

Two sets of documents were submitted to the California Court of Appeal this week -

  • a) Minute Orders with dates as shown in paper Court File
  • b) Minute Orders with dates as shown in electronic Court File.

There are hardly any documents where these two dates match. Such cannot be valid Litigation Records.


2) The Minute Orders that are shown in paper Court File, were almost without exception entered without the Clerk's Certificate of Mailing to parties and without a Notice of Entry, as required by law, and therefore are invalid

In many of the Minute Orders, a note was included "Notice Waived" without any base at all. Such waive could not be possibly valid, since in most proceedings only 2 out of 4 parties were present. Therefore, the 2 parties that were not present could not possiby waive notice.

Ovbiously, the Court could not execute Notice as required by law - the parties would certainly have noticed it when the mail would arrive at times months, other time weeks after the time listed in the Clerk's Certificate of Mailing

3) The document that the Superior Court presented both in United States Court and in Court of Appeal as the valid Litigation Record -Case Summary, is diclaimed by the Court itself an not a formal Court document at all.

The Superior Court, fraudulently tried to present in both United States District Court and in California Court of Appeal a document titled "Case Summary", from the online Courtnet system, as the valid litigation record.
But the Superior Court itself disclaims this document as invalid.
See <http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil>.


  • Case Summary
  • The Courts and County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis and typically by parties of record and participants, does not constitute the official record of the court. Any user of the information is hereby advised that it is being provided as is and that it may be subject to error or omission. The user acknowledges and agrees that neither the Los Angeles Superior Court nor the County of Los Angeles are liable in any way whatsoever for the accuracy or validity of the information provided.

4) The Superior Court is avoiding ever presenting the Sustain report titled: "Case History", which the Court itself is using as "Register of Actions".


The Superior Court established a custom that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, U.S. Code, California Code and California Rules of Courts - it keeps electronic litigation records as confidential and does not allow access to such to litigants and counsels.

The Los Angeles Superior Court falsely claims:

  • "Sustain data are privileged - for the Court only"
And strangely enough, the Court has been able to get away with that for years.

The Superior Court is avoiding ever presenting the "Case History" report from Sustain since this document presents evidence for misconduct by the Judiciary - false and deliberately misleading litigation records.

In Summary:

  • The Minute Orders are invalid records with evidence of deliberate insertion of false and misleading dates, and no valid notice to parties of their entry.
  • The Case History from Sustain is never presented by the Court as a litigation record - for a good reason - it includes evidence of misconduct by the Judiciary.
  • The Case Summary report that is presented in Court by LA Superior Court is disclaimed by the same court as not a valid litigation record.

Friday, May 23, 2008

SUSTAIN

SUSTAIN - THE LA SUPERIOR COURT'S CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Excerpts from a document filed with the California Court of Appeal , 2nd District.

d. Sustain Incorporates Some Features that Should Never be
Allowed in CMS – Such as Secret Invalidation of Records
.


The feature that is most disturbing, is the ability of the judiciary, or possibly
others, to invalidate or vacate records with no notice to parties. Such is
implemented by changing the date of entry of the document, after the fact,

into 00/00/00, or 33/33/33 – applying to an order or a document that was
already filed, entered, and noticed, an invalid entry date. Practically all judges in Samaan v Zernik resorted to this disturbing feature:

i. Item #27, Exh p25 May 14, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte
Application to Shorten Time to Hearing Motion for Reconsideration- secretly invalidated…


The Ex Parte application was a proceeding “off the record”, and later the
minute order was vacated as well. The application by Zernik, Defendant in
LASC, was for reconsideration of serious sanctions set on him (>$2,000) by
Judge Connor, in a situation that in and of itself resulted from denial of access
to Court File records and Minute Orders and dishonest conduct by Att
Keshavarzi. The decision to set the sanctions was somewhat unusual, and the
denial of the motion for shortened hearing on reconsideration could have been
seen as rather harsh as well. The records were eliminated.
None of this could be figured out from Case Summary in Courtnet. None of
this could be figured out using any of the records typically provided to litigants
in LASC.


ii. Item #52, Exh p55, Sept 20, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Due Process and Proposed Referee O’Brien “lodged” Motion for Appointment as Referee - secretly invalidated…

The record shows that this minute order was invalidated after April 30, 2008
by changing the entry date to “00/00/00”. Judge Goodman was with no
authority at that time, and whether he or anybody else invalidated this minute
order, it was a case of falsification of litigation records.

iii. Item #53, Exh p56, OCT 3, 2007 Disqualification of Judge Goodman – secretly invalidated…

Judge Goodman never realized that Countrywide was involved in this case
until about a month after taking over as Presiding Judge. That is very difficult
to accept at face value. But once he realized that, and given his “long term
close personal friendship with the chief legal counsel of
Countywide”, he immediately recused himself.
One must commend his honesty, even if he was late to remember his friends.
But then again, careful inspection of the records shows that he vacated the
minute order after it was issued and noticed to parties… and that he forgot to
notice the parties of the fact that he vacated that order.
One must note that Judge Goodman was with no authority at all after his
recusal, including no authority to vacate his own Minute Order. Therefore, if
he himself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of
falsification of litigation records.

iv. Item #67, Exh p 65, Nov 5, 2007 Judge Segal’s Ex Parte For Shortened Notice Hearing On Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of A Receiver – secretly invalidated…

This is the minute order of Plaintiff’s ex parte to shorten time for hearing on
appointment of receiver. Given the ruling was on Nov 5, 2007, opposition was
due on Nov 6, 2007, that is the next day. Judge Segal decided to generously
allow Defendant two extra days till Nov 8, 2007.

A legitimate Minute Order was issued and incorporated in paper Court file, but
the electronic Court File data shows it was invalidated by changing the entry
date to 33/33/33. No notice was given to litigants.

v. Item #78, Exh p 73 DEC 7, 2007 -Ex Parte Proceedings Before The Honorable Lisa Hart- Cole – secretly invalidated…

The record indicates that Judge Hart-Cole followed the same routines. By the
time she was recused, her records show that she already set the grounds for
running a hearing on Receiver’s ex parte application as an “off the record”
proceeding.
In addition, after issuing the minute order of her own recusal and having a clerk mail it out, which was also entered in the paper court-file, same Minute Order was vacated without making any explicit record of it, just changing the document date to “00/00/00”.

One must note that Judge Hart-Cole was with no authority after her recusal,
including no authority to vacate her own Minute Order. Therefore, if she
herself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of falsification of
litigation records.

vi. Item #83, Exh p 78, Supervising Judge Rosenberg, Dec 26, 2008 Minute Order Denying Appellant’s Ex Parte for Due Process – secretly invalidated…

On December 26, 2008, Appellant appeared before the Supervising Judge, to
ask for his civil rights to be restored – access to litigation records, vacating of

false records, etc. Judge Rosenberg denied it all wholesale. But then he
vacated his own Minute Order with no notice to Appellant.

vii. Item #90, Exh p 83, Judge Friedman, Jan 30, 2008 Appellant’s Ex Parte Application to Release Funds that are his Proceeds from the Sale of his Home against his Will, and are Held by the Court with no Legal Authority – secretly invalidated…

On Jan 30, 2008, Appellant appeared Ex Parte before Judge Friedman, and
asked that the Court release his funds, originally ~$800,000, but ever
vanishing, held by the Court with no due authority.

Judge Friedman immediately denied the application, with prejudice, and
warned Appellant that if he asks for it again, Judge Friedman would impose
sanction.

Later – Judge Friedman vacated this order. Therefore, on May 19, 2008,
Appellant came again ex parte to ask for release of his funds. Judge Friedman
was not in that day, so Appellant was seen by Judge Tarle, who denied the
application, with prejudice again.

e. Sustain allows the Judiciary to Run Proceedings “of the record” without notice to parties.

This litigant of course would never have participated in any of these
proceedings, had he known that they were off the record.


i. Item #13 Exh p13 – 10/31/06-11/9/06 Defendant’s
Motion To Expunge Lis Pendens –off the record

Combined, these records demonstrate the proceedings of Defendant’s Motion
to Expunge Lis Pendens, which was managed entirely as an “Off the Record “
procedure. This abuse of the system is pervasive throughout the records, and
is directly tied to the assignment of multiple independent Events to a single
time slot.

An adequately verified Case Management System should not have allowed
such to be practiced. The abuse of the system is also tied to the assignment of
adjudication “Motion Denied” to an Event that was “Case Management
Conference”. Again, a adequately verified Case Management System should
not have allowed that entry.

None of this evidence could ever be found by Appellant had he relied on Case
Summary – the document filed by Defendants as the “Docket”. It appears that
Courtnet and Case Summary rely heavily on text editing, but have minimal
assertions and limitations that are built into the software – in short – it would
tolerate almost anything, but it is not the formal record of the litigation.
None of this could be figured out using records typically provided to
litigants in LASC.

ii. Item #11, Exh p 11, 13, 15, Oct Nov 2006 – Trial Setting Conference – “off the record

The Trial Setting Conference was a proceeding “off the Record”, and no trial
date was ever adequately entered in Sustain, while Judge Connor continued to
manipulate trial dates and to switch between Jury and Non-Jury trials, until

after she was disqualified, Sept 10 2007, when she finally formally entered trial
date into the system at around 4:30pm.
In between, Summary Judgment hearing was conducted less than 30 days
before trial date, as set at that time, with no explicit notice or permanent
record of such. Note the date of entry of Minute Order is not consistent among
the several pages of the Minute Order, changing in the last page from
November 9, 2006 to January 16, 2007.

None of this could ever be figured out from Case Summary in Courtnet. None
of this could be figured out using records typically provided to litigants in
LASC.

iii. Item #31, July 6, 2007 - Indeterminate Party Countrywide Ex Parte Application For A Protective Order – “off the record

Zernik often asked, but never got the answers:


  • • How could Countrywide be Non Party, Defendant, Plaintiff, Cross-
    Defendant, Intervenor, all at the same time?

  • • How could the ex parte application of July 6, 2007 be scheduled in the
    first place, at a time that no Discovery Motions were allowed, by a nonparty, at a time that the court was dark?

Now Zernik knows, that the answer is that this was another “off the record”
proceeding. For that reason, the Protective Order that was the outcome of this
hearing was never issued, never recorded, never produced, and never noticed
to Zernik.

But when so desired, such a non-existent Protective Order was deemed by
Judge Friedman very recently – in Feb 2008 - as being “in full force and
effect”, although the order was never seen by that time or after.
Judge Friedman later also found such a non-existent order as the legal
foundation for setting serious sanctions against Zernik exceeding $22,000,
and finding Appellant in Contempt of the Court, all through a Bench Trial,
where Judge Friedman, Triar of Facts, admitted evidence that is writings
produced by Countrywide, with no authentication at all, as was the case with
Judge Connor in Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and Motion for Summary
Judgment .

Combined – while courts around the United States rebuke Countrywide
litigation practices, that were documented around the country to include filing
of false and misleading documents, the LASC continues abuse of Plaintiff’s
rights for Speech, Due Process, and Possession, all based on such fraudulent
Countrywide documents.

The right to file mandatory counter claims for fraud, or to have a chance for a
fair hearing on motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7 on such fraudulent
documents were consistently denied.

None of this could be discovered based on :”Case Summary”, or records
normally provided to litigants in the LASC.

f. Sustain allowed Judge Connor to file fictitious Minute Orders.

Appellant believes that the integrity of courts in the English speaking countries
depended to a large degree on the checks and balances in the power of Judges
and Clerks. A Judge could write an order, but could never enter it.
On the basis of the partial data provided, Appellant believes that such
distinctions were eliminated in Sustain. The only power remaining with the
clerk to stop an invalid order is to refuse to mail it out.

But then again, it appears that the LA Superior Court holds minute orders
valid even when they are not mailed out to litigants or served in any other way,
in defiance of basic notions of Due Process, or any logic at all.
Judge Connor entered two entirely fictitious Minute Orders:

i. July 9, 2007, Minute Order – Motion for Reconsideration –

The minute order describes a telephonic hearing of motion for reconsideration
that never took place. Apparently this was to replace the minute order that she
vacated, and here she granted the motion for reconsideration. None of it was
reported to litigants – no minute order was mailed out. Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order – Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7/Disqualification Of Judge Connor
The record for this proceeding is of critical significance:
It was represented in minute order and also in a letter from Att Keshavarzi to
Retired Judge O’Brien as a proof that Judge Connor ruled that none of Zernik’s
claims of fraud in Countrywide’s documents was valid. And numerous attempts of Zernik to vacate this record, which was entered with no authority at all, and which defies truth and justice, were always denied.


An “on the record” hearing on the Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7
could have overturned the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP
§437c.

Careful analysis of the record in Case History now shows:
Defendant’s filing of statement of disqualification was entered (p105) as:

  • 9/10/07 Document Filed
    Miscellaneous-Other MEMO
    Defendant, & Defendant in Pro Per

Instead of using the correct menu selection in Sustain:

  • 9/10/07 Document Filed
    Affidavit of Prejudice

Judge Connor ran the recusal on her own motion as the only “on the record”
proceeding in this case. Both the affidavit of prejudice and the motion for sanctions per CCP §128.7 were merely “off the record” proceedings in this case.

1) This proceeding is also instructive in examining the use of Courtnet
“Case Summary” – the web-base, publicly-accessible system to
mislead. Under “Proceedings” in Case Summary, the following entry appears:

  • Proceeding: Recusal (Motion for Sanctions) – Motion
    Granted

Obviously, the phrasing is deliberately tangled, to mislead, but the overall
impression is that the hearing was on the Recusal, which was granted. That is
of course the opposite of the record created in Sustain.

And on Aug 30, 2007 Appellant Took Part in What he
Thought was a Status Conference, and in Fact was
Registered as a Hearing on a Motion.

i. Item #45, Exh p 47, Aug 30, 2007 - Status Conference

This proceeding presents an entirely new deception technique: Although the
proceeding was announced as a status conference, here without defendant’s
knowledge, it is defined as a “hearing”. During the proceeding itself, Judge
Connor a couple of times referred to the conference as a “hearing” of a
“motion”. Each time defendant protested that there was no motion before the
court, but Judge Connor did not explain her secret intention – to record the
status conference as a motion to appoint an escrow referee, instead of a
unilateral court appointment. Yet the appointment was going to be a defective
one. The language of the minute order is deliberately defective:

  • The Court appoint Honorable Greg O’Brien,
    Retired Judge as Referee. The court will
    prepare the order to appointing discovery
    referee”

There may be judges who write like this, but not Judge Connor, who is possibly the sharpest in the Santa Monica Court House, and by far te best writer.
On the record there was an adequate order appointing O’Brien discovery
referee, issued secretly in chambers July 27, 2007, and never noticed. But
none of that was ever mentioned. The ingenuity here is in the ability to self eface and appear dum .. when it is useful.

Absurd as it may sound: during the conference, defendant, who by now was
familiar with Judge Connor’s conduct asked her on the record ‘to be diligent in
completing an appointment in compliance with the law’ and offered the use of
ADR forms. Judge Connor, on the record, explained that she had no intention
of issuing an appointment in compliance with the law.

Later, retired Judge O’Brien, on Sept 7, 2007, will present defendant with this
defective minute order as the sole source of his authority as an escrow referee
to seize defendant’s property.

Obviously, the Order Appointing Referee, marked in Case History (P103) as
signed and entered, was either the same, alternatively – it was some secret
order, like the one from July 27, 2007, that was never noticed to anybody,
including Judge O’Brien.

In “Event Complete” (P103), one notes that in this case the “Hearing-Other”, which Defendant participated in without even being aware of it, was in fact the “on the record” proceeding in this case. The “Status Conference” was in fact an “off the record” proceeding here.

At the end of the “Event” note, and also at the end of “Event Complete” one
finds a manually entered comment as part of the language of the minute order:
“jt 9-07-07”

Obviously, Jury Trial (albeit, the record indicates parties agreed to non-jury
trial) date was still manually carried, not entered in Sustain, and here Judge
Connor forgot that just two days earlier she continued it to Jan 11, 2008.

h. On Sept 14, 2007, the Supervising Judge, the Hon Rosenberg, secretly filed documents in the file, with no notice to litigants.

On page 113 in Case History one finds the following entry:

  • 09/14/07 Document Filed
    Memo
    Miscellaneous- Other
    Dism-Plaintiff In Pro Per
    (2) Documents received by facsimile
    service and filed per the direction of the
    Supervising Judge of the West District
    the Honorable Gerald Rosenberg.
    Filed By ZERNIK, JOSEPH Defendant

The record copied above, in full, is probably the reduced essence of the use of
Sustain as an instrument of fraud on Defendant Zernik in the West District, LA
Superior Court:

  • 1. The notice is cryptic and deliberately misleading.
  • 2. No notice was given to litigant of this unusual filing.
    3. Nobody expected that Zernik would ever lay his hands on Case
    History by Sustain. In fact, among the numerous attorneys Zernik
    questioned on this point, none ever obtained Sustain records during
    litigation, except that some, but a minority, get Minute Orders at times.
  • 4. The honorable Gerald Rosenberg is:
    Not – Zernik, Joseph - Defendant, and also
    Not - Dism-Plaintiff in Pro Per
This unusual filing is nothing less than direct intervention by the Supervising
Judge, who preached to Defendant Zernik his lack of authority to even vacate
the groundless minute order filed after disqualification by a judge lacking in
authority at all. Obviously the Supervising Judge is authority to hear motions
to vacate judicial acts, under the stipulations prescribed by law.

To this day Defendant Zernik does not know what documents were filed by
Judge Rosenberg, but an educated guess suggests that they were papers
including the proposed order for appointment of O’Brien as Escrow Referee,
produced by Plaintiff’s Counsel and O’Brien, together, as a remedy for the
deliberately defective orders produced by Judge Connor. Of course there was
nothing to prevent Plaintiff from filing the proposed order with a motion per
Due Process.

Similarly, on Dec 13, 2007, Judge Friedman signed an order, Appellant still
does not know for sure what it was. With no advance notice at all, this proposed order was moved for a hearing on

Sept 20, 2007, see row #52 below, during what was noticed as Case
Conference. An introductory comment by Judge Goodman, was obviously
disingenuous, when he claimed had no idea where the papers came from (yet
he brought them for immediate hearing).

i. A person Reviewing the Case as a Whole Would Also Reasonably Entertain the Doubt that Sustain, as Operated in Santa Monica, but not in Beverly Hills, Allows Financial Mismanagement or Worse.

The record from Dec 7, 2007, Ex Parte in Beverly Hills before Judge Hart –
Cole is unique, since it shows that the system in Beverly Hills is set to print
the register number of the action (here - #BH490068002). Register
numbers were deleted from all the Santa Monica clerk’s printouts. This is
further evidence that the Santa Monica system was especially suitable for
abuse of Due Process.
But since the register numbers are tied to payment for moving party, all Journal Entries in Santa Monica, typically for $40.00 each, are with no ID
number.

j. Lessons must be distilled from the traditional paper-based systems

It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were
discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration

should be given to strengthening the ministerial arm of the court, as a counter
balance to the judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions.
The authorities of the judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully
prescribed and segregated, to generate appropriate checks and balances.

k. CMS’s Must be Utilized to Safeguard Due Process and to Monitor the Quality and Integrity of the Courts

The significance of correct docketing must be emphasized, and the systems
must not allow easy ways to bypass the menu-driven, rule-based docketing.
Without accurate docketing, the system is useless. With accurate docketing the
system can become a valuable instrument in safeguarding Due Process. The
contribution of the ministerial staff in this process needs to be emphasized,
and their personal accountability for each act of docketing, which must bear a
personal digital signature that is easily visible.

l. The Common Feature – The Culture of Silence

The California Court of Appeal surely offered helpful advice when it stated that
“true remedy is in filing an appeal from order for
appointment of receiver”.

But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court of Appeal,
like the Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the California
Code of Ethics Canon 3D(1).

They all knew of the unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff
by Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code, which is clear cut
in its directive.


Canon 3D(1) says:


  • D. Disciplinary Responsibilities
    (1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that
    another judge has violated any provision of the
    Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or
    initiate appropriate corrective action, which may
    include reporting the violation to the appropriate
    authority.

  • None of the judges involved took or initiated appropriate corrective action.
    Plaintiff believes that best explanation for what takes place in the LA Superior Court is found in a paper by Erwin Chemerinsky -The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.
    In it he states:

  • "Police officers in the CRASH unit in the Rampart
    Division of the Los Angeles Police Department
    framed innocent individuals by planting evidence
    and committing perjury to gain convictions.
    Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes
    they did not commit and were convicted by juries
    because of the fabricated cases against them. Many
    individuals were subjected to excessive police force
    and suffered very serious injuries as a result.
    Any analysis of the Rampart Scandal must begin
    with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what
    the officers did. This is conduct associated with the
    most repressive dictators and police states. It
    occurred in Los Angeles….

    … the … report is lacking in the following ways:
    O First – it fails to identify the scope of the problem,
    and indeed, minimizes its scope and nature.
    O Second, the report fails to recognize that the
    central problem is the culture of Los Angeles Police
    Department… the “Code of Silence”..
    O Third - the …report fails to consider the need for
    structural reforms…
    O Fourth – the problems in the… disciplinary system
    are unduly minimized…"

Much of what is stated above is directly applicable to the LA Superior Court, in
particular the statement regarding the “Culture of Silence”. Chemerinsky concludes with a statement that is also applicable here:

  • "No single reform can be sufficient. Reform is not an event, but a process that will take many years to complete…"

1. progress by the Judicial Council, in order to avoid errors made in the
introduction of Sustain in LASC over 20 years ago. In particular, this complaint emphasizes the unusual mode of operation of Sustain, the case management system in the West District, Los Angeles Superior Court, which different than its use in Central District. Moreover, Appellant shows significant differences in the usage pattern even between Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, both court houses of the West District.

3. Open Questions:
  • Is there any Correlation, or Even Cause and Effect Relationship
    between These Unusual Rules of LASC, and the Unusual Events
    Surrounding Entry of Judgment in Samaan v Zernik?
  • Is there any Correlation, or Even Cause and Effect Relationship
    between These Unusual Rules of LASA and the Fact that LA County
    was Designated by the FBI “Epicenter” of the “Real Estate Fraud Epidemic”?
Appellant states that he believes that a reasonable person, reviewing Samaan v
Zernik as a whole would be hard pressed not to conclude that the answer is
“Yes” to both questions. The Court of Judge Connor was not only permissive of
Real Estate Fraud - it was supportive of it.

And the succession of judges the presided in Samaan v Zernik after her, all
with no Reassignment Order and with no authority at all, engaged in dishonest
conduct in attempts to cover up the whole affair and stand by a colleague,
instead of standing by the Law and the Constitution, as they have vowed to do
in their Oath.

Interviews with at least a couple of dozen attorneys who were experienced in
Real Estate litigation also revealed that they all had unanimous opinion –
under no circumstances would any of them agree to claim fraud and deceit in a
Real Estate litigation in the Santa Monica court, regardless if it is true or not.
The excuses were far fetched. Eventually, an older attorney, Larry Rothstein
provided a straight forward answer:

”First – the Judge will never listen to a claim of fraud,
and second – the Judge will only hold it against you.”

Indeed, when Appellant insisted on exposing the fraud in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400), Judge Connor explained in open court to Appellant’s newly
retained counsel on Aug 21, 2007 – that she considered Appellant “A Pest
and that she ”treat[ed] him accordingly”.

Appellant entered a comment
to that effect in his Aug 30, 2007 Case Management Statement, expecting that Judge Connor would finally recuse herself. But Judge Connor only made a comment about Appellant ‘throwing it in her face’, and Appellant had to file for recusal for cause again on Sept 10, 2007. Only then Judge Connor finally recused.

g. This California Court of Appeal Should Declare Samaan V Zernik
Mistrial


The issues reviewed here, do not involve the finding of facts in the Aug 9,
2007 Motion for Summary Judgment hearing, where Judge Connor was
Triar of Facts, a whole subject in and of itself, which is one of the subjects of
underlying the appeal from the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant to
CCP §437c.

The issues reviewed here also do not involve the circumstances surrounding
the appointment of Att David Pasternak as Receiver. In an unusual generous
comment, this Court of Appeal itself wrote that:


Petitioner’s true remedy is in an appeal from the Order Appointing Receiver

The issues reviewed here also do not involve the determination of the Courts of
Judge Segal and Judge Friedman to rob Appellant of his home equity,
proceeds from the sale of his home against his will, purportedly pursuant to
the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court for Specific Performance. Those funds are
indefinitely held by the Court with no legal foundation at all.

The issues reviewed here also do not involve the fraudulent conveyance of real
property title by Receiver Pasternak recently uncovered by Appellant. Since
Receiver Pasternak, following the Appointment Order by Judge Segal, was
determined to convey title to the property without any reliance on the Aug 9,
2007 Judgment by Court, he needed to avail himself to practices that are out of
compliance with the law, including straight forward fraud. [As a reminder -
Receiver Pasternak appears as one of the LASC’s favorite receivers, by the
sheer number of transactions showing under his name in the Registrar’s office,
and the number of cases showing in review of LASC records, all regardless of
his own declaration of his exorbitant fees.]

This review of the operation of Sustain – LASC CMS – in the Santa Monica
Court House is submitted to the California Court of Appeal in support of the
motions named below, and concurrently with them:

1) Request for Reconsideration of Appellant’s Petition of April 1, 2008,
amended April 4, 2008, in which Appellant requested that the Court of
Appeal take corrective action to stop conduct of other judges that is in
violation of the California Code of Ethics, Canon 3D(1), and was denied
with no explanation at all. This review of the operations of Sustain – the
LASC provides plenty of additional examples of unethical conduct by
judges relative to Samaan v Zernik, which Appellant himself was not
aware of and did not have appropriate evidence for at the time of filing
that Petition, as a result of the LASC’s ongoing denial of access to
litigation records.

2) Request to Set Aside the Court of Appeal’s ruling on Appellant’s January
24, 2008 Petition in Re: Judge Friedman’s response to Affidavits of
Perjury for Cause on Jan 11 and Jan 15, 2008, which was denied on the
basis of timeliness relative to the Jan 11, 2008 Affidavit. In view of the
dishonesty in the stated Date of Entry on the Minute Orders of both Jan
11 and Jan 15, 2008 this court may consider that Petition timely relative
even to the Jan 11, 2008 Affidavit.

3) Request for Reconsideration of Appellant’s request that the Justices of
the Court of Appeal who decide this case file a Statement on the Record
relative to their relationships with the judges named here, given the
unusual nature of this case. Appellant requests alternatively, that any
Justice that served as a Judge in the LASC since the introduction of
Sustain, recuse from this case.

4) Request to rescind the filing of the Reporters’ Transcript and the Clerk’s
Transcript filed by the LASC. Both were filed with no counsel signature,
out of compliance with CCP §128.7, and both include false and
deliberately misleading records, again trying to cover up dishonest
conduct of judges. In particular, the Clerk’s Transcript includes a copy of
“Case Summary” from Courtnet, which in included where a Register of
Action should have been included.

This review is also submitted concurrently with a request for Receiver
Pasternak to resign as Receiver, for violation of the Oath he took when
assuming that position, by offering Appellant to support release of Appellant’s
funds held by Receiver, if Appellant drops the U.S. complaint against Att
Pasternak.


This review limited itself to the dishonest conduct involved in the docketing
and recording of litigation involved in the operation of the LASC’s Case
Management System – Sustain. And yet, the issues related to abuse of United
States Constitutional rights for Due Process revealed in this review are
sufficient in and of themselves to deem Samaan v Zernik Mistrial and vacate
all rulings, orders, and Judgments.
Appellant requests new rulings in the matters listed above, and suggests that a
just and appropriate ruling is to declare Samaan v Zernik Mistrial.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 20, 2008

_______________________________

JOSEPH ZERNIK
DEFENDANT & CROSS-COMPLAINANT
in pro per


Saturday, May 17, 2008

A LETTER TO THE NATIONAL MANAGING PARTNER OF BRYAN CAVE LLP RE: COUNTRYWIDE

A LETTER TO THE MANAGING PARTNER OF BRYAN CAVE LLP, ST LOUIS - THE LARGEST AND PRIME OFFICE OF THE FIRM - ATTORNEYS FOR COUNTRYWIDE

5/16/08

Mr van Cleve
Managing Partner
Bryan Cave LLP
St. Louis
By fax: 314 259 2020

Timed response requested by May 23, 2008

RE: Litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in LA Superior Court, Zernik v Connor (2:2008cv01550) in US District Court

Mr van Cleve:

As a courtesy, please be informed that on March 5, 2008 I filed complaint in United States District Court - Zernik v Connor et al (2:2008cv01550), and with it - complaint of public corruption with the appropriate authorities.
Countrywide, Angelo Mozillo, and Sandor Samuels, are named Defendants in this Federal case. Bryan Cave, Jenna Moldawsky, and John Amberg are not named as Defendants in the Federal complaint, but their role in this case may come under scrutiny, and become a source of liability for Bryan Cave. The role of some national law firms working with the Legal Division of Countrywide already came under scrutiny and rebuke in the 72-page, March 5, 2008 opinion of Judge Bohm, Houston, Texas.

In litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Att Moldawsky and Amberg appeared before Defendant Connor, on July 6, and July 23, 2007, in proceedings that at that time were the worst abuse of Zernik's United States Constitutional rights for Due Process and Free Speech in that litigation. In those proceedings Bryan Cave asked for a Protective (gag) Order on behalf of Countrywide.

In particular the July 6. 2007 ex parte proceeding was at a time that the Court never heard ex parte proceedings, in a special session of the court, when the court was dark, and it was scheduled at least 3 days in advance. It asked for a discovery motion at a time that no discovery motions were allowed. Bryan Cave
refused to disclose how such a proceeding was ever scheduled, except to say that it involved "nothing improper".

Countrywide, claimed by Bryan Cave to be non-party, was listed on that day as "Plaintiff" in court records. In other court records, to this very day, Countrywide and Bryan Cave as its counsel, are listed interchangeably as: Defendant, Cross-Defendant, Intervenor, Objector, Plaintiff, all with no legal foundation at all.

More recently, in Jan-March 2008, Att Moldawsky and Amberg aggravated that abuse in proceedings before the Honorable Friedman, named Defendant Friedman in the Federal lawsuit. These proceedings were based on non-existent, purported July 23, 2007 Protective (gag) Order by Defendant Connor. That July 2007 order was never signed, never issued, never entered, never noticed in July 2007. Court file includes three copies of proposed orders by Bryan Cave from 2007, and one proposed joint stipulation, all unsigned. Two of the proposed orders are also marked in red Denied across the page.

That order was likewise never produced, even in the aberrant procedures before the Court of Defendant Friedman, in Jan-March 2008.
• On Jan 11, 2008 Bryan Cave attorneys had Defendant Friedman issue a statement that the July 2007 order "was in full force and effect".
• On Feb 15, 2008 they had Defendant Friedman set serious sanctions of >$16,000, which should have triggered the right for jury trial, base on that order
• On March 7, 2008 they had Defendant Friedman decree Contempt following OSC based on that order, in a proceeding where Bryan Cave acknowledged in open court never adequately serving summons, and additional sanctions of $7,000 were set, based on unauthenticated evidence that should have
never been admitted in this Bench Trial, where Defendant Friedman was Triar of Facts.

Bryan Cave attorneys were present in open court in proceedings in Jan - March 2008 where:
• Defendant Friedman denied any relationship with Defendant Samuels twice, on Jan 11 and Jan 15, in response to Affidavits of Prejudice - for Cause, while verified statement of Defendant Samuels, filed by Bryan Cave reflects a long term close acquaintance of Defendants Samuels and Friedman.
• Defendant Friedman continues to refuse to file Statement on the Record, as required by the California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3E(2), regarding his relationship with Samuels, or any financial benefits to him or to family members residing under the same household from Samuels or Countrywide.

Recent investigation clarified why Defendant Connor never issued the Protective Order requested by Bryan Cave in July 2007. Defendant Connor listed these proceedings as "off the record" in Court records. Therefore she could not issue any "on the record" orders from them.


Needless to say, Plaintiff Zernik holds the notion of "off the record" proceedings, held secretly so, without knowledge of a Party are an abomination of justice.

Please let me know whether Bryan Cave, Jenna Moldawsky, John Amberg, or anybody else at Bryan Cave was ever aware of such proceedings being held, or even being contemplated, at the LA Superior Court.

Your response on this matter is requested no later than May 23, 2008.

Joseph Zernik

CC: J. Modisett, Los Angeles



IT'S TIME AGAIN - FOR THE JUSTICE BALL




SUMMER'S BEST PARTY IS BACK!
A great party for a great cause, The Justice Ball returns to The Lot in West Hollywood on Saturday, July 19. Join more than 3,500 of your closest friends for a night of music, dancing, and so much more.

Visit The Justice Ball website: www.thejusticeball.org

You may be able to meet in person:
Immediate Past President - Sandor Samuel
Past President - David Pasternak
Former Executive Director - The Hon Terry Friedman

Thursday, May 15, 2008

COMPUTERS AND THE COURTS

Below is a passage from a document that was scheduled to be filed with the U.S. District Court Friday, May 16, 2008. Filing is delayed per explicit Court Order not to file any documents with the Court.

1. Regarding Case Management Systems

Similar to voting machines, court case management systems can improve the administration of justice, or allow wholesale abuse of Due Process. Plaintiff hopes that this court take action not only for providing his own personal relief, but as an opportunity to review a “serious question” of public interest, which presented extraordinary circumstances. As a result of such review, this court may reach some opinions that would make substantial impact on the justice system in California and beyond.


Plaintiff believes that there is an urgent need for review of case management systems used in the courts, based on his findings with the limited data and resources available to him. Main areas that may need review and eventually new rules include:

  • a. Rules must be developed regarding the development and introduction of new systems.

Plaintiff believes that the introduction of Sustain in the LA Superior Court, over 20 years ago, was a major change in the Rules of Court. But there is no indication that it was treated that way. Likewise, there is no indication that the introduction of the new system, CCMS, by the California Judicial Council is treated as such (Docket #56). As an example – it is unreasonable that there is no reference at all to Sustain in the written Rules of Court of Los Angeles County, based on a word search.

The United States Rule Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. § 2071 says:


  • (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment.
    Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.


No new case management system should be allowed before giving public notice and an opportunity for comment. However, when it comes to computer systems, public comment is incapacitated absent detailed information regarding system specifications. Therefore, rules must be developed regarding the method of presentation of such systems for public comment (similar to rules regarding presentation of building plans for public comment). The logic of the programming code may need to be reduced to a set of assertions in natural language. Moreover, in consultation with experts from the field of mathematics and logic, standardized presentations may be developed, and methods of certification, to ensure that such presentations in natural language are true and correct reflection of the code. In addition, it may be necessary to certify that the logic of the system is consistent with the legal code that is implemented in it. Mathematical and logical methods such as “formal verification” and “simulation verification” may be utilized.


  • b. State of the Art Security and Signage Measures Must be Implemented.

Based on the little that Plaintiff has learnt about the system, it is reasonable to assume that it was modified over the years, and that such modifications were not uniform in all locations of the Court. Any ad hoc changes in the system are a major risk to its integrity, and rules must be developed to safeguard the systems against such changes in the code.


The system as it is operated now implements User ID’s and passwords. But such are hidden from public view in the Audit Files. That is in violation of the law relative to implementation of electronic and digital signatures. Such laws as the United States E-sign Act of 2002 and the California regulations regarding electronic signatures mandate that wherever such signatures were traditionally open to public view – and they definitely were open to public view in traditional Books of Court - they must be made accessible for public inspection also in their digital permutation.

Digital signatures must be introduced such that electronic filing (such as in Pacer) or Minute Orders (such as in Sustain) are accompanied by the party’s or the judge’s and the clerk’s digital signature, respectively, where traditionally the “wet” hand-signature would be imprinted in a traditional Books of Court.


  • c. Lessons must be distilled from the traditional paper-based systems


It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration should be given to strengthening the ministerial arm of the court, as a counter balance to the judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions. The authorities of the judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully prescribed and segregated, to generate appropriate checks and balances.


  • d. CMS’s Must be Utilized to Safeguard Due Process and to Monitor the Quality and Integrity of the Courts.


The significance of correct docketing must be emphasized, and the systems must not allow easy ways to bypass the menu-driven, rule-based docketing. Without accurate docketing, the system is useless. With accurate docketing the system can become a valuable instrument in safeguarding Due Process. The contribution of the ministerial staff in this process needs to be emphasized, and their personal accountability for each act of docketing, which must bear a personal digital signature that is easily visible.


2. The Common Feature – The Culture of Silence

The California Court of Appeal surely offered helpful advice when it stated that


  • “true remedy is in filing an appeal from order for appointment of receiver”.

But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court of Appeal, like the Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the California Code of Ethics Canon 3D(1).

They all knew of the unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff by Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code, which is clear cut in its directive.

Canon 3D(1) says:

  • D. Disciplinary Responsibilities
    (1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.*

None of the judges involved took or initiated appropriate corrective action.


Plaintiff believes that best explanation for what takes place in the LA Superior Court is found in a paper by Erwin Chemerinsky -The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.

In it he states:

  • "Police officers in the CRASH unit in the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department framed innocent individuals by planting evidence and committing perjury to gain convictions. Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit and were convicted by juries because of the fabricated cases against them. Many individuals were subjected to excessive police force and suffered very serious injuries as a result.
    Any analysis of the Rampart Scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states. It occurred in Los Angeles….
    … the … report is lacking in the following ways:
    · First – it fails to identify the scope of the problem, and indeed, minimizes its scope and nature.
    · Second, the report fails to recognize that the central problem is the culture of Los Angeles Police Department… the “Code of Silence”..
    · Third - the …report fails to consider the need for structural reforms…
    · Fourth – the problems in the… disciplinary system are unduly minimized…"

Much of what is stated above is directly applicable to the LA Superior Court, in particular the statement regarding the “Culture of Silence”.

Chemerinsky concludes with a statement that is also applicable here:


  • "No single reform can be sufficient. Reform is not an event, but a process that will take many years to complete…"

in pro per

in LA

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

MOVIE REVIEW: WEB OF DECEPTION (1989)

Some Culture for a Change -
MOVIE REVIEW: WEB OF DECEPTION (1989)



REQUEST FOR A STATEMENT ON THE RECORD

May 14, 2008

Hi [redacted]:

I hope that you accept my request below as reasonable under the circumstances. No offense is intended, and I hope that no offence is perceived.

Given the unusual nature of my case, which involved multiple disqualifications of Los Angeles Superior Court judges and multiple recusals of United States District Court judges, I have recently filed requests with the judges that currently involved in my case, to file Statements on the Record pursuant the amended provision (effective January 1, 2008) of California Code of Judicial Ethics.


Canon 3E(2) says:

  • (2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.


I filed such requests with:

a. The Honorable Terry Friedman, Judge

  • Los Angeles Superior Court

b. The Honorable J Mosk, PJ Turner and J Armstrong, Justices

  • Division 5, Second Appellate District, California Court of Appeal

c. The Honorable C Woehrle and V Phillips, Judges

  • United States District Court, Central District of California

Judge Friedman refuses to comply with this request and other provisions of the law pertaining to disqualification, Judges Mosk, Turner, and Armstrong denied my request, and Judges Woehrle and Phillips have not responded yet.

Given your interest in Jewish observance I have modified the request as follows.

Request:
I ask that you provide a Statement on the Record (written and hand signed, fax is ok) and disclose information (or lack thereof) that is reasonably relevant to the question of Gnevat ha-Da-at under the Code of Jewish Ethics, relative to our professional relationship, even if you believe that there is no actual basis for concern in this regard.

Joseph Zernik

Sunday, May 11, 2008

WHERE IN THE WORLD IS ERWIN CHEMERINSKY?












If you want to figure out LA, you got to figure out the Rampart Scandal, and Bernard Parks, and Chemerinsky

Sara, the old (that means about my age) black lady at Kinko’s, is trying to teach me some commonsense. She told me a few months ago that the two most corrupt cities in the U.S. were Chicago and Los Angeles. The difference, however, she said – was that in Chicago, corruption was sophisticated, in Los Angeles – it was crude…

I told her that it was downright insulting... Everybody and his brother likes to hack down LA as a place with no culture… Now, on top of everything else, our home grown corruption was not sophisticated enough…

I was unprepared for it at all, I must say. My encounters with the law were mostly with individuals that I grew to appreciate or even admire …

Prof Chemerinsky is scheduled to come back to California as the new founding dean of the new law school at Irvine. Before he left USC for Duke, I had the opportunity to meet him a few times. I remember taking the kids years ago to watch moot court, which was one of his classes. He created a case that was both challenging and entertaining, and it played to a full house...

If I remember correctly, it started with a town with home grown crime and gangs.

  • First – the town decided to create a list of gang members or suspects to be maintained by the town’s police.
  • Second – they decided to pass a regulation that those on the list were not allowed to be found standing in public areas in a group of more than two.
  • Third – the town decided to launch a remedial initiative, and create special schools for gang members, and to make them effective, the Department of Education decided to experiment with separate boys girls schools, since teen pregnancy was identified as an aggravating factor in the social context of gangs and crime. The town actually allocated some extra resources to these two schools, and those on the list maintained by the police had priority if they chose to enroll in these schools.

But it so happened that the boys school filled up quickly, whereas the girls school was not that popular…
The end of the story was that a boy who was a self declared gang member, thus eligible for a place at the special school, decided to try to enroll in the girls school, since the boys school was full. When he was turned down, for being a boy, AND a gang-member to top it off, he sued the town for discrimination…

I also remember a reception for Justice Kennedy. His visit included participation in Prof. Chemerinsky constitutional law class. After the small reception, Justice Kennedy gave a lecture. Naturally, I took a seat at the very back, since I knew I was going to fall asleep, and I did not want to appear offensive. But I clearly recall, before falling asleep, I was smiling to myself concluding that the guy was a subversive type…. agent provocateur!

It was the height of the conservative revolution, and the country was in the midst of non-stop bashing of activist judges. Justice Kennedy lectured on a topic that couldn'
t be more boring – the development of tort law in medieval England. But the message was loud and clear – the whole field of Torts was the outcome of judicial activism…

The diagnosis was accurate, I believe, since years later, I recall reading in the newspaper a report about a visit by Justice Kennedy to Congress. The unusual event was necessitated for the periodic request by the justices for congress to award them with a salary increase. But since such visits by Justices to Congress are not very frequent, Justice Kennedy took advantage of the open microphone, and instead of trying to convince the lawmakers of the need for more Gouda for the Justices, he gave them a piece of his mind -- that a situation where the U.S. had the highest percentage the population incarcerated, compared to any other democracy, signaled a need for a fundamental reevaluation of the system. Definitely subversive!!!

Anyway, if you really want to figure out Los Angeles, you got to figure out the Rampart Scandal of 2003, and with it the Bernard Parks, who is not running for office again, and Erwin Chemerinsky, who is finally coming back to Southern California. I realized some time ago that I got to do my homework, and I went back to reading on that year and the Rampart Scandal of 2003. To my surprise, I quickly realized that the definitive paper was of course by Chemerinsky.








And for those readers who suffer from Adult Onset ADHD, like me, here it the long and short of it:

Erwin Chemerinsky
THE RAMPART SCANDAL AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.

1) The Long
"Police officers in the CRASH unit in the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department framed innocent individuals by planting evidence and committing perjury to gain convictions. Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit and were convicted by juries because of the fabricated cases against them. Many individuals were subjected to excessive police force and suffered very serious injuries as a result.

Any analysis of the Rampart Scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states. It occurred in Los Angeles….

… the … report is lacking in the following ways:

  • First – it fails to identify the scope of the problem, and indeed, minimizes its scope and nature.
  • Second, the report fails to recognize that the central problem is the culture of Los Angeles Police Department… the “Code of Silence”..
  • Third - the …report fails to consider the need for structural reforms…
  • Fourth – the problems in the… disciplinary system are unduly minimized…"

2) The short
"No single reform can be sufficient. Reform is not an event, but a process that will take many years to complete…"


Tuesday, May 6, 2008

EARLY PERSPECTIVE ON LOS ANGELES

From the New Republic

http://www.csi.uottawa.ca/~debruijn/qa.txt

Tekst 7
L.A. story

To the editors,

I believe that Harold Meyerson missed the point (` Falling Down,' May 3). What is really missing in Los Angeles is not more or less politics. Rather, it is the foundation politics is based upon---a feeling of Social Contract.

The reason T.V. stations do not broadcast L.A. political news and events is probably that they discovered a complete lack of interest from their audience. And the reason the audience is not interested in L.A. politics is that the voters have reduced their expectations from the state, the county and the city to a minimum. Meyerson gives the indicators himself: flight from the crumbling public school system, increasing reliance on private policing, walling-in and gating of private communities and dismemberment of the welfare system.

Thus, in contrast with other communities in the United States, voters in L.A. do not expect to improve or resurrect these basic functions of government (protection, education, welfare). Instead, in growing numbers they vote for propositions that effectively dismantle the system by eliminating its funding and opt for any possible privately funded substitutes. These feelings were the basis for the tax revolt and Proposition 13, which in itself accelerated the process. These feelings also explain the reason for the expected defeat of the current measure to increase the number of LAPD cops, or the large support for the California school voucher measure, which may deliver the final blow to the public education system. Southern California, with its multicultural and multi-ethnic structure, is not likely to develop a cohesive Social Contract in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is not likely to be pursuing the Swedish Welfare State model, or anything close. Instead, new democratic models may need to be pursued, models that would delegate maximum tax and government responsibilities to reasonable size communities---still the functioning backbone of this area. Interest in politics will follow.

JOSEPH ZERNIK
Beverly Hills, California
`The New Republic', May 31, 1993

Q48 What do `the indicators' (paragraph 2) point to?
A The dwindling interest of the media in L.A. to report on political disputes.
B The growing incompetence of the L.A. authorities in dealing with crime.
C The shrinking faith of the L.A. population in the public services provided.
D The tendency of sections of the community to place themselves outside L.A. law.

Q49 Which of the following ideas is expressed in paragraph 3?
A In L.A. basic social services are being undermined as a result of voters' preferences.
B In L.A. social unrest has clearly led to chaotic governmental policies.
C The social divide in L.A. has now grown beyond the point of hope for improvement.
D Voters in L.A. are only prepared to consider measures which are aimed at the common good.

Q50 What do Mr Zernik's observations in paragraph 4 amount to?
A Decentralisation of power on a local level will set L.A. on the road to recovery. B Problems such as those of L.A. will dissolve if the authorities step up urbanisation.
C The Swedish Welfare State model is too complex to be acceptable for southern California.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

IN PRO PER IN LOS ANGELES: BOOK CLUB READING RECOMMENDATIONS


FOR THE WEEKEND OF MAY 3, 2008 OUR BOOK CLUB READING RECOMMENDATIONS ARE:


1. FILE SYSTEM FORENSIC ANALYSIS


2. DIGITAL EVIDENCE and COMPUTER CRIME



Friday, May 2, 2008

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF SUSTAIN IN WEST DISTRICT- SANTA MONICA.

May 2, 2008

D. Brett Bianco, Court CounselSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles111 North Hill Street, Suite 546Los Angeles, California 90012213.217.4960 facsimilebbianco@lasuperiorcourt.orgBy Email and by fax

URGENT- TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
RE: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – LITIGATION RECORDS
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF SUSTAIN IN WEST DISTRICT- SANTA MONICA.
REQUEST FOR A COPY OF USER’S MANUAL FOR SUSTAIN.

TIMED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY MONDAY, 5:00PM


Mr Bianco:


I am writing to you again to request clarifications regarding the operation of Sustain in West District, Santa Monica, which appears substantially different from the operation of the system in other locations. The questions arising from analysis of the reports are critical to understanding of the records of litigation in “Samaan v Zernik”. Therefore, I request that you provide the required responses by the time indicated.

I would also be grateful if the court could provide a user’s manual, FOR PAY, so that I could continue my study of such records independently.
Here are preliminary questions that require urgent response:


a. Does the LA Superior Court hold that Sustain, as operated in West District, Santa Monica, complies with California Rules of Court, Chapter 2: Public Access to Electronic File Records?

b. Does the LA Superior Court hold that rules of court implemented in Sustain, as operated in West District, Santa Monica, are all part of the written and published California Rules of Court and Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court?

c. Regarding “Oral Rules of Court” that do not appear in either California Rules of Court or Los Angeles Country Local Rules of Court, such as “Sustain data are privileged – for the Court Only”:
  • 1. Does the LA Superior Court hold that such rules comply with the US Rule Enabling Act 28 USC §2071 ?
  • US Rule Enabling Act 28 USC §2071(b) says:
  • (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.

    (d) Copies of rules prescribed under subsection (a) by a district court shall be furnished to the judicial council, and copies of all rules prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall be furnished to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and made available to the public.
    (e) If the prescribing court determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment, but such court shall promptly thereafter afford such notice and opportunity for comment.
  • 2. Were Rules of Court involved in the operation of Sustain in Santa Monica ever published?
  • 3. Were such rules prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment?


d. Regarding Rules of Court implemented in the operation of Sustain in Santa Monica, such as:

  • The assignment of date of “00/00/00” to a document , an order, or a ruling; and
  • The assignment of date of “33/33/33” to a document , an order, or a ruling

    1. Who holds the authority to rule that a paper filed with the court would be at a later time designated as dated “00/00/00” or “33/33/33”?
  • 2. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court are such determinations made?

  • 3. How is the Due Process requirement for “Notice” implemented relative to such determinations or rulings?

e. Regarding the input of “Events” that require adjudication in Sustain:


  • 1. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is it determined how many independent events requiring adjudication may be scheduled simultaneously under one calendar event?

  • 2. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is the “Completion” of such Events, and the recordation of the outcome of adjudication implemented for such independent events requiring adjudication that were scheduled simultaneously under one calendar event

  • 3. Who holds the authority to rule that a paper filed with the court would be designated as generating an “Event” versus generating just a “Document Filed”?

  • 4. Pursuant to what code section or Rule of Court are such determinations made?

  • 5. How is the Due Process requirement for “Notice” implemented relative to such determinations or rulings?

f. Relative to financial transactions implemented in Sustain:


  • 1. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is it determined which papers require a fee of $40.00, and how is the fee itself determined?

  • 2. Is there a periodic audit of financial transactions I Sustain? By whom?

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated!

Joseph Zernik



CC:
Ms Avelina Richardson, Clerk’s Office Supervisor
Mr Frank Klunder, IT Department Director