Thursday, August 27, 2009

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

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

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

TO:

1) SEC (by email)

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

Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by David Rosenfeld

2) BAC (by email)

Defendant: Bank of America Corporation represented by Shawn Joseph Chen

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

CC:

1) FBI [1] (by fax)

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

3) Basel Committee [3]

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

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

Please take notice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

...


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

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

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

...

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




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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

BoA - Doing the Right Thing...



Timely response requested, by Tuesday, September 8, 2009

RE: Alleged material violations of the law by CFC, and later Bryan Cave under
the name of BoA in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA Superior Court*

Dear Officer, Director, or Independent Auditor:

This letter is addressed to you as one of the individuals who hold the duty to
safeguard the integrity of operations at BoA. Integrity of operations of U.S. financial
institutions today are more important than ever before. However, the past two years
generated challenges to the integrity of operations the like of which have never been
encountered by BoA before.

It is exactly for that reason that it is critical for BoA “to do the right thing”. Requests
that are elaborated in the attached papers, are elementary, but they make a clear
distinction between right and wrong. During the past two years, in Los Angeles,
deceitful court proceedings were conducted, which were initiated by CFC, but
lingered under the BoA name, where Bryan Cave, LLP continued to appear,
claiming to be counsel of record for BoA, which it was not. It also falsely selfdesignated
as “Non Party” for the past 2 years – while the court interchangeably
designated it “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Intervenor”, “Real Party in Interest” and other
designations, with no legal foundation at all.

Request is that BoA respect the rights of the residents of LA County, CA, and that it
prohibit conduct in LA that it would never have allowed in Charlotte, NC, since it
violated both the BoA Code of Ethics1 and the BoA Outside Counsel Procedures. 2
Otherwise, it is requested that BoA state who is assigned to communicate with Dr
Zernik on this matter, and have the Audit Committee review the CFC involvement in
this case, claimed to have been material violation of the law: It directly involved
Mozilo and Samuels and the CFC Legal Department. It is alleged to have involved
the production of hundreds of pages of false banking records, a full set of false
declarations and the fabrication of loan underwriting histories. Such efforts were all
for the cause of perpetrating real estate fraud on Dr Joseph Zernik, who had no
business with CFC whatsoever.

This letter is also copied to others who concern themselves with the integrity of BoA
during these trying times, from analysts, to the Basel Committee, the NY District
Court, U.S. Congressional Committees, and last but not least - the Charlotte
Observer.

Trusting that you “do the right thing”,



___/s/______
Joseph Zernik
1 http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-00_09-08-22-bac_code-of-ethics-cover-text-a.pdf
2 http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-08-12-20-outside-counsel-procedures-s.pdf


A copy of the complete letter can be viewed at:

Thursday, August 20, 2009

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

U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, followed the example of LA Superior Court - and repeatedly denied Party's right to access court records - to inspect and to copy. Calling upon U.S. Congress to carefully monitor the appointment of new U.S. Attorney, Central District of California and new Head, FBI office, Los Angeles.
Executive Summary
Correspondence copied below documents ongoing denial of access to court records in the past month by the office of the Clerk/Executive of the U.S. District Court, LA, Terry Nafisi. The records that are the subject of the requests for access are the digital signatures that are the attestation/authentication of court records in CM/ECF - one of the dual docketing systems (the other one being Pacer) by now practically fully implemented at the U.S District Courts and U.S. Courts of Appeals. Such dual docketing systems are separate and unequal, and are used by the U.S. courts to segregate parties in violation of Human Rights pursuant to ratified International Law. it is incomprehensible what justification that is even remotely related to furtherance of justice could be found for the expenditure of precious resources to establish such travesty of due process. As discussed below, it is suspected that such dual docketing systems enabled additional alleged criminality and abuse relative to the conduct of captions Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914), which were suspected to have been invalidated most likely from day one, yet involved the engagement of parties in sham court actions at the U.S. District Court- LA. In both cases, the subject matter of the complaints was allegations of severe abuse of Civil Rights under the Color of Law by State of California judges in Los Angeles. It is alleged that the U.S. District Court, LA, in an attempt to cover-up alleged criminality of LA Superior Court judges, inflicted on Plaintiffs additional severe violation of Human Rights. Both captions were most likely invalidated as U.S. Court cases from day one. And the denial of access to records of attestation/ authentication was most likely an attempt by the Clerk of the U.S District Court, LA, Terry Nafisi, to cover-up such suspected criminality by U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle and various staff members of the Clerk's office. Of note, complaints were filed with FBI Los Angeles office regarding the conduct of Zernik v Connor et al at the U.S. District Court already in mid 2008, but there was no indication of any follow up by FBI on the matter.
Almost identical alleged criminality was noted in recent weeks by the Court of Judge Richard J Leon and Clerk of the Court Mr David Scott, U.S Court, Washington DC, in relationship to caption of Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805).
The common features of all three captions listed above - they all stem from what is alleged to be widespread criminality that amounts to alleged racketeering by judges of the LA Superior Court. Furthermore, the conduct of such captions at the U.S. Courts in all three cases represents the alleged collusion and cover-up of such criminality by U.S. Courts and senior officers of U.S Department of Justice and FBI.

U.S. Congress is called upon:
  • To carefully monitor the appointment of the new U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California and the new Head of FBI Office, Los Angeles. The remarkable turnaround at CIA should be the guiding example. FBI must become part of the solution, not part of the problem.
  • To press for enforcement of the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC § 2071-7 on all case management systems at the U.S. Courts - since such systems are large aggregates of Rules of Courts in programming languages, yet Rules of Courts they are nevertheless.
  • To press for enforcement of Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) - the right to access court records To Inspect & To Copy - on all court records in such computerized systems.
  • To immediately secure enforcement of public access to court records in LA County, California, through the appointment of a Special Counsel, as proposed below, or through any other feasible method within the law.
Conditions in Los Angeles County, California, amount to Human Rights abuse of historic proportions by the U.S. Government in violation of ratified International Law.

The U.S. Constitution, Art.IV §I declares:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
By the U.S. Congress Act of May 26, 1790, it is provided,
That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records are, or shall be taken.
It looks more and more likely by the hour, that the U.S. District Court LA engaged in alleged criminality in both Zernik v Connor et al and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County, and that the essence of such alleged criminality was in the issuance of ineffectual court records, but concealing the fact that such records were ineffectual by: First -- during litigations - through failure to notice and serve the attestations on Pro Se Plaintiffs, Joseph Zernik and Richard Fine, respectively, who were excluded from access to CM/ECF. Second, now- through denial of access to the attestations, as a lame attempt to cover up such alleged criminality.

Such alleged criminality had to involve a large group of judges, clerks, and attorneys, and it was enabled by the dual docketing systems created by the U.S. Courts - Pacer, and CM/ECF, separate and unequal, and the segregation of parties into such systems by the U.S. Courts.

Conditions reflected in the denial of access to court records to party in litigation, first demonstrated in recent weeks in LA Superior Court, and now at the U.S. District Court, LA, evidence the regression of LA County Courts (at a time that the LAPD has shown substantial progress in compliance) to what may be comparable to early post-medieval period as far as court integrity and compliance with Due Process. In parallel, it widespread criminality at the courts is alleged. The Common Law right to access such records, the public record status of court records, as well as the segregation of authorities of the judicial and ministerial arms of the court - all of which were basic safeguards for the integrity of the courts, found their origin at that historic period. And such basic safeguards are now directly undermined by the courts.

Such regression of the courts was enabled by the introduction of computerized case management systems in the courts, with no public oversight, and the deliberate failure by the courts to recognize that such systems had to be treated as Rules of Court, and their installation had to involve compliance with the Rule Making Enabling law, State, or Federal, respectively. Likewise, the courts had to recognize that court records in such systems were subject to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), where the U.S Supreme Court re-affirmed the right to access court records to inspect and to copy, as anchored in Common Law right that is older than the U.S. Constitution, in First, Sixth, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments rights.

One should also note that such conditions were allowed to evolve with the full knowledge of senior U.S. Department of Justice officers under the Bush administration. Request was filed over a year ago - for the appointment of a Special Counsel, pursuant to 28 CFR 600, with a short-term, limited and well circumscribed mandate - to secure public access to public court records at the LA County Courts, to investigate and if necessary prosecute those who abuse the Civil and Human Rights of the 10 million residents of LA County by denying such access to court records. It was recommended that FBI NOT be relied upon in any such actions, and that units from Dept of Treasury, which captured the computers of failing banks, be relied upon instead. It was estimated that the critical phase of such operation could last overnight, or at most over a weekend, and that public access could be secured, from court locations terminals only, within 1-2 weeks, and with that - bringing to fruition the core mandate of such Special Counsel. It was also recommended that in parallel - "Truth and Reconciliation Commissions" be instituted, since such records are likely to expose widespread criminality of the judiciary in LA County.

U.S. Department of Justice failed to respond.

When inquiries were issued by U.S. Congress - the Honorable Diane Feinstein and Dianne Watson on my behalf, senior U.S. Officers of the U.S Department of Justice, who are Kenneth Kaiser and Kenneth Melson, issued responses that must be deemed upon review fraud and criminality by senior U.S. Officers of the Justice Department.

Therefore on May 1, 2009, complaint was filed in U.S. Court, Washington DC "to compel U.S. Officers to perform their duties". Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) was initially assigned to Judge Richard J Leon, but request for disqualification was immediately filed, based on service of the judge as minority counsel on related issue that is discussed in the complaint.. The handling of Zernik v Melson et al by Judge Richard J Leon and Clerk of U.S Court DC, Mr David Scott, was almost exact repeat of the conduct of Magistrate Carla Woehrle at the U.S. District Court , Los Angeles - severe abuse and alleged perversion of justice and denial of access to the court, to fair trial, and denial of the right to file papers in court.

Most recently - request was filed for access to authentication records of the U.S. Court, Washington DC. No response was received so far. The handling of caption Zernik v Melson et al at the U.S. Court, Washington DC deserves its own negotiation by the Public Integrity Unit of the Justice Department.

Notice must be taken of the fact that the appointment of Mr Leon Panetta led to what appeared as expedient turn around at CIA in re: compliance and truthfulness in reporting to U.S. Congress. Implementing similar measures at FBI and U.S. Department of Justice is long overdue. Yesterday, August 19, 2009, news was released that Salvador Hernandez, who headed the FBI's Los Angeles office, was retiring to take a job in the private sector, and the office of U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Californa is already vacant.

Therefore, U.S. Congress is called upon:
  • To carefully monitor the appointment of the new head of FBI Office, Los Angeles. The remarkable turnaround at CIA should be the guiding example. FBI must become part of the solution, not part of the problem.
  • To press for enforcement of Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC § 2071-7 on all case management systems of the U.S. Courts - since such systems are large aggregates of Rules of Courts in programming languages, yet Rules of Courts they are nevertheless.
  • To press for enforcement of Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) - the right to access court records to inspect and to copy - on court records in such computerized systems.
  • To immediately secure public access to court records in LA County, California, through the appointment of a Special Counsel, as proposed below, or through any other feasible method within the law.
Conditions in Los Angeles County, California, amount to severe violations of Human Rights by the U.S. Government, of historic proportions, in violation of ratified International Law.

Joseph Zernik
-------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Dr Zernik's 4th request for access to court record To Inspect & To Copy

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:36:54 -0700
To: terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
From: joseph zernik
Subject: U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, followed the example of LA Superior Court - and repeatedly denied Party's right to access court records - to inspect and to copy.
Cc: Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov, Danalyn_Castellanos@cacd.uscourts.gov, Dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov

August 19, 2009

Terry Nafisi
Clerk of the Court/Executive
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles

Dear Clerk Nafisi:

It is now close to a month since my first phone inquiries with the office of the Clerk/Executive, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, as part of my ongoing efforts to access my own litigation records, to inspect and to copy. It is now 20 days since my first recorded written request was forwarded to you in the same matter. As shown below, you so far failed to respond to my requests, and staff of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, attempted to deny my rights to access such records to inspect and to copy, on various false grounds.

The writer of the most recent response from U.S. Courts, California Central District, Dawn Bullock, like Ms Danlyn Castellanos before her, responded to messages addressed to you, but failed to state that she did so with your authorization. Moreover, Ms Bullock's position title failed to include the ministerial "Clerk" in it, and she also failed to visibly copy you on her response.

Needless to say, I find such combination of facts of concern, particularly on the background of complaint I filed recently with you, regarding conduct of Ms Donna Thomas at the Chamber of Magistrate Carla Woehrle. I believe that Ms Thomas was not a Deputy Clerk, and that she engaged in various transactions on U.S. District Court records that she was not authorized to engage in, and that such transactions were likely upon review to be deemed as part of efforts to obstruct and pervert justice in Zernik v Connor et al and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County.

Both cases involved allegations of widespread corruption of LA Superior Court judges, both involved allegations of severe abuse of civil and human rights by the judges of the LA Superior Court, and both were allegedly perverted at the court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle.

Therefore, I would not directly address the message below, dated August 19, 2009, from Ms Bullock, unless I am re-assured that such communication and the ones from Danalyn Castellanos before it, were forwarded to me with your authorization and reflected your positions on the matters at hand.

In case the opinions which were expressed by Ms Dawn Bullock indeed reflected your position on my request to access U.S. District Court records - to inspect and to copy, I request that you provide authorities, since the opinions expressed in Ms Bullock's note on their face were false, legally invalid, and defied reason.

Furthermore, if communications below were authorized by you, I request that you also provide a brief, simple language explanation for the following three questions:

1) Why was I denied service of such court records in Zernik v Connor et al, during litigation, when all other parties were served such records?

2) What reason(s) could lead the Executive/Clerk of U.S. District Court to deny today my right to access - to inspect and to copy - the digital authentication/endorsement by the Clerk of the Court of records of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-015550), purportedly a court litigation where I was named Plaintiff? Could any such reason(s) be even remotely related to administration justice in compliance with the law? Could any such reason(s) be even remotely related the furtherance of justice?

3) In case the responses from Ms Bullocks and Ms Castellanos, copied below, were indeed authorized by you:
Please provide a reasonable explanation why I would have been allowed access to the requested records, had I agreed to skip my right to inspect, and agreed instead to rely on your good offices to produce copies, but my right to access the records would be denied if I insist on my right to inspect the records before accepting copies produced by the court, but now am told I would be denied access to the same records, after I insisted on my right to inspect, prior to accepting copies produced by your good offices.

I expect a response by 5:00 pm today, Thursday, that would allow me to access the records tomorrow, Friday, August 21, 2009. As stated before, the denial of access to the requested court records may be deemed abuse of Common Law right to access such records, as well as abuse of the right to access such records as part of First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as re-affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).

Thanks for your timely care of the matter.

Joseph Zernik

My previous requests:

6) U.S. Court response to 3rd request to access court records To Inspect & To Copy
At 10:36 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote:
Mr. Zernik,
Anyone has access to the public records between the hours of 10 and 4.
Both of the below cases were filed electronically so there are no paper documents and you can use the public terminals located in the Records Department to view these files. All documents filed in the case are available. You do not need to make an appointment and you do not need to inform anyone of when you are coming in. Anyone may come to the Records Department and use the public terminal to view a case file. There is no fee to view these Records. If you would like copies of anything you may either purchase regular copies from our copy service or certified copies from the Records Department.
What needs to be researched is the NEF because the NEF is not part of the case file itself. Also, in your letters you raise more issues than just viewing the record.
Dawn Bullock
Records Supervisor

5) Dr Zernik's 3rd request for access to court records To Inspect & To Copy
joseph zernik
To: terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
08/19/2009 10:22 AM
cc Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov

Subject Request by party to access his own
litigation records, which the
court failed to ever notice him of
- to inspect and to copy.

August 19, 2009

Terry Nafisi
Clerk of the Court/Executive
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles

Dear Clerk Nafisi:

Let me try to simplify the request. I am not asking your office to
research anything at all.

I am asking the office of the Clerk of the Court to allow me access to
public records that are my own litigation records. Our correspondence
shows that on July 31, 2009 I made my first request to access my own
litigation records at the U.S. District Court, LA in Zernik v Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550), where I am named Plaintiff, as they appear in CM/ECF
docket. By law, I am permitted to appear anytime during business hours at
the Office of the Clerk, and request to see such records, and the Office of
the Clerk is required to allow me such access.

I would like to believe that my right to inspect such records is not
doubted by your office. Please advise me if I am wrong in such belief.

Once I see the records, I will decide if I would like to obtain copies, and
I will pay accordingly.

Do I have to pay to exercise my right to inspect my own court records which
the court failed to notice or serve me, while noticing and serving all
other parties? Please cite authorities for fees for such inspection by
party of his own litigation records.

If I came to the clerk's office during business hours, and asked to see the
paper court file of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), would I have to
pay $26.00 first as well?

Similarly, in Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) the
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit accepted my request for being designated
party in interest. Therefore, the same logic applies.

Please be advised that I intend to appear on Friday, August 21, 2009 during
business hours, and request to access the records listed above and in
previous communications, to inspect and to copy. Please let me know if
there is any particular preferred time for addressing such request by your
office.

Any further delays in allowing me access to my own litigation records would
likely be deemed as violation of my rights.

Joseph Zernik


CC: Att Richard Fine

4) U.S. Court response to 2nd request to access records To Inspect & To Copy
At 08:30 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote:
Dear Joseph:

The NEF copy quote that was provided to you below were for the case
numbers that you had provided on your July 18th request. However, for
information about Nixon v. Warner Communication, we need a U.S. District
case number to further research your request. Please provide me with a
case number. Otherwise, please be advised that a non-refundable processing
fee of $26.00 per case, name, or item researched is required before we can
complete your request.

The above quoted rates are established pursuant to Title 26, Section 1914
of the United States Code. Please make remittance in the form of a
cashierâs check, certified bank check, business ss or corporate check, or a
money order drawn on a major American bank or the United States Postal
Service, payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court." Personal checks or checks
drawn on non-business accounts will not be accepted.

Forward a self-addressed stamped envelope of sufficient size to hold the
request and a copy of this e-mail to the attention of: Correspondence
Clerk, Western Division, 312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8, L.A. CA 90012.

Thank you,
Correspondence Clerk


3) Dr Zernik's 2nd request to access court records To Inspect & To Copy
joseph zernik
To terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
08/18/2009 09:22 PM
cc Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov,
Subject Re: NEF Requests

Attached please find second request to access court records to inspect and
to copy, per Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
(See attached file: 09-08-18-second-request-nafisi-us-dist-ct-la-access-court-records-s,pdf.pdf)


2) Response by U.S. District Court to request for access to records.
At 02:24 PM 8/18/2009, you wrote:

Dear Mr. Zernik:
We received your correspondence request dated July 31, 2009 for NEF
copies of case numbers 2:08CV01550 Zernik v. Connor and 2:09CV01914. Please
see quotes below to further complete your correspondence request.

The cost of service requested is $53.50. This reflects the following:
2:08CV01550 Photocopies numbering 107 pages at a cost of $0.50 per page (total:
$53.50).

The cost of service requested is $24.50. This reflects the following:
2:09CV01914 Photocopies numbering 49 pages at a cost of $0.50 per page (total:
$24.50).

The above quoted rates are established pursuant to Title 26, Section
1914 of the United States Code. Please make remittance in the form of a
cashierâs check, cercertified bank check, business or corporate check,
or a money order drawn on a major American bank or the United States
Postal Service, payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court." Personal checks or
checks drawn on non-business accounts will not be accepted.

Forward a self-addressed stamped envelope of sufficient size to hold
the request and a copy of this e-mail to the attention of: Correspondence
Clerk, Western Division, 312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8, L.A. CA
90012.

Thank you,
Correspondence Clerk

Monday, August 17, 2009

Conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, in its online dockets, is likely to be deemed false and deliberately misleading

August 17, 2009

Hi Chris:

Thanks for pointing out to me the latest posting by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in re: the falsely jailed Att Richard Fine [i] However, I would like to caution you regarding reliance on any records of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit that may be posted by the Court in the Courts online dockets, since many of such records should be deemed false and deliberately misleading.

For additional details please see below my attempt to review the reasons that led me to the conclusion that the conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, upon review by a competent international court of jurisdiction, may be deemed as severe abuse of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified international law. Moreover - such conduct may be deemed as intended to cover up alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.

Joseph Zernik


Conduct by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, in its online dockets, is likely to be deemed false and deliberately misleading and severe violation of Human Rights, moreover - intended to cover-up alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.

1. THE ONLINE DOCKETS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, ARE REPLETE WITH INVALID RECORDS OF SHAM COURT ACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PREVIOUS ACTION UNDER: FINE V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (09-71692), AND ZERNIK V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (08-72714).

The U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit may indeed have given Att Fine this time around permission to engage in an authentic procedure. However, such conclusion could not be reached by direct reliance on the online paper. There were two indirect indicators of the intent to run an authentic procedure:
a) The Court set up a schedule, and
b) The Court demanded that Att Fine pay the filing fee or file a request to file in forma pauperis.
In the previous round, in the Emergency Petition under Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692). the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit engaged in the opposite conduct. The petition was posted in the online docket in a manner that most readers would consider it as a valid petition that was going to be reviewed by the court. However:
a) The Court never set a schedule, and
b) The Court sent Att Fine an immediate refund of the filing fee.
Such conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District, was self-contradictory, vague and ambiguous. Later, in the same case, the Court engaged Att Fine in a sham court action. Accordingly I filed a request to file papers as Party in Interest in sham court action,[ii] which was indeed posted on the sham docket of Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692).

2. IN BOTH FINE V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (09-71692), AND ZERNIK V U.S. DISTRICT COURT, LA (08-72714) THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, ISSUES AND POSTED ONLINE SHAM COURT ORDERS.

Such sham court action in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA came to their appropriate conclusion, with two sham June 30, 2009 Orders by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
a) The first of the two orders remained concealed from public view. [iii]
b) The second of the two orders, should be deemed a false and deliberately misleading court record, [iv] possibly even mail fraud. It was posted in the online docket, and it was also mailed by USPS to parties, including Party in Interest Joseph Zernik
Such order carried a blue header stamp:
Case: 09-71692 06/30/2009 Page: 1 of 2 DktEntry: 6974360"
Such order also displayed a stamp of the U.S. Court of Appeals, dated June 30, 2009:
FILED
JUN 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
However, such stamp failed to be endorsed by a hand signature of the clerk.
Such order was pronounced in the names of:
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
However, neither the copy online, nor the copies received by mail carried any hand signature of any of the three honorable justices, or even a stamp of any of them.
The docketing text that accompanied such order stated:
06/30/2009 4 Order filed (ALEX KOZINSKI, RICHARD A. PAEZ and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) The court is in receipt of petitioners original petition...
Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). The petition is denied. [6974360] (KKW)
Such docketing text failed to make the critical statements that the Petition was ever filed or entered, it was only "received" - since the "Court is in receipt of the petition".
Moreover, such docketing text failed to make the critical statement that the June 30, 2009 Order itself was ever entered. Instead, it stated only "Order filed".
Furthermore, if one compared such docket to a similar docket, in Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA (08-72714), one could find the docketing text of an additional similar order - denying received but not entered Emergency Petitions which was by far more explicit: [v]
06/25/2008 3 Order filed (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON and MILAN D. SMITH, JR.) Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977).
...
No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order shall be filed or entertained. [Denied; Terminated on the merits after submissions without oral hearing; Written, reasoned, unsigned, unpublished;]
Yet another docket, of an appeal in Haddick v US Dist Ct LA (97-50090), should be seen as instructive regarding such conduct by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.. [vi]
In Haddick v US Dist Ct LA the docketing text stated:
07/14/1999 27 FILED MEMORANDUM OPINION: DISMISSED (Terminated on the Merits after Submission Without Oral Hearing; Dismissed/Frivolous; Written, Unsigned, Unpublished. Jerome FARRIS; Michael D. HAWKINS, author; Susan P. GRABER. ) FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [97-50090] (SW)
Most reasonable persons would surely wonder what the nature was of such papers, which were represented by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, as Court Orders and/or Judgments, were included in the online dockets, but were "written, reasoned, unsigned, unpublished".

3. ALREADY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE IV, I, AND U.S. CONGRESS IN ACT OF MAY 26, 1790 CONCERNED THEMSELVES WITH DEFINING THE AUTHENTICITY OF COURT PAPERS. [vii]

The question what was or what was not an authentic court paper, was a fundamental one, since court orders and judgments were the law of the land. Civilized societies, going back several thousand years attempted to document the law in written authentic records.
Accordingly, already the U.S. Constitution in Article IV, I says:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
And U.S. Congress, in Act of May 26, 1790 states:
That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records are, or shall be taken.
4. JUDGING BY BASIC ELEMENTS OF AUTHENTICATION, THE PAPERS AT HAND, GENERATED AND PUBLISHED BY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, ON ITS ONLINE DOCKETS, WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED COURT RECORDS.

The record at hand are not by any of the several states, but by a U.S. Court. Regardless, one may conclude that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, busied itself in constructing an online docket, and in issuing papers that were published on such docket, which lacked the basic elements of authenticated court papers certification by a judge and attestation by a clerk.

5. THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, IMPLEMENTED A VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS ONLINE DOCKET SYSTEM.

There is no way to make any clear conclusions regarding the nature of such papers as you pointed out to me. which originated from the online docket of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th District regarding its dockets must be deemed vague and ambiguous hence - severe abuse of Civil Rights for Due Process and Human Rights for Fair Tribunals and Fair Trial. The court must not conduct its business in the style of the Oracle of Delphi.

6. THE U.S. COURTS, INCLUDING THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, IN PACER AND IN CM/ECF, IMPLEMENTED DUAL DOCKETING SYSTEMS, WHICH WERE SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL, WHERE PARTIES WERE SEGREGATED, AND WHERE ATTESTATIONS BY CLERKS WERE CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. SUCH CONDUCT AND SUCH SYSTEMS ARE LIKELY TO BE DEEMED FRAUDULENT UPON REVIEW.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, has recently completed the implementation of CM/EFC, in parallel to Pacer, and with that it joined other U.S. Courts in practices that are likely to be deemed upon review as fraudulent.
The authentication of court records in the system is founded today on attestations by the clerks that are implemented as digital signatures. Such attestations are displayed in records as long strings of alphanumeric characters that are encrypted digital signatures of the clerks of the courts. Such digital signatures are typically displayed as part of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEFs).[viii]
Accordingly, requests dated July 28, 2009, were filed with the U.S. Court Appeals, 9th Circuit, for an order to serve on parties the NEFs in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-71692) [ix], and also in Zernik v U.S District Court, LA (08-72714) [x] No response whatsoever was received so far.

7. THE CONDUCT OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, RELATIVE TO ITS ONLINE DOCKETS, ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE CONDUCT OF A COURT THAT OPERATED WITH NO ADEQUATE, PUBLISHED RULES OF COURT.

U.S. Court are required to operate by such published Rules of Court pursuant to the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC 2071 2077.
The Rule Making Act 28 USC 2071 states:
Rule-making power generally
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.
(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.

Overall, the online docket of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit provided ample evidence of a court that operated with no adequate published Rules of Court, including, but not limited to the following concerns:
a) In and of itself the inexplicable common practice in the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, of concealing its records from the public in various ways, failed to be founded in any law or published Rules of Court, and appeared arbitrary and contradictory to basic notions of Due Process and the operations of an honest court.
b) The inexplicable common practice in the dockets of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, of publishing unauthenticated records, which are most likely invalid false and misleading records, could never be founded in any published Rules of Court.
c) The latest court action by Att Richard Fine in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA was designated the number (09-56073). However, the previous action of Att Richard Fine in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA was designated the number (09-71692). It was inexplicable what Rules of Court were the basis for strange numbering practice of court actions at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
In contrast, the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79 says:
Rule 79 (LII 2007 ed.). Records Kept by the Clerk
(a) Civil Docket.
(1) In General.
The clerk must keep a record known as the civil docket in the
form and manner prescribed by the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial
Conference of the United States. The clerk must enter each civil action in the docket. Actions must be assigned consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket where the first entry of the action is made.
d) The court implemented in Pacer and CM/ECF dual docketing systems, separate and unequal, where the parties are segregated. Through such conduct the public at large was denied the right to view attestations by the clerks that were the foundation for authentication of court records. Such practice may be deemed fraudulent upon review.
Combined, such conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, as described above, demonstrated the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, like other U.S. courts, was a court that was operating with no published Rules of Courts pertaining to one of the most critical aspects of the operations of any court - maintenance of court records.

8. FOR ALL THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE CONDUCT OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 9th CIRCUIT, UPON REVIEW BY A COMPETENT INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JURISDICTION, MAY BE DEEMED AS SEVERE ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS RATIFIED INTERNATIONAL LAW. MOREOVER SUCH CONDUCT MAY BE DEEMED INTENDED TO COVER UP ALLEGED WIDESPREAD CRIMINALITY AT THE LA SUPERIOR COURT.
Upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is likely to be found as severe violation of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified International Law.
The fact that the U.S. District Court engaged in such dishonest manipulations were of particular concern, since in Fine v U.S. District Court LA, underlying matter was false imprisonment of civil rights activist, Att Richard Fine, now a political prisoner, base on purported March 4, 2009 Judgment by the LA Superior Court in and of itself a court record that bears false and deliberately misleading certification by Judge David Yaffe. Similarly, in Zernik v U.S. District Court LA, underlying matter was wrongful displacement of a person from his home under the threat of force, and the subsequent taking of a persons property for private use with no compensation at all. Such actions that were matters underling Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA were based on purported August 9, 2007 Judgment by the LA Superior Court in and of itself false and deliberately misleading record by Judge Jacqueline Connor.
One must also recall Judge Jacqueline Connors performance in derailing the first Rampart Trial (2000).[xi] Such conduct of the LA Superior Court resulted in the ongoing false confinement of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) a decade after the investigation into the corruption scandal was concluded.[xii]
In sum: Conduct of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is likely to be viewed as severe violation of human rights in and of itself. Moreover such conduct may be deemed as intended to provide cover-up for alleged widespread criminality at the LA Superior Court.


[i] At 10:40 AM 8/16/2009, you wrote:
Look what I found:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18502225/9thCircuitCOAGranted081209
[ii] Request to File papers as Party in Interest in Sham Court Action, filed 6/129/09, listed as "served 06/19/09", Dkt #2:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-a-docket-09-06-30-2.pdf
[iii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-03-order-denying-s.pdf
[iv] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-doc-04-order-denying-s.pdf
[v] Docket of Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA (08-72714):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor-a-docket-08-06-27-s.pdf
[vi] Docket of Haddick v US Dist Ct LA (97-50090):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-haddicks-v-us-dist-ct-la-97-50090-docket.pdf
[vii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-us-_authentication_%20defined-&-explained.pdf
[viii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-nef-w-digital-sig-louisiana.pdf
[ix] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la-09-71692-09-07-28-request-nefs-s.pdf
[x] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor_09-07-28-req-nefs-s.pdf
[xi] On December 22, 2000, Judge Jacqueline Connor reversed jury conviction of 3 LAPD police prosecuted following the Rampart corruption scandal investigation:
http://inproperinla.com/00-11-17-la-times-on-rampart-connor.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-23-rampart-verdicts-voided-los-angeles-times.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-los-angeles-judge-overturns-convictions-of--police-in-scandal-nyt.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-the-judge-s-decision-los-angeles-times.pdf
[xii] http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Requests for Interventions by U.S. & Cal Attorneys General, and Motions for Mistrial in Sturgeon v LA County

WHAT'S NEW?

1) Requests filed for Interventions and investigations by U.S. and California Attorneys General

Sturgeon v LA County (
BC351286) was a litigation of high public policy significance. It involved payments by LA County to ALL LA Superior Court judges, for over a decade, over $45,000 per judge per year, which were ruled in October 2008 by California Court of Appeals, 4th District as "not permitted" and were labeled by media as "bribes", and which involved criminal liability for ALL LA Superior Court judges.

Requests for interventions in said litigation were filed with the U.S. and California Attorneys General - on constitutional questions. The questions at hand involved the largest Superior Court in the U.S., serving more that 10 million residents of LA County, California, which in the past 25 years, operated with published Rules of Court that had no relationship to reality, and effective Rules of Court that were unpublished, and were concealed from the public. Such constitutional questions were particularly notable relative to the Rules of Court of the LA Superior Court regarding the Entry of Judgment. There was no way to know if and when judgments were entered in Sturgeon v LA County, if any.

Requests for investigations were filed with the U.S. and California Attorneys General - of alleged criminality of the LA Superior Court relative to alleged fraud in entry of judgments as seen in three other cases: First - relative to jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (
BS109420), and second and third relative to the taking of real estate properties in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) and Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). Such alleged criminality involved in all three cases Judge David Yaffe, directly , or through the Department of Writs and Receivers, which he managed. The latter two cases directly involved alleged criminality by Judge John Segal and by Att David Pasternak, and the last case also directly involved alleged criminality by Judges Terry Friedman and Jacqueline Connor.

2) Motions were filed for Mistrial/To Vacate Judgments and Orders

Motions for Mistrial, alternatively - to Vacate Judgments and Orders were filed. The basis for Mistrial was Misconduct by the Court, which doubles as Intervenor in the case, and who engaged in - (1) The running of litigation with secret Rules of Court, as detailed above, (2) The denial of access to litigation records, in apparent violation of Nixon v Warner Communication, Inc (1978), (3) The use of apparent fraud to excuse the denial of access to litigation records - claiming that online published records were the Register of Actions of such litigation, and (4) The ambiguation of litigation records to the point of meaninglessness.

Intervenor, the LA Superior Court, generated and kept secret records of the litigation, and in parallel published online false and deliberately misleading records of such litigation. Among numerous discrepancies in such litigation records the following were noted:

1) In Sturgeon v LA County, Justice James A Richman claimed to preside, signing his papers as "Sitting by Assignment as Judge of the LA Superior Court", but Intervenor, the LA Superior Court, routinely referred to him as "Not an Assignment".
2) Intervenor failed to included in purported litigation records that were published online the rulings and opinions of the 4th District court of Appeals, San Diego, and there was no reason to believe that Intervenor deemed such rulings and opinions as effectual litigation records.
3) Intervenor failed to included in purported litigation records that were published online the rulings and judgments of Justice Richard A Richman of the 1st District Court of Appeals, San Francisco, and there was no reason to believe that Intervenor deemed such rulings and judgments as effectual litigation records.
4) Intervenor falsely listed various proceedings and rulings by Justice James A Richman as by another judge altogether.

BACKGROUND

1) LA Superior Court is allegedly controlled by a cult of criminality.

The requests for interventions and investigations claimed that the LA Superior Court was controlled by a cult of criminality, with full knowledge of law enforcement agencies, which were not ready, willing, or able to address the problem. It was claimed that such conditions of the justice system in LA County led to the ongoing false incarceration of the thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) almost exclusively black and Latinos, a decade after the investigation into the Rampart corruption scandal. The false incarceration of the Rampart-FIPs was claimed to be directly related to criminality by Judge Jacqueline Connor.

Conditions of the justice system in LA County were claimed to be in severe violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified International Law.

2) Demand for corrective actions by the U.S. Government

We who live in LA County expect and demand that the U.S. Government free us from the tyranny by the cult of criminality at the LA Superior court, accord us Equal Protection under the law, and establish Fair Tribunals, all pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified International Law.

FILING RECEIPT:









PAPERS FILED IN COURT CAN BE VIEWED AT:
http://inproperinla.com/

Under:

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

LA Superior Court issues alleged fraudulent statements to justify denial of access to records, and fraudulent records are published online

Why would an honest court deny access to its records, as required by law?


Dr Zernik requested access to court records in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), a case of high public policy


significance. Repeated requests for access, directed to the Clerk were denied.


Through such access it would have been possible either authenticate or invalidate the registration of the case as a case heard by the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (“LA Superior Court), the registration of the Assignment of Justice James A Richman as Presiding Judge in the case and the registration of his Orders and Judgments, as well as the Rulings of the California Court of Appeals, 4th District. Registrations of all of these key elements of the litigation at present appear questionable at best.


In response to the request by Dr Zernik, Counsel for the Court responded in letter dated July 29, 2009:

“Finally, as a convenience, you can also access the Register of Actions for this case on line at the Court's web site, LASuperiorCourt.org, which also presents a summary of all of the pleadings, orders and hearings in the case, and by registering and paying the fee permitted by the California Rules of Court, you may download and print copies of the pleadings and orders.” (1)

The Registers of Action was never provided online. Moreover, the record that is provided online – “Case Summary”, (2) is a false and deliberately misleading record, which comes with a Disclaimer (3) by the Court that it should not be relied upon. Furthermore, the server from which such record is published triggers severe alerts (4) by Google browser, which states that the Court’s sever carries a false verification certificate.


In short – there are good reasons to believe that the conduct of litigation of Sturgeon v LA County, upon review, would be deemed fraud by the LA Superior Court upon the people.(5)


Why would an honest court deny access to its records, as required by law?


1) Request for access to court records and denial

http://inproperinla.com/09-07-28-29-la-superior-court-sturgeon-v-la-county-denial-of-access-to-court-records.pdf


2) Case Summary record is provided online by the court

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-06-la-superior-court-sturgeion-v-la-county-online-%20case%20sumary.pdf


3) Disclaimers by the court regarding its online records

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-case-summary-online-disclaimers-s.pdf


4) Security alerts triggered by the LA Superior Court server

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-11-la-superior-court-server-triggers-%20security-alerts.pdf


5) Comparison of Case Summary with other records- demonstrates alleged fraud

http://inproperinla.com/09-08-11-alleged-fraud-in-la-superior-court-online-records-of-sturgeon-v-la-county.pdf