Thursday, November 13, 2008

Frauds Galore by the LA Superior Court- for over a quarter century...

And who is behind it all? You guessed right...

Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:16:21 -0800

To: "sarah overton" , kdicarlo@cmda- law.com, "D. Brett Bianco"

From: joseph zernik

Subject: Rules of Court. Time if of the essence! Your timely
response demanded by Friday, Nov 14, 2008, 5:00pm

Cc: martin_berg@dailyjournal.com, Fklunder@lasuperiorcourt.org, and about 20 other attorneys, including attorneys for the judiciary committees of the House and Senate, and Civil Right Attorneys on the Consent Decree of LA.

Nov 13, 2008

Att. Sarah Overton
Att K. DiCarlo
Att D Bret Bianco
Counsel for the Los Angeles Superior Court

RE: Rules of Court
Time if of the essence! Your timely response demanded by Friday,
Nov 14, 2008, 5:00pm

Att Overton, Att DiCarlo, Att Bianco:

The offices of Presiding Judge Stephen Czuleger and the office of
Clerk/Executive Officer John Clarke have refused to answer any
questions for a while, and both offices referred me to you for
responses.

The following questions are not asked as part of any litigation.
These questions are not asked as part of any discovery process.
These questions are asked by a U.S. citizen whose civil rights
have been abused by the LA Superior Court for the past three years
under the color of law. The rules listed below are all rules that
the court should have published pursuant to Rule Making Enabling
Act 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071 - 2077, but failed to do so for over a
quarter century.

Copy is emailed to Mr Martin Berg, Editor of the Daily Journal,
who is also refusing to answer any questions in this regard. Copy
is also emailed to Mr Fred Klunder, Chief Information Officer of
the Court, with the expectation that he review such responses and
verify them.

Failure to respond must be deemed as admission of such statements
as listed below.

Please confirm or deny the following statements.

A. Case Registration and Assignment Procedures

1) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) is not a valid litigation of the
State of California Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles.

2) Liu v Zernik (BC370642) is not a valid litigation of the State
of California Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles.

3) Judge Jacqueline Connor never had Samaan v Zernik duly assigned
to her as judge.

4) Judge John Segal never had Samaan v Zernik duly assigned to him
as judge.

5) Judge Terry Friedman never had Samaan v Zernik duly assigned to
him as judge.

B. Sustain - General

6) The LA Superior Court installed around 1985 Sustain as its case
management system.

7) The Honorable Ronald George, today the Chief Justice of the
California Supreme Court, served at that time in leadership
positions in the LA Superior Court.

8) Sustain was procured from a company by the same or similar name.

9) Sustain was procured from a company controlled by the Daily
Journal.

10) The court has procured services related to maintenance of
Sustain after its initial installation from a company controlled
by the Daily Journal.

11) The operating rule in the LA Superior Court is "Sustain is
privileged - for the court only".

C. Sustain - Specific Features

12) Sustain includes a feature, which allows to dispose/void a
minute order by entering an invalid "Date Minutes Entered" such as
"00/00/00" or "33/33/33".

13) In Samaan v Zernik, Jacqueline Connor, John Segal, and Terry
Friedman, used the feature described in 12).

14) Sustain Case History allows users to enter arbitrary filing
dates, even if such dates are prior to the filing of the complaint.

15) In Samaan v Zernik the court of Judge Connor made such entries
as described in 14) on page 1 of Case History in July 2007, but
the filing dates listed were earlier than the date the complaint
was filed (Oct 25, 2005).

16) One of the entries described in 15) listed Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc, as "Real Parties in Interest".

17) Between December 2007 and April 2008 (April 2008 included),
the Court of Judge Connor removed such entries as described in 15)
from Case History page 1, without any visible notation.

18) Sustain Register of Actions includes rules such as: For an
action to be registered in the Register of Actions as a valid,
adjudicated court action, it must be listed first as a valid
"Event", and it must also be listed as a valid "Event Complete".

19) Sustain Register of Actions includes rules such as: Under an
"Event" listing, only one court action may be validly registered.

20) In Samaan v Zernik any "Event" listing that included more
than one court actions, only one of these actions, if any, was
truly registered as a valid, adjudicated court action.

21) In Liu v Zernik, and also in Samaan v Zernik, any event that
was never listed as an "Event Complete", was never truly
registered as a valid, adjudicated court action.

22) Sustain includes specific rules for the valid registration and
for the valid entry of Judgements and Orders that are appealable.

23) In Samaan v Zernik, Judge Connor never completed valid entry,
as required in Sustain, of Judgment by Court per CCP section 437c
on Aug 9, 2007.

24) In Samaan v Zernik, Judge Segal never completed valid entry,
as required in Sustain, of Order Appointing David Pasternak
Receiver, on Nov 9, 2007.

25) Sustain recognizes only specific natural language terms as
valid court actions in the "Event" listing.

26) "Ex-parte Application" is a valid term recognized by Sustain
as a court action when listed as an "Event".

27) "Exparte proceeding" is not a valid term recognized by Sustain
as a court action when listed as an "Event".

28) "Demurrer" is a valid term recognized by Sustain as a court
action when listed as an "Event".

29) "Hearing on Demurrer" is not a valid term recognized by
Sustain as a court action when listed as an "Event".

D. Other Rules of Court

30) There is no relationship between the published Rules of Court
of LA Superior Court relative to the entry of Judgment and that
which is in fact the practice of the court today.

31) The LA Superior Court denies the pubic access to the true
Registers of Actions, the true Calendars of the Court, the true
Index of All Cases and the true Book of Judgments, if such Books
of Court exist at all, in any media including, but not limited to
paper, digital, microfilm, tape, etc.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, which holds
substantial significance to all 9.5 millions that the LA Superior
Court claims to serve.

Joseph Zernik

No comments: