Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: email@example.com
“ Judge shall be faithful to the law…”
Cal Code Jud Ethics 3B(2)
“The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny of the courts”
Nov 5, 2008
John A Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
LA Superior Court
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
By Fax: 213 621 7952, and by hand delivery.
I received the enclosed paper by mail yesterday, and it claims to be a court order, sent on your behalf by A. Puig, Deputy Clerk. Please confirm that such paper was indeed sent on your behalf and that this record represents an authentic, valid court order issued by you. Such request is necessary given the conditions of court file in this case, replete with papers that appear invalid on their face.
It so happens that only today I hand-delivered a letter to your office, and made yet another request, the latest of many, that you provide access to my own litigation records, to inspect and to copy, pursuant to Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) where the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed "the common-law right of access to judicial records" otherwise referred to as "the common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records".
Absent such access, there is no way that I can figure out who, if any, has any judicial authority in case designated Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). In fact, as I clearly indicated in my letter, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that this case has never been part of the True Court Track at the LA Superior Court. Instead, it was part of the Enterprise Track – subject to conduct that upon review is likely to be deemed criminal - racketeering per RICO- Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 USC § 1961–1968.
Also, following the recent decision of the California Court of Appeal regarding the extra pay provided by the LA County to the judges, news reports that LA County had no case where it had reason to be unhappy with the outcome, and that the judges never disclosed to parties in such cases that they received pay from the County, I should have updated my claims regarding the LA Superior Court to a three track system:
a) True Court Track - I have never seen it myself yet, but I assume it exists.
b) Enterprise Track – For general-purpose racketeering, e.g, SC087400, BC370642, BC369558?
c) County Track – For LA County litigations.
Please provide ASAP direct access to critical records including, but not limited to: Index of All Cases, Calendars of the Courts, Register of Actions, Book of Judgments (or Equivalent), so that I am able to ascertain that SC087400 is indeed part of theTrue Court Track. In addition, I must be noticed of a Re-assignment Order, so that valid authority is established for a given judicial officer.
I expect your expedient response, so that I may comply with your presumable order dated October 31, 2008.
Attached: 1) Oct 31, 2008 Notice to Plaintiff. 2) Nov 5, 2008 Letter from Zernik to Parties and Clerk
TO THE PLAINTIFF(S) AND ATTORNEY(S) OF RECORD and/or PARTIES IN PRO PER:
You are hereby notified that the Further Status Conference previously set for hearing on November 10, 2008 in Dept. WE J has been reset for heannQ in the same Department on November 21, 2008 at 8: 45 am. You are ordered to give notice by mail forthwith of such fact to all parties and to file proof of service of such notice forthwith m the assigned department(s\ located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not a party to the cause herein, and that on this date I served the Notice Re: Contmuance of Hearing upon each party or counsel named above by depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse in Santa Monica, California, one coPy of the original filed/entered herem in a separate sealed envelope to each address as shown above WIth the postage thereon fully prepaid.
Date: October 31, 2008 John A. Clarke, EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK
_________________ By A Puig ,Deputy Clerk