The petition alleges that the U.S. Dept of Justice and FBI tolerate conditions in LA County, California, that are contrary to civil rights guaranteed in the Amendments and also contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Drug sales for profit by law enforcement agencies - fuel the engine of corruption
The petition alleges that such corruption continued through the Rampart scandal investigation, which in fact was cover-up of further drug sales for profit by various law enforcement agencies. The petition calls for investigation of the conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in the First Rampart Trial and elsewhere.
The petition alleges that such corruption, involving drug sales for profit by law enforcement agencies in LA continues even today, as evidenced by the refusal of LAPD narcotics officers to comply with provision of the Consent Decree that required annual financial disclosures, and also by the fact that the LAPD Chief today supports the refusal of the narcotic officers to comply with the Consent Decree.
The petition alleges that the Overseer for civil rights that was appointed during the Bush administration in response to the collapse of the Rampart investigation, was just a fig leaf, as was the case of the Overseer in Guantanamo Bay.
Fraudulent case management systems, and denial of access to public records at the courts - the enabling tools of the rackets
The petition alleges that the case management systems introduced in the civil and criminal courts in LA around 1985, at a time that Ronald George - today Chief Justice of the California Supereme Court, was in leadership positions in the LA Superior Court, and which were produced by Sustain, controlled by the Daily Journal - the largest legal newspaper in California, are massive fraud on the people.
The petition alleges that the elimination of the Books of Court and the denial of public access to court records that accompanied the introduction of the case management systems, as well as the "local custom" of "waiving" service and notice by the court of its minute orders, combined - set the court system here some hundreds of years behind standards that are guaranteed in other regions of the U.S.
Real estate frauds - specialty of the LA Judiciary Racket
The petition alleges that judges of the LA Superior court engage in real estate frauds as a racket, through the Enterprise Track - cases that in fact are not part of the Superior Court of California, but appear to naive parties to be so. Examples are provided from my case, Samaan v Zernik, and from another case, Galdjie v Darwish. These cases share so many traits, that a reasonable person would conclude that the underlying disputes themselves ("oral modifications of real estate contracts") were entirely fabricated at the invitation of LA Superior court judges, to be looted in the court. In both cases, the Clerk of the Court today refuses to confirm that the cases were valid cases of the Superior Court, that the judges were duly assigned (none had assignment orders), and that judgments were valid effectual judgments of the Superior Court of California. Both cases involved the taking of real property by some of the same judges - e.g. John Segal, and both involved Att David Pasternak, former president of LA County Bar Association as "Receiver" for real properties. The Grant Deed issued by Pasternak in my case was opined by veteran FBI agent decorated by FBI Director, by U.S> Congress, and by the U.S. attorney general to be ".. frauds being committed...".
The Petition alleges that search at the LA County Registrar/Recorder office revealed numerous similar grant deeds by Pasternak there, and conditions at that office, which allowed filing of such Grant Deeds, facilitated real estate frauds.
Lawlessness in LA County facilitated the growth of corrupt legal practices at Countrywide
The petition alleges that LA County was established per FBI reports as the "epicenter of an epidemic of real estate and mortgage frauds" well before the sub-prime heist was identified, and that conditions of the justice system in LA County were quintessential for the development of Countrywide into a corrupt organization. The focus of corruption was the conduct of the Legal Department, which was headed at that time by Sandor Samuels. Such corrupt legal practices were evidenced in January 2008 in the Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Court, where Countrywide filed "recreated letters" as evidence. Such corrupt legal practices were evidenced in March 2008 Memorandum Opinion of the Hon Judge Bohm in Houston Texas, relative to deceitful employment of outside counsel. The petition alleges that both of these deceit techniques, unveiled in 2008 in Pennsylvania and Texas, are still utilized today, in 2009 in LA Superior Court in my case, under control of Bank of America.
Cover-up of the criminal conduct at Countrywide, and corruption of Bank of America through the Bailout, are harbinger of greater dangers to the U.S. economy
The petition alleges that the failure of FBI to find anything in its investigation, while issuing public statements of an intensive investigation of Countrywide - if deceit on the public and on elected officials.
The petition alleges that the merger-bailout of Countrywide with Bank of America, where Bank of America is allowed to grow beyond limits previously set, and where Bank of America agreed to take over a corrupt organization, must have been accompanied by some secret promises or understandings. Such promises, legally valid or not, by Bush administration officials, which amounted to de facto immunities for Bank of America from criminal liabilities are expressed today in the failure of the FBI investigation of the sub-prime heist, and in refusal of FBI and SEC to investigate obvious material violations of the law by Countrywide in my case.
The petition alleges that the false and deliberately misleading responses by Assistant Director Kaiser, FBI, and Director Melson, USDOJ to the Hon Congresswoman Watson and Senator Feinstein were part of such cover-up by FBI and USDOJ.
The petition alleges that merger-bailout of Countrywide and Bank of America therefore is the harbinger of much greater danger to the U.S. economy. First signs which are evidence of corruption of Bank of America - the absolute refusal of BAC Audit Committee to even acknowledge receipt of complaints per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) filed by me regarding the conduct of Countrywide and Bank of America at the LA Superior Court.
In January 2009, corruption of ALL LA Superior court judges was signed into law that is unconstitutional on its face
The petition alleges that payments to ALL LA Superior Court judges, at ~$45,000 per judge per year, that were ruled "not permitted" in October 2008, would be called "Bribes" by a lay-person.
False imprisonments at LA County are human rights disgrace of historic proportions
The petition alleges that false imprisonments continue today of 10,000 or more Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), mostly black and Latinos, who were left imprisoned after the massive Rampart-corruption scandal investigation.
The petition alleges that Att Richard Fine, former U.S. Attorney, is falsely indefinitely imprisoned for contempt since early March 2009, after leading the fight to expose the payment to LA Superior Court judges that were "not permitted".
Following is the abstract appearing on the face page of my filing in the U.S. Court in Washington DC on May 1, 2009:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
PLAINTIFF ALLEGES SEVERE ABUSE OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, AND REFUSAL OF U.S. OFFICERS TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES. PLAINTIFF WAS FORCED OUT OF HIS HOME UNDER THE THREAT OF FORCE AND HAD HIS PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PRIVATE USE WITH NO COMPENSATION AT ALL UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW. VETERAN FBI AGENT. DECORATED BY U.S. CONGRESS. BY FBI DIRECTOR, AND BY US. ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINED: "..FRAUDS BEING COMMITTED.. ,," PLAINTIFF ALSO HAD THREE (3) GAG ORDERS IMPOSED, THROUGH EX PARTE PROCEDURES TO BENEFIT LARGE CORPORATIONS, AND ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT JUDGMENTS OF CONTEMPT AND SERIOUS SANCTIONS EXCEEDING $30,000 IMPOSED,
PLAINTIFF WAS ALSO FALSELY THREATENED WITH JAIL, IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA. WHERE MANY ARE FALSELY IMPRISONED: THE RAMPART-FIPS - ESTIMATED AT 10,000 OR MORE PER PBS 'FRONTLINE' BROADCAST (2001), MOSTLY BLACK AND LATINO. THEY WERE LEFT FALSELY IMPRISONED A DECADE AFTER THE MASSIVE RAMPART CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION (1998-2000) ENDED ALBEIT - WITH NO REPORT EVER BEING WRITTEN... ATTORNEY RICHARD FINE - A FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY LED THE FIGHT AGAINST PAYMENTS TO ALL LA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES AT $45,000 PER YEAR, PER JUDGE. THAT WOULD BE NAMED BY A LAYPERS0N "BRIBES," AND WERE RULED IN OCTOBER 2008 "NOT PERMITTED," HE IS NOW INDEFINITELY JAILED FOR CONTEMPT, UNDER CONDITIONS THAT ARE REPORTED TO BE UNREASONABLE.
FOR TWO YEARS FBI AND USDOJ REFUSE TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES AND GUARANTEE PL1YS EQUAL PROTECTION AGAINST SEVERE ABUSE OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW. MOREOVER, WITH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF LONG-TERM, WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION. USDOJ SECTION OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY SHOWS NO INDICTMENTS AND NO PROSECUTIONS IN LA IN THE PAST 25 YEARS!
UNDERLYING MA MATTER IS ALLEGED RICO AND FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT BY COUNTRYWIDE. NOW WHOLLY OWNED BY BAC. FRAUDS ALLEGED IN MY CASE BY COUNTRYWIDE ARE REPEATS OF THOSE REBUKED BY THE HON. U.S. JUDGE BOHM IN TEXAS MARCH 2008. AND IN PITTSBURGH PENN COURT IN JAN 2008.
IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES BY THE HONORABLE SENATOR FEINSTEIN & CONGRESSWOMAN WATSON IN MY CASE, FBI & USDOJ PROVIDED FALSE AND DELIBERATELY MISLEADING RESPONSES TO U.S. CONGRESS.
DAMAGES SOUGHT IN SUM TO BE DETERMINED, AND ALSO AWARD PER CIVIL RICO AND FALSE CLAIMS ACT.
Please support our petition: Calling upon President Obama - Free the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
Best reference on how they got falsely convicted, and why they are still imprisoned: LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006): http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000- PBS Frontline (2001):
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD
The petition also quotes an email to Att Coleman, Stanford University, which alleges dishonest manipulations of the case management system of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, "Pacer", by Magistrate Carla Woehrle, both in Zernik v Connor et al, and also in cases involving Att Richard Fine. The petition also requests FBI investigation into the conduct of Magistrate Carla Woehrle:
RE: Rule-making by U.S. Courts in LA County - restriction of public access to the courts and abuse of First Amendment rights - seeking your opinion
I noticed your publication regarding deficiencies in the federal rule making process, resulting in restricted public access to the courts, and the proposals you have made for corrective actions. I would like to bring to your attention a specific type of Rule making, hoping that you would find interest in it and provide formal legal opinion, which would greatly facilitate debate in this matter.
I fully agree with your opinion that the matter must be reviewed by Congress, and I further believe, as detailed below, that there is some urgency in this matter.
Please feel free to call or email.
A. CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND THE COURTS
1) U.S. District Court LA - Pacer
The failure to recognize case management systems as Rules of Court results in restriction of access to the courts and first amendment rights, as shown below in examples from the operation of Pacer at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles in Zernik v Connor et al. I was waiting for several months for the dismissal of this non-action. Judgment was entered a couple of days ago. I do not plan on appealing, but I believe that upon review it must be deemed a "void not voidable" judgment for reasons directly related the matter under discussion - rules of court.
2) U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit
I had some experience also with docketing at the 9th Circuit, which I found deficient, but the experience was minimal, and insufficient for reaching conclusions.
3) LA Superior Court
I will separately write a short review of my findings regarding conditions at the State Court - LA Superior Court, which are incomparably worse, and require urgent Federal intervention.
4) California Court of Appeal (particularly 2nd District)
Core issues require urgent Federal intervention, and are directly related to the ties between this Court and the LA Superior Court.
B. THOSE I HOPE WOULD PROVIDE INPUT
1) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky & Prof Joseph Grundfest -
Legal authorities and civic leaders, who are California residents. I greatly appreciate their wisdom, and I hope that they would contribute to this debate in a manner that they see fit. As noted below, the Rules of Court are just the surface manifestation of the much deeper, continuous crisis of the LA Justice System, which appears to be coming to its periodic boil at this time.
2) TARP-IG Barofsky, and TARP-Oversight Panel Members - Att Damon Silvers & Prof Elizabeth Warren -
Surely they recognized that LA County was key in the development of the sub-prime scandal. Even before the scandal reached that level, FBI reports defined LA County as "the epicenter of an epidemic of real estate and mortgage frauds that are a high national priority to fight". Likewise, LA County is key to understanding the causes of the scandal, and for setting corrective measures and safeguards to prevent its recurrence. The direct link of the subject at hand to the sub prime scandal is also reflected by the fact that Countrywide was involved in court events that generated the experiences described below. The way its appearances were or were not listed in the dockets is a key issue as well. More alarming is the fact that as a direct outcome of the tax payer sponsored merger-bailout, it appears that Bank of America is acquiring court practices that are in violation of the law, and is gaining its primary training in this regard on location - at the LA Superior Court!
3) U.S. Congress - Judiciary Committees
Eventually the matter should come before the judiciary committees. The proposals listed below, your input, and the input of others, we hope demonstrate to Congress the need for action, and also the proposed actions to take.
C. WORKING HYPOTHESIS IN RE SUB-PRIME SCANDAL & BAILOUT
Genesis of the scandal:
The sub-prime scandal in its essence reflects criminal conduct.
While Enron was about accounting and auditing practices and the exploitation of Deregulation, the sub-prime scandal, dwarfing Enron in its costs and long term impact, is about the practice of law, the collapse of the LA County justice system over a decade ago, and the neglect of U.S. Government and U.S. agencies in the past decade to address the issue. Legal practices that were brewed in LA County provided the blueprints for "streamlining" of courts and regulators everywhere. Beyond financial recklessness, Countrywide facilitated corruption of the courts in LA.
Accordingly, in charting the course of correction:
1. Procedures used in the aftermath of the Enron scandal to establish corrective measures should be subjected to outcome evaluation, and accordingly either emulated or rejected.
2. Restoring the integrity of LA County justice system, is a prerequisite for restoring trust -- both at home and abroad -- in the integrity of financial institutions, financial markets, corporate reporting, real estate markets, and their derivatives.
D. MANIFESTATIONS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE LA JUSTICE SYSTEM
1. Ongoing wrongful incarceration of the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs 10 years after the false convictions and false sentencing were discovered.
2. The disbarment of Att Richard Fine.
3. Indefinite wrongful incarceration of Attorney Richard Fine - a political prisoner in LA County, California. He is nearing the end of his second month in jail, part of extreme campaign of retaliation, harassment, and intimidation against a former U.S. Attorney, who exposed judicial corruption.
4. Ruling in October 2008 that all judges of LA Superior Court took payments of $45,000 per year that were "not permitted" - "BRIBES" in lay person's language.
5. Inadequate response to the discovery of the "bribes" - through actions that are in violation of the law, and failure to even suggest the reversal of any of the biased judgments.
6. Failure of the U.S. Overseer of Civil Rights to accomplish his mission, and apparent refusal of the LAPD to comply with provisions of the Consent Decree in U.S. Government v City of LA, LAPD, et al. (2:2000cv11769).
7. Denial of First Amendment and Common Law rights to access court records to inspect and to copy for the past 25 years.
8. Opinion letter of veteran FBI agent James Wedick, decorated by U.S. Congress, FBI Director, and U.S. Attorney General - Real estate "frauds are being committed" by the LA Superior Court in collusion with Countrywide, now BAC, on the one hand, and large law firms - Bryan Cave, LLP and Sheppard Mullin, and the former President of the LA Bar Association - David Pasternak.
9. Alleged operation of an Enterprise Track by the LA Superior Court - noted again in recent days through the case of Sharon Stone.
E. OPERATION OF PACER AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURTS, LOS ANGELES
Below are examples of abuse of Pacer by U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle. The case Zernik v Connor et al 2:2008cv01550 can serve as a text book of such manipulations. The docket shows Magistrate Carla Woehrle and her clerk indefatigably employing first beginner's, then advanced techniques for compromising docketing in Pacer.
My typical response was to document the conduct by filing notice of it. In one instance - I also filed a complaint with the FBI, and notice of the complaint to FBI into the Pacer docket.
2. Why was it necessary?
Zernik v Connor et al 2:2008cv01550. Complaint for abuse of civil rights under the color of law, was filed on March 5, 2008. Litigation was abandoned by me (Plaintiff - Joseph Zernik) as an abusive, sham, proceedings at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles around August 2008, and complaint was finally dismissed by Judge Virginia Phillips only a few days ago.
In reading the sequence of dishonest manipulations of the Pacer docket at the U.S. District Court, LA, the question must come up:
Why was it necessary?
Pro se Plaintiff is an orthodontist.
Pitted against him were some 10 judges of the LA Superior Court, Countrywide, Angelo Mozilo, Sandor Samuels, Bryan Cave, LLP - a giant law firm, Buchalter Nemer, David Pasternak - former President of the LA County Bar Association, etc.
The reason is that Plaintiff caught the judges of the LA Superior Court in real estate fraud - racketeering from the bench. There was no question that the U.S. District Court would protect the judges, who were in a precarious position:
The case was of the Enterprise Track, so none of them had an assignment order, and none of them had any judicial authority, and none of them had any immunity! In short - they were caught engaged in alleged criminal conduct with no immunity at all.
For such reasons, it was insufficient that the U.S. District Court would dismiss the complaint, it was essential that Plaintiff would not be able to file any evidence. It was extremely undesirable for such records to be permanently on Pacer. Surely the Judges of the LA Superior Court wished that the U.S. District Court could offer them the Sharon Stone option....
3. Is this the only case of this kind?
If the question is regarding real estate frauds by the LA Superior Court judiciary, the question is surely not! We have identified at least one case that is a perfect match - Galdjie v Darwish ( SC052737). The LA Superior Court refused to allow me to inspect the records, but I finally located the Defendant, and had a chance to review her records. John Segal and David Pasternak are in key positions in that case as well.
I separately conducted a search in the office of registrar/recorder, and retrieved from there copies of numerous grant deeds by David Pasternak with features similar to the one that James Wedick opined was a fraud.
If the question is regarding the conduct of Magistrate Woehrle seen in this case, the answer is that it is not unique either. Attorney Richard Fine is now indefinitely incarcerated, after he was instrumental in exposing the bribes taken by ALL judges of the LA Superior Court. Conditions in LA County are such, that media do not report on his case. He was allowed no visitors for a while, and not even pencil and paper. He therefore had to dictate by phone a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Petition was referred to Magistrate Woehrle as well. Those more experienced than me say that the delay in adjudicating the petition is unusual.
Prior to that, retaliation of the LA Superior Court judges involved disbarment of Attorney Richard Fine, a former U.S. Attorney, about 70 years old, on charges of "Moral Turpitude", where moral turpitude was filing complaints against LA Superior Court judges.
Att Fine challenged the disbarment in U.S. District Court, and the case was referred to - Magistrate Woehrle.
What is most noticeable in all cases is the abuse of "Clerical Errors". The "Filed" stamp on Attorney Richard Fine's Habeas Corpus is clearly adulterated by hand. In addition, it appears that "Clerical Errors" have been used to conceal the recusals of judges in the case of Attorney Fine.
4. The general sequence of abuses in docketing was as follows-
1. At the beginning of litigation I filed a request for electronic filing, and specifically expressed my concern that demanding costly and time consuming paper filing from pro se only, and subjecting him to arbitrary conduct of the clerks, was unreasonable. Request was denied. The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, would not allow pro se litigant to filed electronically, while the U.S. District Court in DC would allow such filing, provided that the pro se litigant took the necessary class and passed it. I hold that the rule of the Los Angeles court is in violation of constitutional rights. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that it was used as a tool to abuse a pro se litigant (see below).
2. Manipulations of the docket started in Pacer started on day 1. The clerk refused to sign valid summons that I presented to him, and insisted on creating his own (which later I found was defective) - all in violation of rules of court.
When I tried to correct the defect - again the clerk refused to sign the valid summons.
3. The clerk then docketed the defective summons under the complaint, so that it would hardly be noticed. In other U.S. courts it is my impression that the summons are docketed in the second slot. Regardless - the docketing of Summons in Pacer should be consistent, and set by rule, given the central significance of that paper in the litigation, and not be subject to manipulation.
4. Later, Minute Orders of Magistrate Woehrle were inexplicably delayed between filing and entry. Such delays were most harmful to me, since Woehrle also interpreted the rules that the court was barred from emailing notices to me, as it did to all other parties. Therefore, delayed entry + mailing, created a significant handicap. I believe that anytime that Minute Order is not entered upon filing in Pacer, the judge should be required to justify the delay.
5. Conversely - all other parties filed their papers electronically, but I was required to appear in person in the clerks office, where they would keep me typically for 30-60 minutes. And after that - you may notice that some of my papers, but none of any other party, were delayed in entry at times over a month.
6. Later - my papers were artificially delayed in entry, presumably by adding some attachment, for no reason at all. I filed my protest on that in a case involving a critical ex parte application for leave to file first amended complaint. The effect could have easily been killing the litigation by claiming that the Magistrate was not aware of the ex parte, and blaming plaintiff for a last minute filing (but in this case it was a stillborn litigation anyway). Simple review of the sequence of the ordinal numbers of the records in this case shows that some dishonest manipulation was underway.
This writer considers the ordinal numbering of records the quintessential feature of a "Register of Actions" - as is clearly implied in the name. Pacer is unique in its honesty on this account.
a, Ventura County- documents can be entered and removed.
b. LA Superior Court - no numbering at all - free for all.
c. Cal Court of Appeal - the online "Docket" has no numbering, but it is not the real docket either, the court uses the double books system.
7. Later - my papers including evidence that was undesirable, were hidden under unrelated tags of other papers ( See #52, 56, & 58).
8. When I protested this latest dishonesty - Magistrate Woehrle issued the June 6, 2008 Minute Order(Doc #63), where she reinvented docketing - any documents that I would file on the same day, would have the same face page, regarding of their content. Preventing such abusive ad-hoc creative rules, is the reason that the case management system must be formalized as Rules of Court.
9. To mark the 4th of July, 2008, I sent a request to about 30 members of U.S. Congress, to "Open the Book of Judgments of LA County... Bring LA back into the fold of the U.S. Constitution..." I consider the denial of public access to the court's public records for the past quarter century, which started concomitantly with the installation of the case management systems at the LA superior court (but failing to treat them as Rules of Court) as the key to the regression of the LA justice system to some patterns of conduct of earlier centuries. I believe that the most cost effective approach to the problem is through restoration of First Amendment and Common Law rights affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc.
I have made numerous requests to that effect to the US Department of Justice under the previous administration, but was routinely denied. Nevertheless, I believe that such decision must be reversed, since such U.S. officers had and have no administrative discretion in this matter.
The paper was about 150 page compilation reflecting conditions of the public records in LA County. Coming from LA, the face page was decorated with images of Jefferson, palm trees, and the ocean waves. I tried to file it as a record in Zernik v Connor et al, since it addressed some related core issues. Magistrate Woehrle ruled to deny its filing, and ordered me to notice her ruling.
This was in fact, in my opinion the only one out of some 20 discrepancy notices that was processed in compliance with the law (Doc #81):
10. I first filed a motion for reconsideration, Then eagerly complied with the order to notice the ruling denying filing.
11. However, Magistrate Woehrle was obviously unhappy with the notice of ruling... that is why she preferred the perverted discrepancy procedures. The true valid procedure makes permanent record of the ruling. She wanted none of that.
Plaintiff's Notice of Ruling of the Denial of Filing on the July 4th message: "Open the Book of Judgment of LA County... Bring back LA into the fold of the U.S. Constitution..." was docketed in Pacer. However, the record was docketed with no Pacer header security imprint (Doc #87-1).
12. At that point, I considered that manipulation of Pacer operations to be on the criminal side, and reported it to FBI, with copy for the docket.
13. The Notice of Complaint to FBI of obstruction of justice through Pacer (Doc #88), was initially targeted for discrepancy, but later recovered and docketed. That reversal of ruling in and of itself is a perverted procedure as well. The bottom line was that all papers were deemed in discrepancy and disappeared with not record at all. Later, Magistrate Woehrle could pick and choose and recover some of them.
14. Under the notice to FBI, another record was hidden, which remains unknown... there is no way to identify it at all:
This was a volume of some 500 pages describing the various frauds in the conduct of David Pasternak, including real estate fraud on behalf of the court, per James Wedick opinion letter.
Here is the volume missing from Pacer:
15. I deemed the denial of my right, as Plaintiff, to file papers in court, as abuse of my constitutional rights, and accordingly I filed several protests and requests ( Doc #85) for honest docketing (denied -Doc #86).
16. Eventually, I filed statement of disqualification for a cause of Magistrate Woehrle (Doc #89), where the abuse of First Amendment rights was the primary cause.
17. Please notice on the face page, that the Statement of Disqualification for a Cause was also initially targeted for "Discrepancy", but was later recovered.
18. Although I abandoned this process in summer 2008, while my opposition to motion to dismiss was due, no ruling was made in this case for some 8 months. When I realized that the dismissal is imminent, I filed Doc #105 "Notice of Allegedly Perverted Discrepancy Notices", so that there would be in the docket some record of the numerous papers that disappeared with no record at all.
19. Regarding the docketing of the latter (Doc #105), it did not escape its own manipulation - please notice the difference between the paper as docketed, where the Proposed Order, which I deliberately included as an attachment, was removed:
For comparison, I posted online the paper as filed in court, with the Proposed Order included:
One can argue that proposed orders should not be included with the document, but the rule must be consistent. The other parties who were filing electronically included proposed orders in their papers as attachment. I was not permitted to do so.
The issue was of significance to me in this particular paper, since I was trying to press Magistrate Woehrle to rule on the matter - my request for incorporation of her perverted discrepancy notices. And obviously, she was not fond of the idea.
The Proposed Order was deliberately bound into the paper, in front of the POS. The clerk had to take the paper apart and remove these pages.
F. PROPOSED TAKE HOME LESSONS
1. The rules of operating such system must be handled pursuant to the Rule Making Enabling Act.
2. Such systems should have been presented for public comment and challenge prior to their introduction into use, just like rules published on paper.
3. Once such system is introduced, individual judges must not hold the authority to change the rules of operation of the system at will, the same way that they are not allowed to change the Rules of Court at will.
4. Rules of Court setting the way of docketing proposed orders in Pacer must put this issue to rest. My opinion is that Proposed orders must be part of the docket.
5. Rules of Court must also explicitly say under what conditions a clerk is allowed to remove pages from litigant paper in the process of scanning it into Pacer.
F. PROPOSALS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
1. Enforcement of the Rule Making Enabling Act relative to case management systems
The one-page proposal linked below, was submitted to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees committee with the hope of generating debate.
2. Restoration of First Amendment and common Law rights of the 10 millions residents of LA County
Residents of LA County have been denied such rights for the past quarter century. We believe that such a simple measure would bring about a major positive change in the justice system of LA County, including release of the Rampart FIPs.