Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou,
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US
Location: La Verne, California

Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs Date: 2010.02.08 13:41:25 -08'00'


10-01-08 FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and the

prospects of any future honest court services in Los Angeles County, California

On February 8, 2010 Joseph Zernik wrote:

Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:36:00 -0800
To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: FACT-BASED DISCUSSION: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
Surgeon v LA County (BC351286) is a case that held at bay the prospect of any honest court services in LA county in
years to come. It was filed as a request for injunctive relief by Plaintiff - taxpayer Sturgeon - represented by Judicial
Watch. County of Los Angeles and others were named Defendants in the case. The subject matter was payments by LA
County of some $45,000 per judge per year, which remained secret for years, and which the judges uniformly failed to
disclose in their outside income statements, and also failed to disclose to parties in cases where LA County was party to
litigation. It was also demonstrated that it subsequently became practically impossibly to win a case in LA County
against LA County. Disclosure and protest of such payments by the falsely hospitalized Richard Fine raised concerns
regarding criminal and civil liabilities of all judges of LA County. Such concerns were addressed through a dubious law,
signed by the Governor of California on February 20, 2009 (SBX-2-11), which provided retroactive immunities/pardons
to all judges who took such payments. Such law in fact amounted to admissions of criminality of all judges of LA County,
who according to media employed a lobbyist, who for the payment of some $60,000 managed to affect the passage of
such law within a week out of compliance with rules of the California Senate - with no discussion on the floor of the
California Senate and no referral for review by committee.

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was donning four hats in Surgeon v LA County(BC351286):

a) Intervenor, siding with Defendant

b) Judge

c) Clerk

d) Court venue
 Page 2/6 February 8, 2010

Therefore, interest in the Sturgeon v LA County is gratefully appreciated by those of us who live in LA County, where the
US government refused to provide equal protection for the 10 million residents against alleged racketeering by the judges
of the LA Superior Court.

My filing under caption of Sturgeon v LA County in summer 2009 provided detailed analysis of the defective/fraudulent
records under such caption. Any comments on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Especially those demonstrating
familiarity with the records in the case:

• The relevant records were posted online in archive under http://inproperinla.com/

• To find the section dealing with Sturgeon v LA County, use the "Find" function in your browser, typically -
"Control F". Use "Sturgeon_LA_County", or "BC351286" (no quotes) as query and you would get to the relevant

• Query under "Sturgeon" would also lead you to the court of appeals records in the case.

The case belonged to the series previously designated, for lack of better term: Equity/Enterprise Track of the LA
Superior Court. "Equity" referred to Equity Courts. According to three different attorneys, all of whom could be
deemed "connected to the court" Equity Courts were operating today in Los Angeles County, California.
"Enterprise" referred to RICO Enterprise per 18 USC 1961-8. Following recent discussion in this group, I hope that
you now better understand the reasons for such designations. Basic traits of non-cases of the Equity/Enterprise Track
were listed below.

All conditions previously stated regarding Marina v LA County (BS109420), in ancillary proceedings of which Richard
Fine was purported to be arrested, applied in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) as well.

• The ongoing refusal of Charles McCoy - Presiding Judge, and John A Clarke - Clerk of the Court to allow
access to the records of the litigation in Sturgeon v LA County, first and foremost among them - the Register of
Actions (California docket) remained inexplicable at best, and otherwise - essential prerequisite for the operation
of the RICO enterprise.

• The missing Assignment/Appointment Order for Justice James A Richman, California Court of Appeals, 1st
District, and refusal of his office to answer questions regarding the nature of his assignment/appointment in the
case, combined with his contradictory designations in the court file as "Judge" "Referee" or "Designee" remained
inexplicable at best.

• Judgment records by Justice James A Richman were all defective on their faces/unentered .

• Minutes by Justice James A Richman were all defective on their faces/unentered .

• Appeal to the California Court of Appeals, 4th District, San Diego, was likewise dubious: (a) the Appeal was
purported to be from a Judgment by James A Richman in Sturgeon v LA County. However, such judgment
was never entered. Moreover, if you review the records of the Court of Appeals, 4th District, you would find that
 Page 3/6 February 8, 2010

actually such judgment as never listed as the record from which the appeal was taken. (b) A ruling was purported
in such appeal, that the payment to the judges in LA County were "not permitted". However, I never found any
copy of the ruling (or the amended ruling for that purpose) of the Court of Appeals, 4th District, which was
adequately signed by justices of the Court of Appeals and authenticated by the Clerk of the Court. (c) The
purported ruling of the court of Appeals,4th District was never entered as a court record by the LA Superior Court
in Sturgeon v LA County, indicating that the LA Superior Court never recognized it as a valid court record. (d)
Accordingly, the judges of the LA Superior Court never conceded for one day their right to take the "not
permitted' payments.

• The ongoing refusal of Judicial watch to answer any question regarding their role in running such invalid
litigation for years, remained inexplicable as well. Given your connection to Judicial Watch, I would be grateful if
you alert members of the organization to this aberration.

• Judicial Watch's Attorney Orfanedes, based in Washington DC, was possibly duped.

• Attorney Sterling Norris, who for all practical purposes runs Judicial Watch of Southern California as his
private territory, deserved some additional review. He is retired from the corrupt LA justice system, where I was
informed and believed he served as prosecutor. He was on personal basis with judges who were the key to
corruption in LA County, including, but not limited to Jacqueline Connor, whom I deem the Madrona of
organized crime in LA County. I was informed and believed that he was also personal friends with the subject of
your writing elsewhere - California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George.


Joseph Zernik, PhD




Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,

Coming soon- deep house music!

Fraud in the Court (101)

Essentials of Non Cases of the Equity/Enterprise Track at the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles:
Non Cases are the cornerstone of judicial corruption in the United States today, in both state and US courts, are surely
another subject that is never taught in law school. Therefore, let me offer you the overview:

• Commencing records must be defective/unentered.

• Termination records must be defective/unentered as well.

• No valid commencement of jurisdiction may be entered - no valid assignment to a judge, no valid reference, etc.
 Page 4/6 February 8, 2010

• No valid dispositive order on jurisdiction may be entered - no valid order on disqualification, either denying or
granting it.

• All executable orders that may be issued by the court must be defective on their faces, and must not be entered,
which explains the plethora of unsigned orders and judgments in the US today.

• No court fees may be collected, where any mention is explicitly provided that such fees were for court services.

• Public access to court records that would provide definitive evidence of the racketeering by the judges must be
denied. Today - such denial of access is often achieved through implementation of fraudulent case management
systems at the courts.

On February 8, 2010 Paula wrote:

From: "Paula"
Subject: Ronald George (Judgepedia) vs. Ronald M. George (Wikipedia) - and Zernik's story
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:03:19 -0500
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

On Christmas day, 2009 I wrote to you guys about a post I made regarding Ronald George. Well, I just went to
look for the entry on Wikipedia because I needed to verify one of the links to the Sturgeon case. My posting
regarding SBX2 11 under Ronald George, was not on Wikipedia. I forgot, it's on Judgepedia... not Wikipedia. I
believe Wiki kept deleting it or moving it into history. I finally got it to stick, on Judgepedia, which looks just like

On Wiki's current entry for Ronald M. George, there's nothing regarding SBX2 11 and other corruption involving
the chief justice of California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George:

Here's the entry in Judgepedia, where I posted about SBX2 11L


Here's what you get now under Ronald George:


It appears what has happened is that the middle initial M. was added to Ronald George. Now if a person happens
to land on the old Ronald George in Wiki, there's a link there to the new unimproved version of Wiki's Ronald
M. George.

Interesting! And here's a story about Wikipedia:


 Page 5/6 February 8, 2010

P.S. I just posted to my website about Joe Zernik's exposure of the corporation fraud... which Janet sent.


Now I'm going to post about Judgepedia vs. Wkipedia entries on Ron George, and include the Les Sachs/Wiki

On February 8, 2010 Joseph Zernik wrote:

Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:23:06 -0800

To: lawsters@googlegroups.com
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: Ronald George (Judgepedia) vs. Ronald M. George (Wikipedia) - and Zernik's story


Thanks for the notes. Papers and subjects previously banned in Wikipedia are gaining readership elsewhere:

1) Large-Scale False Imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California:

Leaked: January 19, 2010; 454 Views

2) Richard Isaac Fine:

Leaked: January 27, 2010; 115 Views

3) Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons)

Leaked: January 28, 2010; 116 Views
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/09-12-17-Richard-Isaac-Fine-Review-e Reads: 253

Imprisonments-s Reads: 252

Best read in Scribs, by a large margin, remained that simple analysis showing the fraud in the Los Angeles County
Sheriff Jail computer, which applicable also to the case of Richard Fine:
data-survey-Jose-Martinez-s Reads: 805

The most alarming deletion in Wikipedia was related to events that took place under Katrina in the article on Human
Rights in the USA. The article itself was lengthy and self- congratulatory in nature. When water levels were rising,
guards in prison in New Orleans, Louisiana, abandoned the prison, while leaving the prisoners locked in their cells to
drown. The references were from:
 Page 6/6 February 8, 2010

a) UN High Commissioner on Human Rights report.

b) Paper in The Nation.
Needless to say, hardly anybody in the US ever heard of the story, since it was hardly covered by mainstream media.


Joseph Zernik, PhD




Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine

Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,

Coming soon- deep house music!