You are on page 1of 4

Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD


PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

10-
10-03-
03-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and alleged fraud in the online servers of the LA
Superior Court

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:47:51 -0800


To: "Stephanie Maxberry" <SMaxberry@css.lacounty.gov>, "1st District: Gloria Molina"
<molina@bos.lacounty.gov>, "2nd District Mark Ridley-Thomas" <seconddistrict@bos.lacounty.gov>, "3rd
District Zev Yaroslavsky" <zev@bos.lacounty.gov>, "4th District Don Knabe" <cpedersen@lacbos.org>, "5th
District Michael D. Antonovich" <fifthdistrict@lacbos.org>, "Interested Persons" <jz12345@earthlink.net>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Fact Based Discussion: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) Re: More on the relationship
between widespread corruption, alleged violations of First Amendment rights in LA County, California,
and the conduct of alleged fraud in computer servers providing false online court records.

To LA County Ombudsman Stephanie Maxberry, LA County Supervisors, and Interested Persons:

The communications below provide discussion of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), which is one of the best
examples of the alleged large scale fraud perpetrated on the 10 million residents of LA County through collusion
of LA Superior Court and the County of Los Angeles in the operation of servers of online court information.
Such alleged fraud is conducted in parallel to denial of access to true court records of the LA Superior Court -
alleged large-scale deprivation of First Amendment rights.

The alleged fraud in operation of such online servers was the subject of a recent request for assistance by LA
County Ombudsman Stephanie Maxberry, in filing a complaint against the person/agency of the County of Los
Angeles, who were accountable for the collusion in conduct of the fraud.

Response by LA County Ombudsman Maxberry is still pending.

~~jz

On Monday, March 8, 2010 Joseph Zernik wrote:

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:28:04 -0800


To: R
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Fact Based Discussion: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) Re: More on the
relationship between widespread corruption and violations of First Amendment in LA
County

Hi R:

I am amazed when you, as an attorney, make such false statements on major legal matters at
ease.

What is the significance of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)?


Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), filed by Plaintiff Sturgeon - a Los Angeles County Resident
and a taxpayer, represented by Judicial Watch of Southern California, was a request for an
injunction against LA County, to stop the payments to ALL LA Superior Court judges, which were
secretly transacted for over a decade (~$45,000 per judge per year). LA Superior Court joined the
case as Intervenor, siding with Defendant LA County. The payments by LA County to LA Superior
Court judges were eventually the subject of a paper issued by Cal Court of Appeal, 4th District in
October 2008 - that such payments were "not permitted". Such payments eventually necessitated
the signing on February 20, 2009 of pardons/"retroactive immunities" for all judges who took the
 Page 2/4 March 8, 2010

"not permitted" payments - thereby documenting the liabilities faced by such judges.

What is the true nature of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)?

• Sturgeon v LA County is an example of a non-case of the Superior Court of California, County


of Los Angeles, otherwise termed a case of the "Enterprise/Equity Track" of the LA Superior Court.

• Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) is also one of the best examples of widespread corruption
of the judges of LA Superior Court, supported by deprivation of the First Amendment rights of all 10
millions who reside in LA County - to inspect and to copy court records.

• Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) is one of the best examples of the alleged large scale fraud
perpetrated on the 10 million residents of LA County through collusion of LA Superior Court and
the County of Los Angeles in the operation of alleged fraudulent servers of online court information,
which were the subject of a recent request for assistance by LA County Ombudsman Stephanie
Maxberry,

• Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) is NOT an example of the transfer of a case against LASC
from LASC to another venue as you have falsely stated.
What are the true facts in the matter of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)?

1) The LA Superior Court refused and continue to refuse to allow access to inspect and to copy the
Register of Actions (California civil docket) of Sturgeon v LA County, the same way that it refused
and continue to refuse to allow access to the Register of Actions of Marina v LA County
(BS109420), the case where Richard Fine was purported to be jailed.

2) There is no valid order on file for the transfer of the case of Sturgeon v LA County.

3) Justice James A Richman, who presided in the case for some years, did so with no valid legal
record to support his authority to preside in the case.

4) While James A Richman signed his papers "Sitting as Judge by Assignment", the LA Superior
Court, tripling/quadrupling as the court, the clerk, the judge, and intervenor in this case, routinely
referred to Justice Richman as ruling "By Reference, not by Assignment". Judicial Watch of
Southern California, whose conduct of this case remained an enigma, referred to Justice Richman
in its the latest appeal records, as presiding "By designation".

It is a classic example of conduct of the LA Superior Court - Was Justice Richman a Judge? A
Referee? A Designee?
The Office of Justice James A Richman refused and continue to refuse to answer on questions to
this effect forwarded to his office. A reasonable person, upon review of the records would likely
conclude - Justice James A Richman was engaging in his conduct in Sturgeon v LA County as
neither a Judge, nor a Referee, nor a Designee.

5) Of note, Justice James A Richman was engaging in his conduct from Department 1 of LA
Superior Court Central District. The same conduct, judicial officer presiding from Department 1
with no Assignment or Appointment Order was the key dispute for which Judge Yaffe purportedly
sentenced Richard Fine to jail: Judge Yaffe insisted that Commissioner Murray Gross was
permitted to preside as a Debtor Examiner with no Appointment Order at all, while Richard Fine
justly claimed that Murray Gross had no authority at all absent such Appointment Order.

For self-edification purposes only:


Let's repeat the exercise we went through regarding Marina v LA County (BS109420)... The case
where Richard Fine was purported to be jailed.

1) Please provide a valid official court record that establishes the foundation of Sturgeon v LA
County (BC351286) as a true case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

2) Please provide a valid official court record that establishes that the case was transferred, as you
 Page 3/4 March 8, 2010

falsely claimed.

3) Please provide a valid official court record that established the authority of Justice James A
Richman to preside in the case.

~~jz

At 11:55 AM 3/8/2010, R wrote:

You find a co-conspirator who resides in Orange County including a corporate


Defendant who can be sued in any state court and sue LA County et al in the
Orange County Superior Court. There is a court rule requiring a transfer of
any case against the LASC to another county if it is originated in LASC.
Sturgeon was a similar case.

At 11:42 AM 3/8/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:


From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:42 AM
To: R
Subject: More on the violations of First Amendment at LA County

Other civil rights organizations were willing to help - but only by


suing LA Superior Court at LA Superior Court, which is a joke. In
the process, I was also given numerous times false legal advise - that
US District Court had no jurisdiction in such matters. I got the
same false advice in the past when I wanted to file a complaint on
deprivation of rights.

No attorney was willing to sue LA superior Court at US District Court


- that is how attorneys end up in jail, or lose their license. Some
of the honest ones said straight forward that it was "too dangerous."

At 11:38 AM 3/8/2010, Joseph Zernik wrote:


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:38:18 -0800
To: R
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Full Disclosure Network- interview with Mary Tiedman of the ACLU Jail
Monitoring Project

Hi R:

...My experience with Ramona Ripston and Samuel Parker at SC ACLU was that they
would not touch with a 9 foot pole anything related to corruption in Los Angeles
County.

I approached them regarding the violations of First Amendment rights of all 10 million
residents of LA County - failure to keep Book of Judgments, and hiding of the
judgment entry listings, of the true Register of Actions, of the true Calendars of the
Courts, and of the True Index of All Cases.

After repeated requests and denials, they explained that I was making fuss about
"archaic issues"...

~~jz

Why Cant The ACLU Help Jailed Attorney Richard I Fine?


 Page 4/4 March 8, 2010

Internet exclusive Full Disclosure Video News Preview (7:37)


Release Date: February 27, 2010