09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #3 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol I

Joseph H Zernik
PO Box 526, LV CA 91750

Tel: (323) 515-4583;
Fax: (801) 998-0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Pro Se Interested Party
Digitally signed by Joseph H
Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@earthlink.net,
c=US
Location: La Verne, California
Date: 2009.08.12 06:45:25
-07'00'
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HAROLD STURGEON, ) Case No: BC351286

Plaintiff/Petitioner ) Honorable James A Richman, Justice of
) California Court of Appeals, 1st District
v )
) {PROPOSED} INTERESTED PARTY
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL ) JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S (I) NOTICE OF
)
Defendants/Respondents ) REQUESTS FOR INTERVENTION BY U.S.
) AND CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS
and ) GENERAL, (II) NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND
) MOTIONS: (A) FOR MISTRIAL; (B)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ) ALTERNATIVELY - FOR VACATING
CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ) JUDGMENTS/ORDERS PER CCP §473; (C)
LOS ANGELES, ) FOR ORDERS ON THE COURT AND THE
Intervenor ) CLERK OF THE COURT TO PROVIDE
) REASONABLE EXPLANATIONS FOR
____________________________________ ) THEIR CONDUCT, (D) FOR ORDERS BY
COURT PER THE CAL CODE JUD ETH,
3D(1) & (2) - TO INITIATE CORRECTIVE
ACTIONS, & [PROPOSED] ORDERS
FILED AS VOL I – NOTICES & MOTIONS,
VOL II, III - EXHIBITS
DATE: TO BE NOTICED
TIME: TO BE NOTICED
DEPARTMENT: TO BE NOTICED
TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

THE LA SUPERIOR COURT, PARTIES AND COUNSEL IN STURGEON V LA
COUNTY:
REQUESTS & MOTIONS 1/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

1 Pro Se Interested Party Joseph H Zernik (“Dr Zernik”, “Zernik”) files concomitant with
2 instant papers, under separate cover, an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File as Interested
3 Party. Herein, Dr Zernik files Requests for Intervention and Investigations by the U.S. Attorney
4 General and the California Attorney General, together Notice of Motions and Motion for
5 Mistrial, alternatively – Motion To Vacate Orders and Judgment, furthermore –Motions for
6 Orders on the Court and the Clerk of the Court to Provide Reasonable Explanation for Their
7 Conduct, and Motions for the Court to Initiate Corrective Actions pursuant to the California
8 Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(1), and (2).
9 Such requests and motions are based on litigation of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), as
10 detailed below, a matter of high public policy interest, where the LA Superior Court
11 demonstrated its practices: Published Rules of Court held no relationship to real operations of
12 the court, and public access to litigation records was denied (Exhibit 1-a), while conflicting, or
13 possibly straight forward fraudulent records were published online by the court (Exhibit 1-
14 b,c,d,e,f), albeit – with a disclaimer, from a server that triggers security alerts for carrying a
15 false verification certificate (Exhibit 1-g).
16 Additional evidence is produced to demonstrate that litigation practices, founded on the
17 failure to operate pursuant to published Rules of Court and the routine global denial of public
18 access to public court records allowed pervasive alleged criminality in the courts of Intervenor
19 – LA Superior Court, often in collusion with agencies of Defendant – LA County. Examples
20 are provided from 3 other civil court cases (Exhibits 2a-c, 3a-e, 4a-u), and the ongoing false
21 incarceration of the Rampart FIPs, resulting from corruption at the criminal courts (Exhibit 51-
22 f). The computerized case management systems of the court were identified as a root cause
23 (Attachment A). Involvement of large corporations such as Countrywide, now Bank of
24 America was discussed (Attachment C), as well as large law-firms (Attachment D).An
25 approach was proposed to address such problems (Attachment B).
26 These Notices and Motions are based on the Notices and Requests for Interventions, and
27 Investigations, Requests for Incorporation by Reference, Requests for Judicial Notice,
28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declarations of Joseph Zernik and Exhibits and

1 Attachments filed and served herewith, as well as the Ex Parte Application and its exhibits filed
2 herewith, the pleadings and documents on record in this case, all matters of which the Court
3 may or must take judicial notice, and on such other oral and documentary evidence as may be
4 presented at the hearing.
5 DATED: August 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
6 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
7
8
9
10
By: _________________________________
11 Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Interested Party
12 1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750
Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
13 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
14
15
I.
16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
17
Volume I.
18
I. Table of Contents 3
19
II. List of Attachments and exhibits 4
20
III. Notices & Requests to Attorneys General 9
21
A. Requests for Interventions
22
B. Requests for Investigations
23
IV. Notice and Motions for Mistrial/Vacate Judgments 16
24
V. Table of Authorities 19
25
VI. Request for Incorporation by Reference 20
26
VII. Request for Judicial Notice 21
27
VIII. Memo of Points and Authorities 23
28

1 IX. Declaration of Joseph Zernik 50
2 X. Proposed Orders 60
3 Volume II-III.
4 XI. Exhibits and Attachments p1-p765
5 XII. Proof of Service by USPS mail
6 XIII. Certificate of Service by email
7
8 II.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS AND EXHIBITS
9
ATTACHMENTS
10
Attachment A: Vague and ambiguous Rules of Court in re: entry of judgment in LA County,
11
12 California - p7
Published rules bear no relationship to reality, and the unpublished rules are both
13
unpublished and out of compliance with California, U.S. and International Law.
14
15 Attachment B: Concerns & Proposal regarding computers at the courts – p12
16 The unregulated use of computers at the courts is identified a root cause, and solution
17 is proposed based on enforcement of state and federal Rule Making Enabling Act, as
18 well as Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
19 Attachment C: Involvement of Countrywide, now Bank of America Corporation, in alleged
20 criminality at the LA Superior Court- p15

21 Attachment D: Involvement of Bryan Cave, LLP, Sheppard Mullin and others- p19
22 The legal profession in Los Angeles and alleged criminality at the courts.
23
24 EXHIBITS
25 EXHIBIT 1. STURGEON V LA COUNTY (BC351286) EVIDENCE FOR MISTRIAL -
26 p21
27 Credible evidence demonstrates that the LA Superior Court denied and continues to
28 deny access to the true official litigation records – the Register of Actions in Sustain –

1 a public record by law, and false and deliberately misleading alternative records are
2 published by the court.
3 Exhibit 1-a: July 27-29. 2009 Denial of Access to Court Records - p21
4 Exhibit 1-b: Aug 9, 2009 Table of Available Document Images compared to data available in
5 “Case Summary” online – p43
6 Exhibit 1-c: August 6, 2009 online Case Summary p53
7 Unofficial, false and deliberately misleading court records.
8 Exhibit 1-d: January-February 2007 & July-August 2009 Justice James A Richman Papers
9 in Sturgeon v LA County- p62
10 All of these papers should be deemed of dubious authenticity, or at least as being
11 treated as such by the LA Superior Court.
12
Exhibit 1-e: February 2007–January 2009 – Cal Crt of App, 4th District – p129
13 Court of Appeals rulings fail to appear among LA Superior Court records, and it is
14 doubted that the LA Superior Court deems them as effectual.
15
Exhibit 1-f: August 6, 2009 Dr Zernik’s Requests for Verification/Corrections in re:
16
Litigation History – Sturgeon v LA County – p136
17
Addressed to Clerk Gregory Drapac and Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court John A
18
Clarke, to Judicial Watch, Los Angeles office, and to the office of Justice Richman.
19
No response received so far.
20
Exhibit 1-g: August 10, 2009 Letter to Mr Klunder - IT, and Mr Clarke - the Clerk, in re:
21
Computer systems verification.- p192
22
Requesting explanation regarding Google Chrome security warnings regarding the
23
court’s severs, which are found by such programs to bear a false verification
24
certificate.
25
EXHIBIT 2. MARINA V LA COUNTY (BS109420) – EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT
26
FRAUD - p197
27
28

1 Current, indefinite, real estate litigation at the LA Superior Court, which originated
2 the false jailing of Att Richard Fine though alleged judgment fraud.
3 Exhibit 2-a: March 4, 2009 purported Judgment by Judge David Yaffe – p197
4 Exhibit 2-b: July 31, 2009 Letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Court, Terry Nafisi, Demand for
5 Investigation – p211
6 Demand is for investigation of credible evidence for tampering with litigation records
7 in custody of the Clerk of U.S. District Court, LA.
8 Exhibit 2-c: July 31, 2009 Letters of Meet and Confer - p213
9 Letter sent to parties in preparation for filing a motion for relief from judgment.
10
11 EXHIBIT 3. GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC052737) - EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT
12
FRAUD p216
13 Alleged courtroom real estate fraud, based on alleged judgment fraud. Combined
14 analysis with Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), a twin case, would lead a reasonable
15
person to conclude that the litigation, even prior to the filing of the complaints were
16
almost certainly schemed by judges of the LA Superior Court.
17
Exhibit 3a- Requests for authentication - p216
18
Exhibit 3b- Evidence for Criminality in the Register of Actions - p222
19
Exhibit 3c- Alleged criminality in Conveyance of Title by Att David Pasternak –
20
p232
21
Exhibit 3d- Declaration of Darwish - p233
22
Exhibit 3e- “Equity Rights” and alleged frauds at the LA Superior Court – p240
23
24
Exhibit 4. SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) – EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT FRAUD
25
p244
26
27
28

1 Alleged courtroom real estate fraud, based on alleged judgment fraud. Although the
2 case was most likely initiated from the exact same launching pad, and involved some
3 of the same players, the case took a different turn of events.
4 Exhibit 4-a: Denial of access to litigation records- p244
5 Exhibit 4-b: Evidence of Criminality in the Register of Actions p 1 – p247
6 Exhibit 4-c: Table: Minute Orders in paper court file compared to Minute Orders in Sustain
7 – p276
8 Exhibit 4-d: August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court per CCP §437c, by Judge Jacqueline
9 Connor, and Order Granting Summary Judgment Motion- p289
10
11 Exhibit 4-e: August 9, 2007 Minute Order – Motion for Summary Judgment– by Judge
12 Jacqueline Connor - p297
13
Exhibit 4-f: August 21. 2007 Minute Order – Samaan’s Ex Parte Application for Entry of
14
Judgment- by Judge Jacqueline Connor – p307
15
Exhibit 4-g: August 7-9, 2007 Judgments from the LA Superior Court’s Microfilm Archive
16
– p314
17
Exhibit 4-h: September 7, 2007 Retired Judge Gregory O’Brien Escrow Referee
18
Appointment papers-by Judge Jacqueline Connor - p352
19
Exhibit 4-i: Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order –Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Connor, and
20
Fictitious Hearing on Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7 –
21
By Judge Jacqueline Connor – p364
22
Exhibit 4-j: Nov 9, 2007 Order Appointing David Pasternak Receiver in motion
23
at 4-days notice – by Judge John Segal – p370
24
Exhibit 4-k: Nov 9, 2007 Hearing on 4-day Notice Motion for Appointment of
25
Att Pasternak Receiver – Court Reporter’s transcript – Court of Judge
26
John Segal - p378
27
Exhibit 4-l: November 21, 2007 Order “like Unlawful Detainer after issuing
28

1 Writ of Execution and Entry of Judgment” by Judge John Segal, at Att
2 David Pasternak’s request - p398
3 Exhibit 4-m: December 7, 2007 Gag Orders, Indemnity Agreement, approval
4 of false Grant Deed by Judge Patricia Collins - at Att Pasternak’s
5 Request - p405
6 Exhibit 4-n: December 7, 2008 and December 17, 2008 Grant Deeds – by Att
7 David Pasternak – with opinion letter by James Wedick, of “frauds being committed”.
8 P437
9 Exhibit 4-o: January 30, 2008 Minute Order – Defendant Dr Zernik’s Ex Parte Application
10 for release of funds held by Att David Pasternak – by Judge Terry Friedman -
11 p458
12 Exhibit 4-p: June 22, 2009 Att David Pasternak periodic report – at the Court
13 of Judge Terry Friedman - p627
14
Exhibit 4-q: August 21, 2008 – Veteran FBI Agent Jim Wedick’s Email Note – p639
15
Exhibit 4-r: August –September 2008 – Kenneth Melson – Director, U.S. Dept
16
of Justice, and Kenneth Kaiser – Assistant Director, FBI - Alleged Fraud in
17
Responses to Congressional Inquiries – p641-1
18
Exhibit 4-t: May 13, 2008 pages from complaint filed with US Attorney Office,
19
LA, and FBI, LA. P641-12
20
Exhibit 4-u: May 30, 2008 The Big Picture – Outline pf Criminality in re:
21
Samaan v Zernik filed with FBI, Los Angeles. P641-64
22
23
EXHIBIT 5. RAMPART –FIPS (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) – HUMAN RIGHTS
24
ABUSE OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS.
25
Exhibit 5-a: PBS – Rampart False Imprisonments (2001, 2005, 2008) p642
26
Exhibit 5-b: Chemerinsky, Erwin – The criminal justice system of Los Angeles, California,
27
Guild Practitioner, 2000. p648
28

1 Exhibit 5-c: October 8, 2000 LA Times Remarks on Perez by Rampart Trial Judge Raising
2 Eyebrows p662
3 Exhibit 5-d: November 16, 2000 NYT: 3 of 4 Officers Convicted In Police Corruption Case
4 p670
5 Exhibit 5-e: December 23, 2000 LA Times- Rampart Verdicts Voided p671
6 Exhibit 5-f: December 24, 2000 LA Times The Judge’s Decision p675
7
8
9 III.
10 NOTICES OF REQUESTS & REQUESTS FOR INTERVENTION AND
INVESTIGATIONS BY U.S. AND CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS GENERAL
11
TO THE COURT AND PARTIES IN STURGEON V LA COUNTY, take notice of
12
requests herein for the Attorneys General of the United States and the State of California to
13
intervene in instant litigation – Sturgeon v LA County – a case of high public policy interest,
14
relative to constitutional questions that the litigation brought to focus. The Attorneys General
15
are also requested to investigate related alleged pervasive criminality at the LA Superior Court
16
– Intervenor in instant litigation, in collusion with agencies of LA County – Defendant in
17
instant litigation - the Sheriff Department and the Office of Registrar/Recorder. Specific counts
18
of alleged criminality are detailed below as part of the evidence providing the foundation for
19
the constitutional questions. Center of interest is two-fold: The Local Rules of Court of LA
20
County, in re: entry of judgments and public access to court records, which are claimed to be
21
unconstitutional on their face, and alleged criminality originating from such Rules of Court.
22
23
A. REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION IN RE: CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
24
For the past estimated quarter century, the LA Superior Court is alleged to have maintained
25
published Rules of Court that have no bearing in reality. Instead the Court operated pursuant to
26
unpublished Rules of Court that were and are in violation of Civil Rights in the Amendments:
27
1st – to publish court papers, 6th – for public trial, and 14th- for Due Process, and Common
28

1 Law Right for access to court records to inspect and to copy. At hand is litigation of critical
2 public policy significance, Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), yet public access to litigation
3 records was denied (Exhibit 1a), false records were distributed by the court online (Exhibit
4 1c), albeit – with a disclaimer – that such records should not relied upon…, There was no way
5 to tell who was the judge and who were the parties, and for that matter, which, if any were
6 authenticated court rulings, orders, and judgments in such litigation (Exhibits 1b,c,d,e).
7 The LA Superior Court installed some 25 years ago Sustain – a case management system of
8 alleged fraudulent design, and which has been accordingly operated ever since. The Local
9 Rules of Court that are allegedly unconstitutional, for reasons including, but not limited to the
10 following:
11 (1) Rules of Court were and are Unpublished and Concealed from the
12 Public:
13 The Court has been operating based on an unpublished Rule of Court, that are
14 concealed from the public, and were never presented for comment and
15 challenge, as required by both State of California and U.S. Rule Making
16 Enabling laws (Cal Code Civ Proc §575.1; 28 USC §2071-77). Operation of
17 such court in an of itself was unconstitutional, violating Common Law rights
18 for access to court records, 1st Amendment rights to publish court records, 6th
19 Amendment rights for Public Trials, and 14th Amendment Rights for Due
20 Process. It also violated the Equal Protection Clause.
21 (2) Unconstitutional unpublished Rule of Court falsely set the Court’s
22 electronic files as “privileged”:
23 One of such unpublished Rules of Court was and is - “Sustain is privileged –
24 for the court only”. Based on such unpublished Rule of Court the Court
25 allowed itself to enter in Sustain rulings and orders with no Notice and
26 Service to parties (examples provided in instant papers). At times the Court
27 also engaged in the opposite practice - it secretly “disposed” of its own rulings
28

1 or orders, with no Notice or Service to parties (examples provided in instant
2 papers).
3 (3) Vague and ambiguous and/or false and deliberately misleading Rules of
4 Court in re: Entry of Judgment:
5 The Court has kept on the record for the past 25 years its published Rules of
6 Court in re: maintenance of Book of Judgments and procedures for entry of
7 Judgment (LA Local Rules of Court Rule 3.0, Rule 8.96), which included the
8 maintenance of a Book of Judgment, and a procedure for entry of judgment
9 based on the existence of such book or its equivalent. Such Rules of Court
10 deceptively appeared as compliant with the California Code requirement for
11 maintenance of a Book of Judgment, which was a public record, regardless of
12 what media such Book of Judgments was maintained in: Cal Code of Civ
13 Proc §664, 664.5; Cal Gov Code § 69844.7.
14 However, such published Rules of Court bear no relationship to reality, since
15 the Court eliminated some 25 years ago the paper Book of Judgments, and
16 never implemented in Sustain an equivalent electronic Book of Judgment or
17 Index of Judgments.
18 The Court could possibly keep some unpublished Rules of Court in re: Entry
19 of Judgment. However, such unpublished Rules of Court were concealed from
20 the public. Therefore, in fact the entry of judgment in LA Superior Court has
21 been in fact vague and ambiguous and/or false and deliberately misleading,
22 allowing the court at will to deem judgments as effectual or ineffectual.
23 B. REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGED CRIMINALITY
STEMMING FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS LISTED ABOVE.
24 As detailed herein, such conditions allowed alleged criminality to thrive at the court and
25 resulted in abuse of historic proportions of the residents of Los Angeles County. To wit – the
26 office of U. S. Overseer for Civil Rights in Los Angeles, which was established in Los Angeles
27 per Consent Decree of 2001 in U.S. v City of LA et al (2:2000cv11769), was recently
28 terminated after some 8 years of operations. Indeed, during such years, material improvements

1 were reported in compliance by the LAPD. However, to the best of our knowledge, the
2 Overseer had no authority over the conduct of the LA Superior Court - Intervenor in instant
3 proceedings, nor had it any authority over Defendant - the LA County and its agencies..
4 Accordingly, not a single one of the thousands that were reported falsely imprisoned since
5 before the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) was released (Exhibit 5a,b).
6 Additional examples, detailed herein, of alleged criminality enabled by such vague and
7 ambiguous court operations, and where investigations are requested include:
8 1. The alleged false jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (BS109420)
9 (Exhibits 2 a-c).
10 a. Request for investigation of alleged adulteration of U.S. court record that led
to perversion of justice and continued false jailing: Appearance of signature
11 of David Yaffe, Judge of the LA Superior Court, dated March 24, 2009, on
12 record that was the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment, while such record
was in possession of the U.S. Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle, since
13 March 20, 2009, without consent of the filer, prisoner Att Richard Fine.
14
On or about March 24, 2009, a U.S. court record was adulterated. Such court
15
record was the false and misleading, purported Judge David P Yaffe March 4,
16
2009 LA Superior Court Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine (Exhibit 2a).
17
On or about March 24, 2009, such record was already in possession of the U.S.
18
District Court, Los Angeles and Magistrate Carla Woehrle. The Supervisor of
19
Clerk Operations in U.S. Court, Los Angeles, Ms Sharon McGee informed Dr
20
Zernik that she concurred with his concerns regarding adulteration of such record,
21
and that she raised her concerns before the Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle.
22
Dr Zernik filed a demand for investigation with the Clerk of the U.S. Court, Terry
23
Nafisi, which remained unanswered (Exhibit 2b).
24
b. Request for investigation of conduct of Sheriff Baca, and the Sheriff
25 Department of LA County, who allegedly colluded with Judge David Yaffe in
the false imprisonment of Att Richard Fine:
26
Investigation is requested on the following counts:
27
28

1 (i) Relative to the jailing of Att Richard Fine when no effectual Judgment for
2 his jailing existed, and
3 (ii) In the course of the habeas corpus petition - refusal to file a response to the
4 petition, and allegedly collusion in perversion of justice,
5 (iii) Ongoing unlawful jailing of Att Richard Fine, while refusing to respond
6 to Dr Zernik’s request, as part of Meet and Confer, and provide copies of
7 any records in their possession that were and are the legal foundation for
8 the ongoing jailing of Att Richard Fine, i.e. :
9 a. An effectual March 4, 2004 Judgment, and
10 b. The Register of Actions of respective case – Marina v LA County.
11 c. Request for immediate intervention for release of Att Richard Fine while
such investigation is underway.
12
It is alleged that such adulteration resulted in the ongoing false imprisonment of
13
Att Richard Fine, through perversion of justice in review of his habeas corpus
14
petition – Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-cv-01914). Therefore,
15
while such investigation is underway, request is for immediate intervention of the
16
U.S. Attorney with the appropriate courts for immediate release of Att Richard
17
Fine.
18
2. Alleged criminality in the taking of real properties by the LA Superior Court for
19 private use in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) (Exhibits 2a-e), and in Samaan v
20 Zernik (SC087400) (Exhibits a-q), through alleged criminal conduct of Att David
Pasternak, under false and deliberately misleading pretence of “Receiver”,
21 criminally conferred upon him by Judge John Segal, with no authority at all
himself, and under Department of Writs and Receivers, managed by Judge David
22
Yaffe.
23
a. Request for investigation of the conduct of Judge David P Yaffe, Manager of
24
Dept of Receiver and Writs, Judge John Segal, and Att David Pasternak
25
relative to collusion in the alleged criminal taking of property at Yale Street,
26
Santa Monica in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).
27
28

1 i. Conduct of Judge John Segal relative to allegedly criminality in proceedings
2 conducted in May 2002 in Municipal Court of Culver City, in which he
3 remained anonymous in the Register of Actions, listed only as “Muni Judge”,
4 and where he allegedly issued a fraudulent judgment for taking the property of
5 Ms Barbara Darwish, while he had no authority to do so.
6 ii. Conduct of Judge John Segal, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David Pasternak
7 relative to the alleged criminality in the appointment of Att David Pasternak
8 as “Receiver” to execute such a judgment.
9 iii. Conduct of Judge John Segal, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David Pasternak
10 relative to the purported sale of the property at Yale Street, Santa Monica,
11 purportedly executed for the court by Att David Pasternak, where the
12 respective Conveyance of Title could not be found at the office of LA County
13 Registrar/Recorder.
14
b. Request for investigation of the conduct of Judge David P Yaffe, Manager of
15
Dept of Receiver and Writs, Judge John Segal, Judge Terry Friedman, and
16
Att David Pasternak relative to collusion in the alleged criminal taking of
17
property at Peck Drive, Beverly Hills in Samaan v Zernik ( SC087400) for
18
private use, with no compensation at all.
19
20
21 i. Conduct of Judge John Segal relative to allegedly criminality in proceedings
22 conducted in November 5, 2007, and November 9, 2007 (Exhibit 4j-n) , in
23 Superior Court of Santa Monica, in which he acted as Presiding Judge, albeit
24 with no Assignment Order, in a case that the Clerk of the Court refused to
25 authenticate as a genuine case of the Superior Court of California, and where
26 he allegedly engaged in criminal conduct relative to the pretense of execution
27 of August 9, 2007 Judgment (Exhibit 4d-i), which he himself did not deem
28 an effectual judgment at all.

1 ii. Conduct of Judge John Segal, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David Pasternak
2 relative to the alleged criminality in the appointment of Att David Pasternak
3 as “Receiver” to execute such a judgment in proceedings on November 9,
4 2007 (Exhibit 4j-k).
5 iii. Conduct of Judge John Segal, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David Pasternak
6 relative to the alleged criminality in proceedings of November 21,2007
7 (Exhibit 4-l), where Att Pasternak brought to court approval an order which
8 Judge John Segal approved, and which constituted threat of physical force to
9 displace Dr Zernik from his home and his property at 320 South Peck Drive,
10 Beverly Hills, with no legal foundation at all.
11 iv. Conduct of David Pasternak in proceedings of December 7, 2007 (Exhibit
12 m-n), where he purportedly came for court approval in ex parte application,
13 resulting from what he described as refusal of Senior Escrow officer Liz
14 Cohen (Mara Escrow) to cooperate with the alleged fraudulent conveyance of
15 Title on the Property at 320 South Peck Drive. Specifically, request it for
16 investigation of: (1) Gag orders purportedly issued against Dr Zernik – to
17 prevent him from protected speech in defense of self, (2) An indemnity
18 agreement for Mara Escrow, to induce it to engage in criminal conduct in
19 fraudulent conveyance of title with the court, and (3) An allegedly fraudulent
20 Grant Deed for the property at 320 South Peck Drive which was brought for
21 court approval by David Pasternak and as opined by FBI veteran, Fraud
22 Expert James Wedick as part of “…frauds being committed…” .
23 v. Conduct of Judge Terry Friedman, Judge David Yaffe, and Att David
24 Pasternak relative to alleged criminality in the purported sale of the property
25 at Peck Drive, Beverly Hills on or about December 17, 2007 (Exhibit 4n-o-
26 p). Such sale was purportedly executed for the court by Att David Pasternak,
27 with no writ of execution, based on a judgment that the court itself never
28 deemed effectual – therefore – with no judgment or any legal foundation at

1 all. Terry Friedman was holding the court file at that time. However, the
2 Clerk of the Court, Mr John Clarke, refuses to authenticate the case as matter
3 heard before the Superior Court of California, and Terry Friedman had and
4 still has no Assignment Order for such case.
5 Grant Deed, dated December 17, 2007, which was found at the office of
6 Registrar/Recorder of LA County, is different than the Grant Deed which Att
7 David Pasternak purported to have the court approval on December 7, 2007.
8 Each separately, and both together, were opined by veteran FBI agent James
9 Wedick as “frauds being committed..”
10 vi. Conduct of Judge Terry Friedman, Att David Pasternak and Judge David
11 Yaffe, relative to proceedings of January 30, 2008 (Exhibit 4-o-p), where
12 Judge Terry Friedman refused to release any proceeds from the purported sale
13 to Dr Zernik. Such proceeds, or whatever remained from them are still held by
14 the court to this very date, some $350,000, with no legal foundation- proceeds
15 from acts that are explicitly prohibited by law, and in which they continue to
16 engage in various transactions, which in and of themselves are prohibited by
17 law as well.
18 3. Alleged criminality in re: Conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in Samaan v
Zernik(SC087400) in conjunction with conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in
19 litigations that generated the false imprisonments that formed the foundation for
20 the Rampart scandal investigation (1998-2000) and also in conjunction with
conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in litigation of the First Rampart Trial and
21 reversing jury verdict (Dec 22,2000).
22
Request is for combined review of the conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in the
23
prosecutions that led to the false imprisonments of the Rampart FIPs, her conduct in
24
the prosecution that was known as First Rampart Trial (October –December 2000) of
25
Sgt. Edward Ortiz and officers Brian Liddy, Paul Harper and Michael Buchanan, and
26
her conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). It is alleged that combined review of
27
28

1 these three sources would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Judge Connor
2 was engaged in criminality in all three instances.
3 4. Alleged Criminality relative to financial management at the West District of the LA
Superior Court, where all payments in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and Galdjie v
4 Darwish (SC052737) were listed as “Journal Entries”.
5
Request is for combined review of the conduct of the courts that led to the listing of
6
all fees paid to the court in the case of Samaan v Zernk and the case of Galdjie v
7
Darwish as “Journal Entries”, while other cases showed all such fees listed as “Filing
8
Fees” “Motion Fees” etc.
9
IV.
10 NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS
11
12 TO THE COURT, PARTIES, AND COUNSEL OF RECORD Pro Se Interested Party
13 Joseph H Zernik (“Dr Zernik”, “Zernik”) files hereby his Notice of Motions and Motions: (1)
14 Mistrial; (2) Alternatively To vacate Orders and Judgments pursuant to CCP § 473, (3) For
15 Orders on the Court and the Clerk of the Court to provide reasonable explanations for their
16 conduct in instant litigation, and (4) For Orders Initiating Corrective Actions pursuant to
17 California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3D(1) & (2), and Proposed Orders. Further notice
18 regarding date and time of hearing would be provided pursuant to further directions by the
19 Court.
20 Dr Zernik alleges that litigation of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), and the conduct of
21 the Clerk of the Court in such case - from inception, generated ambiguity in severe violation of
22 fundamental Common Law, First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and compromised
23 litigation to the point of Mistrial. Such abuse of Civil Rights pursuant to the Amendments is
24 best evidenced by Dr Zernik’s requests for access to court records in instant case, and denial of
25 access, through the Counsel for the Court on behalf of the Clerk (Exhibit 1a). Concomitantly,
26 the Court provided access to an online record titled “Case Summary” which is misleading
27 (Exhibit 1b-c), since it fails to list pertinent records, it includes statements that contradict other
28 records, and it comes with a disclaimer that it is NOT an official Court record and should not be

1 relied upon. Further evidence for the misleading nature of such record was provided in the July
2 29, 2009 Court Counsel, Mr Bennett letter (Exhibit 1a). Such record further increases
3 ambiguity regarding instant case.
4 Repeated requests for access, directed to the Clerk were denied. Through such access it
5 would be possible either authenticate or invalidate the registration of instant case of the
6 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (“LA Superior Court),
7 the registration of the Assignment of Justice James A Richman as Presiding Judge in instant
8 case and the registration of his Orders and Judgments (Exhibit 1d), as well as the Rulings of
9 the California Court of Appeals, 4th District (Exhibit 1e). Registrations of all of these key
10 elements of instant litigation at present appear questionable at best. There are good reasons to
11 believe that such records were never registered as entered and never deemed effectual by the
12 LA Superior Court either. Needless to say, ambiguity regarding judgments undermines the
13 concept of court litigation in the first place. Request for an Order to allow access to court
14 records was filed as part of the Ex Parte Application for Orders and for Leave to File served
15 and filed herewith.
16 Detailed discussion was provided and evidence that the published Local Rules of Court of
17 the Court included for the past quarter century Rules pertaining to Entry of Judgment that had
18 no bearing in reality (Attachment A). In contrast, what the true unpublished Local Rules of
19 Court were relative to Entry of Judgment remained to be discovered (Exhibit 1c). It was
20 alleged that such vague and ambiguous, misleading Rules, under which the LA Superior Court
21 operated in the past quarter century, combined with the denial of access to public records
22 generated conditions in LA County that amounted to severe abuse of Due Process and other
23 Civil Rights.
24 In short- shortcomings or fundamental defects seen in instant litigation were not unique, but
25 rather typical of substantial number of cases. Accordingly, Orders were requested on the Clerk
26 of the LA Superior Court to provide written Rules of Court pertaining to Entry of Judgment,
27 reflecting the true practice of the LA Superior Court today, if any, and if inconsistent with the
28

1 published Rules of Court, to update the Rules in compliance with the California Rule Making
2 Enabling Law (CCP §575.1).
3 As supporting evidence for the Motion for Mistrial and its alternatives, the severe outcome
4 of such ambiguities relative to judgments, as seen in instant case, were demonstrated in further
5 details in three additional cases:
6 (4) Depriving Att Richard Fine of his liberty in Marina v LA County (BS109420)
7 (Exhibits 2a-d),
8 (5) The wrongful taking of the rental property of Barbara Kramar Darwish in
9 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) (Exhibit 3a-d), and
10 (6) The wrongful taking of residential property of Joseph Zernik for private use
11 with no compensation at all in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) (Exhibit 4a-p).
12 Orders are also requested that would initiate corrective actions regarding wrongdoing in the
13 latter three cases.
14 Beyond vague and ambiguous Entry of Judgment, the other features common to all three
15 cases listed above were that such wrongdoing as seen in such cases, could never have been
16 possible absent collusion by LA County agencies – the LA County Sheriff Department and the
17 LA County Office of Registrar/Recorder. Therefore, it is the nature of the relationship between
18 Defendant and Intervenor which is at the root cause of such wrongdoing. It was precisely the
19 same relationship that was the subject matter of instant litigation, through review of payments
20 by Defendant to Intervenor.
21 Through denial of access to records and various other wrongdoings, the LA Superior Court
22 was also the cause of the ongoing incarceration of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely
23 Imprisoned Persons) a decade after the true facts in that matter were unveiled, as documented
24 in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report, 2006 (available at the official LAPD site1); and in
25
26
1
Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006), Executive Summary, and Appendices can be viewed at the official LAPD site:
27 http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/RampartReconsidered.html
http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Full%20Report.pdf
28 http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Appendices%20Final.pdf

1 PBS Frontline – False Imprisonments in LA, 2001, updated 2008 (Exhibit 5a), and in review
2 titled The Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County, California by Prof Erwin
3 Chemerinsky (2000) (Exhibit 5b).
4 Therefore, the evidence provided herein, on the one hand – supported Mistrial,
5 alternatively- vacating of court actions, in litigation, which was irreparably compromised by
6 Due Process and other Civil Rights violations. On the other hand – such evidence
7 demonstrated the harm already done through collusion in wrongdoing between Defendant and
8 Intervenor in instant case. Party in Interest alleges that permitting payments by Defendant to
9 Intervenor would further cement such harmful relations, which led to substantial abuse of the
10 residents of LA County. Therefore, Interested Party called upon the Court to include also public
11 policy considerations in this matter, to the degree that such consideration can be adequately
12 supported by law.2
14 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
15
16
17
By: _________________________________
Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
21
22 V.
23 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
24
25
26
2
27 Pro Se Intrested Party hoped that California law provided same privileges to Pro Se filers as U.S.
law, where Pro Se Filer is forgiven when unable to provide full legal theory to support his claims, as
28 long as the facts and the claims are clearly stated.

1 1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified International Law, Articles 2, 7,8,
2 10,11,12.
3 2) Nixon v Warner Communications Inc (1978)
4 3) Fay v Noya (1963)
5 4) U.S. Constitution, Amendments First, Sixth, Fourteenth
6 5) Cal Code Civ Proc §124 – public trial
7 6) Cal Code Civ Proc §473 – motion to vacate judgment
8 7) Cal Code Civ Proc §575.1 – rule making enabling law
9 8) Cal Code Civ Proc § 664 et seq – entry of judgment
10 9) Cal Code Civ Proc §1008 – motion to vacate judgment
11 10) Cal Govt Code §6250-6276.48 - California Public Records Act
12 11) Cal Govt Code § 69844.7 – requirement to maintain Book of Judgments
13 12) California Rules of Court, Rule 1.20 Filing, and 1.21 Service
14 13) California Rules of Court, Rules 2.500: Chapter 2. Public Access to Electronic Trial
15 Court Records
16 14) Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court, Rule 3.0 – Entry of Judgment and Book of
17 Judgments
18 15) Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court, Rule 8.96 – Book of Judgments
19 16) Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736,
20 41 Cal.App.4th 738 – Los Angeles County has no Book of Judgments.
21
22 VI.
23 REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
24 Pro Se Interested Party requests that the Court incorporate by reference the records of the
25 following matters:
26 LA Superior Court
27 a. Derwish v Darwish (SC060217)
b. Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).
28
c. Marina v LA County (BS109420)

1 d. Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
2
4 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
5
6
7
By: _________________________________
1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750
9
Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
11
VII.
12 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
13 Judicial Notice is requested of the following Court records, only for facts that are
14 universally acknowledged – that such records exist. Pro Se Interested Party Dr Zernik alleges
15 that such records upon review must be deemed false and misleading. Therefore, the Request
16 for Judicial Notice does not include any claim of truthfulness of these record, only their mere
17 existence:
18 1) In re: Fine Habeas Corpus (at Cal Ct App, 2nd) (B214321)
19 a. Docket
20 b. Trial Court
2) Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914)
21 a. June 12, 2009 Judge Woehrle’s Report and Recommendations
22
3) Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737)
23 b. Register of Actions
24 c. Case Summary
25 d. Records by David Pasternak retrieved from Office of Registrar/Recorder
26 4) Marina v LA County (BS109420)
a. Case Summary
27
28

1 b. March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Fine by Judge David Yaffe, 3 specimen:
2 i. From Att Fine’s habeas corpus filing,
3 ii. From Att McCormick’s filing on behalf of Judge Yaffe and the LA Superior
4 Court, and
5 iii. From LA Superior Court file. Only face pages and signature pages are shown.
6 All three records are stamped on their faces “FILED” at the LA Superior Court on
7 March 4, 2009. The LA Sup Court copy is signed by Judge Yaffe and dated March
8 4, 2009, the other two copies are dated March 24, 2009. The Att Fine copy was also
9 part of petition stamped FILED at U.S. Court March 20. 2009.

c. March 4, 2008 Minute Order by Judge David Yaffe
10
d. June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendations by Magistrate Carla Woehrle
11
5) Rampart FIPs
12
a. Blue Ribbon Review Panel: Rampart Reconsidered (2006)
13 6) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
14 a. November 14, 2008 Certified Copy of the Register of Actions.
15 b. August 31, 2007 Register of Actions
16 c. August 3, 2009 Case Summary
17 d. November 14, 2008 Certified Copy of Minute Orders from electronic court file
18 e. Minute Orders from paper court file.
19 f. Table summarizing the differences between Minute Orders from paper and
20 electronic court files.
21 g. August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant to Cal Code Civ Proc §437c by Judge
22 Jacqueline Connor
h. November 9, 2007 Motion for appointing Pasternak Receiver by Att Mohammad
23
Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin LLP)
24
i. November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Pasternak Receiver by Judge John Segal.
25
j. November 9, 2007 Transcript of proceeding for appointment of David Pasternak
26
Receiver.
27
28

1 k. Objection filed by Dr Zernik to the filing of Case Summary as litigation record at
2 the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, and respective court order.
3 l. Objection and OSC Contempt filed by Dr Zernik following filing of Case Summary
4 as litigation record at the U.S. District Court, LA, and respective order.
5 7) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
a. Case Summary in Courtnet on the web at lasuperiorcourt.org.
6
b. List of available document images on the web at lasuperiorcourt.org.
7
9 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
10
11
12
By: _________________________________
Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
16
17 VIII.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
18
1) The Court is requested to schedule a hearing date for instant application
19
20 Interested Party, Dr Zernik, initially approached the Court in re: request for a leave to file
21 papers as an Intervenor, alternatively – as Interested Party in LA Superior Court action
22 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286). Ms Susan Suzanne O’Rourke Scanlon, Judicial Assistant
23 to the Hon. James A. Richman responded on July 27, 2009, by phone and by email, directing
24 Dr Zernik to Mr Gregory C Drapac, senior administrator at the LA Superior Court Office of the
25 Clerk/Executive Officer, who was assigned as the local clerical staff for the case, given that it
26 was not heard in its current phase in any of the standard departments of the Court (Exh 1- July
27 27, 2009 Email from Ms O’Rourke Scanlon).
28

1 Dr Zernik then approached Mr Drapac, who eventually provided by phone (but would not
2 provide it in writing) the directive described below for Dr Zernik to file an ex parte application
3 in such case, which Mr Drapac stated had originated from the court of Justice Richman. The
4 directive was provided by phone only, and repeated requests for written confirmation by email
5 remained unanswered by email, and answered by phone only.
6 Mr Gregory Drapac, directed Dr Zernik to serve instant paper on parties, file the paper at
7 the LA Superior Court, Central District (Room 102), under caption of Sturgeon v LA County
8 (BC351286), and pay the applicable filing fees. Given that there is no standard department for
9 such caption, Dr Zernik was directed to provide a copy after filing to Mr Drapac (Room 109),
10 who was to forward it to the Honorable James Richman for initial review.
11 Mr Gregory Drapac directed Dr Zernik not to state any time and place for the hearing at the
12 time of filing. Instead, only after decision in the matter by the Honorable James Richman, if
13 leave is granted to schedule an appearance, then Notice would be separately served and filed.
14 Accordingly, service and filing of the paper with no notice of date and time of appearance is
15 planned for Monday, August 3, 2009, and Proof of Service will be accordingly filed in Court
16 and served upon the parties as well.
17 The judge who rules in this matter for the Court, is requested to provide reference to his/her
18 Assignment Order, by date, and by name of authority who issued such Assignment Order, and
19 by location where such order can be found, since it was impossible to decipher the assignment
20 of judges in instant case, as discussed below.
21
2) Instant application stemmed from abuse of Dr Zernik’s rights for access to court
22
records.
23
Interested Party Dr Zernik initially approached the court in re: Request for a leave to file
24
papers as an Intervenor, alternatively – as an Interested Party.
25
On July 27, 2009 the court of Justice Richman referred Dr Zernik to Clerk Drapac as the
26
local Clerk for the matter, and Mr Drapac was expected to forward the filing to Justice
27
Richman, who would then decide on whether to hear the request.
28

1 In order to prepare his papers, Dr Zernik repeatedly requested Mr Drapac allow access to
2 litigation records of instant case pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978)
3 (Exhibit 1a). Mr Drapac refused to respond, instead – response was provided by the
4 Counsel for the Court. Such response, as discussed in adjoining ex parte applications was
5 deemed offensive and should be deemed fraudulent by the court (Exhibit 1a).
6 Further review of available records consequently revealed a series of disturbing conflicts
7 pertaining to the key facts about instant litigation. Review of the Register of Actions
8 therefore became imperative, if one is at all to comprehend the nature of transactions taking
9 place. Such transactions may appear one way to a party or parties taking place in such
10 actions, but the definitive record is generated, maintained, and at present – concealed by
11 Intervenor.
12 3) Motions were therefore filed herein for Mistrial, alternatively –to vacate judgments
and orders per CCP §473
13
14
Concealment of litigation records, as seen in instant case, should be deemed sufficient
15
abuse of Civil Rights to support Motion for Mistrial in and of itself. Moreover, in instant
16
case, the unveiled records indicate conflicting records on major points defining the litigation
17
– from the nature of Justice James A Richman involvement, to the effectual nature of
18
judgments, or lack thereof.
19
In short- the LA Superior Court, Intervenor in instant litigation, drove the case into a
20
state where its meaning is ambiguated to the point of meaninglessness.
21
As an alternative, the Court is requested to consider motion to vacate judgments and
22
orders.
23
Cal Code of Civ Proc, §473 says:
24 473. (a) (1) The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any
terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or
25
proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by
26 correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any
other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer
27 or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice
to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an
28 amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may

1 upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by
this code.
2
3 4) The LA Superior Court has been denying access to court records in the past quarter
4 century, including, but not limited to instant case (Exhibit 1b).
5 Once Dr Zernik was informed by Clerk Drapac of the Court procedure for filing, he
6 requested to access the essential official court records in purported case captioned Sturgeon v
7 LA County, and designated by number (BC351286) (Exhibit 1a).
8 Mr Drapac refused to respond, instead he referred Dr Zernik’s request to Court Counsel
9 Bennett for response. The responses received from Counsel Bennett included a key statement
10 that should be deemed fraudulent – regarding purported availability of the Register of
11 Actions in lasuperiorcourt.org online (Exhibit 1a). To this date, the LA Superior Court has
12 remained adamant in its insistence on denying access to court records in Instant Case -
13 Sturgeon v LA County.
14 There is simply no plausible explanation why an honest court would deny any person
15 access to litigation records as required by law. However, in LA County, such denial of
16 access to court records goes back some 25 years – resulting in ambiguation of litigation
17 records in the LA County Courts, and directly enabling wrongdoing by Intervenor LA
18 Superior Court in collusion with Defendant LA County.
19
20 5) Denial of access to court records as the defining feature of the justice system in LA
County, California
21
22 Denial of access to court records is alleged as the key feature in conduct of Defendant LA
23 County and Intervenor LA Superior Court that is routine wrongdoing. The reason is that
24 most of the alleged frauds jointly perpetrated by Defendant LA County and Intervenor LA
25 Superior Court can be classified as “Shell Game Frauds” since the victim is denied the right
26 to see the litigation papers concealed by the LA Superior Court, while through wrongful
27 collusion of the judiciary and executive in LA County, they claim to execute alleged
28 fraudulent judgments, as detailed in examples below.

1 In Sturgeon v LA County, even experienced attorneys and an organization claiming to
2 specialize in monitoring the judiciary, were fooled by Defendant LA County and Intervenor
3 the LA Superior Court, since Judicial Watch was induced to participate in an ambiguous
4 court actions for over three years, at considerable expenditure of funds and resources. In its
5 participation in such litigation, it could only cause harm to the public policy causes that it
6 claimed to be committed to.
7
8 6) Sturgeon v LA County was ambiguated to the point of meaninglessness
9 As stated, the LA Superior Court adamantly, repeatedly denied requests to access the
10 relevant court records of Sturgeon v LA County (Exhibit 1a), Therefore, the true nature of
11 this engagement cannot be clearly defined. However, the unofficial litigation records include
12 various indications that strongly suggest that the affair involved the keeping of contradictory
13 sets of records, as seen in other cases of the Court. Some of the indications found in the
14 available records that suggest that the case is a compromised case of the Court:
15 a. Failure to register an Initial Case Conference

b. Failure to register a Trial Setting Case Conference
16
c. Failure to register a Pre-trial Case Conference
17
d. Failure to list the January 9, 2007 Judgment by Court in the Case Summary
18
records.
19
e. Failure to list the October 10, 2008 Ruling of the San Diego Court of Appeals, 4th
20
District in Case Summary records, and its modification.
21
f. Failure to note a Remittitur.
22
g. Listing of Multiple Presiding Judges, , with no adequate documentary evidence to
23
establish the legal foundation of any such appointment/assignment.
24
h. All Minute Orders produced by the Court in relationship to papers issued by the
25
Justice James A Richman, demonstrated credible evidence of alleged wrongdoing
26
in the operation of Sustain by Deputy Clerk Martin Godderz (Dept 1). His
27
conduct resulted in production of Certifications by Clerk where his name failed to
28
appear below the signature line. Such appearance of the Minute Orders

1 ambiguated their authenticity. Moreover, it is most likely that upon obtaining
2 access to Sustain, additional wrongdoing would be uncovered relative to the
3 production of such Minute Orders and their registration in Sustain, if any.
4 7) Sturgeon v LA County litigation records were compromised “as you go”.
5 The online records presented conflicting data (Exhibit 1b-g), which reflect conflicting
6 opinions among the judges who authored the various records regarding the nature of Justice
7 James Richman involvement in instant case:
8 Justice Richman consistently signed with the following designation:
9 Sitting by Assignment as a Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles
10
11 In contrast, the unofficial, online “Case Summary” record, which Court Counsel Bennett
12 misleadingly referred to as the “Register of Actions”, consistently minimizes that role of
13 Justice Richman in the affair, and repeatedly stated regarding his involvement in instant case
- “Not Case Assignment” (see also Table 1, below):
14
15
i) False listing others as presiding in proceedings where Justice Richman presided: For
certain events that are known to have been presided by Justice Richman, pursuant to
16
Minute Orders, are listed in the Case Summary with others as the presiding judge.
17
E.g., (xi) below, 2/7/2007.
18
ii) Listing the proceeding, but omitting Justice Richman’s name: For example – see (xiii)
19
3/16/2009
20
iii) Listing the proceeding, but listing “Reference Judge” as the Presider, and list Justice
21
Richman by name in parenthesis, see (xiv) below.
22
These false data were related here not only because they reflected dishonesty in the
23
online record, but to point out the level of abuse- litigation records were adulterated “as you
24
go” and posted online.
25
Table 1. Presiding Judges and Proceedings in Sturgeon v LA County
26 As represented in Case Summary online.
No. Date Judge Assign? Parenthetical
27 Event DATA FROM OTHER sources
28

1 i) 5/1/06 Mel Red Recana Presiding
Court Order - Completed
2
ii) 5/1/06 Charles W. McCoy Presiding
3 Transferred tp Different
Dept.
4 iii) 7/13/06 Reference Judge Presiding (not case assignment)
Court makes order
5 7/14/06 Ralph W Dau Presiding
iv)
Telephonic Conference -
6 Court makes order
7 v) 8/16/06 Charles W. McCoy Presiding
Court males order
8
vi) 9/01/06 Charles W. McCoy Presiding
9 Court's ruling and order
Entered
10 vii) 10/13/06 Charles W. McCoy Presiding
Ex parte Motion –granted
11 10/20/06 Charles W. McCoy Presiding
viii)
Motion for Protective Order –
12 Granted
ix) 11/20/06 Charles W. McCoy Presiding ((2) Further Status
13 Motion for Summary Conference 10-18-06;To Be
Judgment – submitted Heard by Justice James
14
A.Richman)
15 x) 1/9/07 Lee Smalley Edmon Presiding
Ruling on Submitted Matter –
16 Granted
xi) 2/7/07 Lee Smalley Edmon Presiding
17 Court Order - Completed
xii) 2/10/09 Elihu M Berle Presiding
18 Telephonic Conference –
Matter continued
19
xiii) 3/6/09 Reference Judge Presiding (Not case Assignment)
20 Motion (TO INTERVENE) –
Case Taken Under
21 Submission
xiv) 3/13/09 Reference Judge Presiding (Not case Assignment)
22 Ruling on Submitted Matter – (Justice James A Richman)
- Court makes order
23 xv) 7/2/09 Reference Judge Presiding (Justice Richman)
(Not case Assignment)
24 xvi) 7/13/09 Elihu M Berle Presiding
xvii) 7/13/09 Reference Judge Presiding (Justice Richman)
25 (Not case Assignment)
26
27 8) The data that were likely to be hidden in the Sustain Register of Actions.
28

1 Interested Party was denied access to Sustain definitive records of the litigation, and
2 therefore, he attempted to project, based on his experiences in reviewing other litigation
3 records, what may be the reason that the LA Superior Court denied him basic Civil and Human
4 Rights.
5 Findings upon inspection of Sustain Register of Actions could include the following:
6 a. Involvement of Justice Richman may be registered as ”off the record” in Sustain.
7 b. Certain proceedings may be listed as “off the record” proceedings, with substantial
8 implications. Party and Counsel who may be present in open court may be fooled to
9 assume that they were participating in a true court proceedings. However, such
10 proceedings, which were in advance designated as “off the record”, will hardly lead to
11 any executable order or any impact on the litigation.
12 i. The 11/20/06 Case Conference: Such proceeding was at high likelihood
13 an “off the record” proceeding. Dr Zernik has not read the records of that
14 proceeding and therefore he cannot even speculate why it deserved such
15 treatment.
16 ii. 2009 Motions for Summary Judgments: Among the three MSJ’s, two
17 were likely registered as “off the record”, leaving only the Defendant’s
18 MSJ and a viable motion.
19 iii. Minute Orders providing authentication by clerk of the Justice James
20 A Martin papers in Instant Case: It is likely that all rulings, orders,
21 judgments pronounced by the Justice James A Richman in Instant Case
22 (Exhibit 1a) were kept “off the record” in Sustain. All Minute Orders
23 produced by the Court in relationship to papers issued by the Justice James
24 A Richman, demonstrate credible evidence of alleged wrongdoing in the
25 operation of Sustain by the Deputy Clerk involved – Mr Martin Godderz.
26 Such wrongful conduct resulted in flawed Certificates of Mailing and
27 Notices of Entry of Order by Clerk for each and every one of the Justice
28

1 James A Richman papers, where Mr Martin Godderz’s name failed to
2 appear below the signature line.
3 Such appearance of the Minute Orders not only ambiguated their
4 authenticity, but also made it most likely that upon obtaining access to
5 Sustain, additional wrongdoing would be uncovered, which was related to
6 the production of such false Minute Orders. Such Minute Orders most
7 likely failed to be registered in Sustain in a manner that would be deemed
8 valid by the Court.
9 There is no way that Interested Party Dr Zernik can speculate to what
10 degree the Justice James A Richman was or was not aware of the details of
11 such machinations in Sustain in Instant Case. However, now that he was
12 reliably informed that wrongdoing in at least likely, he is expected to act in
13 compliance with the California Code of Judicial Ethics, initiate corrective
14 actions, and fully inform the public of his actions and their outcome in
15 such matter.
16 On August 4, 2009 Dr Zernik called by phone Mr Gregory Drapac, since
17 he was directed by the Court of Justice James A Richman that Mr Drapac
18 was the local Los Angeles Clerk assigned to the case. Dr Zernik raised
19 with Mr Drapac his concerns that the Minute Orders issued by the LA
20 Superior Court for all papers produced by Justice James A Richman were
21 invalid. Mr Drapac asked Dr Zernik to identify such Minute Orders by
22 date. He then assured Dr Zernik that he reviewed the Minute Orders on
23 the Court’s computer system, and that the Minute Orders at question were
24 valid and adequately authenticated. Therefore, Dr Zernik alleges that Mr
25 Drapac colluded in wrongdoing perpetrated by Mr Godderz, and that Mr
26 Drapac should be included in any investigation that may be undertaken
27 into the alleged wrongdoing in instant case.
28

1 c. It would also be prudent to check exactly what status was accorded in the Sustain record
2 to Att Paul Orfanedes and his papers, and separately, how the Intervention by LA
3 Superior Court was registered.
4 9) The Court generated and kept records for itself in its secret notes in the Register of
Actions, which were not accessible to the public and parties.
5
6 Such records that may be thought by some to be insignificant, carry substantial weight-
7 otherwise the Court would not bother to engage in such elaborate double and triple
8 bookkeeping for a quarter century. It matters particularly if Plaintiff considers filing an appeal
9 at the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District. Dr Zernik is informed and believes that the 2nd
10 District Court of Appeals was provided online routine access to Sustain. The outcome was that
11 the Court of Appeal and LA Superior Court shared litigation records that other parties to
12 petitions and appeals did not even know existed.
13 10) Based on available records it was impossible to conclude that a valid case of the LA
Superior Court Sturgeon v LA County indeed ever existed.
14
15 The Clerk of the Court should either authenticate or invalidate the case of Sturgeon v LA
16 County. Orders to disambiguate and authenticate, alternatively – to invalidate matter under
17 caption of Sturgeon v LA County, designated by number as (BC351286); and similarly – to
18 either authenticate or invalidate the Honorable James A Richman’s assignment as a Judge in
19 such case, as his 2007 and 2009 papers bearing titles such as “Order” and “Judgment”.
20 11) If Sturgeon v LA County was indeed authenticated as a case – it would still be
impossible to conclude based on available records which of the proceedings were
21 deemed valid by the Court.
22
To establish authenticated records in such litigation one must gain access to Sustain, where
23
each transaction is required to be separately registered, and the respective adjudication
24
explicitly noted. When honestly practiced, the Register of Actions is a tool that could assist in
25
guiding quality administration of justice. However, as noted in analysis of the Registers of
26
Actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), the Register of
27
28

1 Actions in Sustain, as operated today is central to the compromise of litigation records at the
2 LA Superior Court.
3 To give just one example, one may examine the minute orders by Justice Richman:
4 a. Justice Richman’s two (2) January 9, 2007 Minute Orders
5 b. Justice Richman’s two (2) February 7, 2007 Minute Orders
6 c. Justice Richman’s two (2) July 30, 2009 Minute Orders
7 The purported clerk authentication of the Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry
8 remained anonymous in all of them – since Mr Martin Godderz, who Dr Zernik was
9 informed by Mr Drapac generated these records, failed to have his name appear under the
10 signature line.
11 Dr Zernik indeed believed that such Minute Orders were printed out from Sustain by
12 Mr Godderz. However, Dr Zernik believed that such Minute Orders were not the product of
13 honest operation of Sustain and not the product of the uses of the appropriate functions in
14 Sustain for the issuance of Minute Orders that would result in registration of the Minute
15 Orders, as such, in the system.
16 Not only the endorsement of the clerk was typed manually, instead of being
17 automatically generated by the system as part of the Minute Order production procedure, but
18 also the Parties were manually typed. The most plausible explanation is that the Parties were
19 never adequately entered in Sustain, even in the fourth year of instant case.
20 Obviously, such issues may be the true reason why the LA Superior Court is adamant
21 in its refusal to allow Dr Zernik to inspect and to copy the Register of Actions in Sustain.
22 12) There was no record to demonstrate how the Court entered the Justice James A
Richman 2007 Order and Judgment in order to make them effectual by law; How
23
the Court entered the Justice James A Richman 2009 Order and Judgment from
24 the Motion for Summary Judgment ruled upon July 30, 2009.
25 The procedure that was defined in Local Rules of Court of LA County, and complied
26 with the law, is non-feasible, since the LA Superior Court has no Book of Judgments for the
27 past 25 years (Attachment 1d, and Filipescu V. California Housing Finance Agency
28 (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 736, 41 Cal. App. 4th 738.

1 Any Rule of Court that was implemented for Entry of Judgments and Appealable Orders,
2 in the manner that such Judgments and Appealable Orders were required to be entered by
3 law in order to make them effectual, were not disclosed to the public. However, it appeared
4 that the procedures implemented by the LA Superior Court were flexible.
5 Additional discussion of such matter was provided in Attachment 1d).
6 13) The LA Superior Court precedents - false imprisonments and alleged real estate
frauds, based on alleged judgment frauds.
7
8 The wrongful use of compromised LA Superior Court records in collusion with LA
9 County agencies is particularly noted in respect to:
10 (a) False Imprisonments - upon review, the case of the Rampart-FIPs (Falsely
11 Imprisoned Persons) must be deemed an abuse of historic proportion (Exhibit 5a-
12 f). False imprisonment came back into focus with the alleged fraud in
13 imprisonment by Judge David Yaffe of Att Richard Fine (Exhibits 2a-c), who was
14 instrumental in bringing the issue of the “not permitted” payments by LA County
15 to LA Superior Court judges to public attention.
16 (b) Alleged Real Estate Frauds – LA County was routinely listed in FBI annual crime
17 reports as “the epicenter of an epidemic of real estate and mortgage frauds” –
18 specific examples are provided below from Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737)
19 (Exhibits 3a-e) and Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) (Exhibits 4a-p), of alleged real
20 estate frauds in conjunction with litigation at the court, based on compromised
21 Entry of Judgments.
22 (c) The use of sham court actions and sham judgments was believed to be driven by
23 the desire to make such false judgments non-appealable. However, given that
24 there was no valid judgment in such litigations certain difficulties could arise:
25 1) Wrongful real or implied threat of force by Defendant’s agency – the LA
26 County Sheriff - to execute allegedly fraudulent LA Superior Court judgments.
27 Instances evidenced here included the false arrest of Att Richard Fine at the
28 LA Superior Court on March 4, 2009, with no authentic, effectual Judgment

1 record (Exhibit 2a), and also in purported November 21, 2007 Order by Judge
2 John Segal (Exhibit 4j-l) to affect the wrongful taking of Dr Zernik’s property
3 pursuant to an order to the Sheriff to act on such unlawful order “like Unlawful
4 Detainer after Entry of Judgment”.
5 2) Wrongful conduct by Defendant’s agency – LA County Office of
6 Registrar/Recorder, which accepted false records from Att David Pasternak,
7 falsely appointed as “Receiver” for the Court (Exhibit 4j-k), as opined by
8 decorated veteran FBI agent, James Wedick (Exhibit 4m-n). Fraudulent
9 conveyance of title by Att David Pasternak is alleged also in the case of
10 Barbara Darwish (Exhibit 4a-c), Numerous other false grant deeds were
11 found in search of the office of Registrar/Recorder, which were filed by Att
12 David Pasternak acting as receiver for the LA Superior Court.
13 14) Detailed Review of multiple cases led to allegations of Multi-Tracking at the LA
Superior Court (Exhibit 4d).
14
15 Detailed comparison of the cases of Barbara Darwish and Joseph Zernik reveals
16 surprising similarities, which would lead a reasonable person to at least entertain the doubt, if
17 not conclude, that such cases, falsely represented as cases of the LA Superior Court, were in
18 fact designed by respective Plaintiffs in collusion with Judges of the LA Superior Court even
19 before the filing of the alleged false complaints (Exhibit 3e). Such similarities included but
20 were not limited to the following: In both such Cases, the complaints were originally based
21 on fabricated claims of “oral modifications of real estate purchase contracts”, and both
22 sought relief per equity rights in specific performance, in both cases claims were made that
23 there was no right for jury trial- based on equity claims, in both Cases various alleged frauds
24 in the respective Sustain registrations were uncovered, in both cases a series of judges
25 presided, none with a valid Assignment Order, in both cases false Sustain registration was
26 uncovered in key proceedings, e.g. – Demurrers pursuant to Statute of Frauds in both cases
27 (since in both cases no contract was included in the complaint). Further discussion of the
28 alleged Enterprise Track of the LA Superior Court is provided in Exhibit 3e.

1 15) Partnership in wrongdoing was alleged between the LA Superior Court Judges
and LA County agencies.
2
3 Such alleged wrongdoing, or more simply stated - was and is perpetrated through joint
4 conduct of parties including, but not limited to:
5 (a) Judges of Intervenor LA Superior Court - such as Judge Jacqueline Connor,
6 Judge John Segal, Judge Terry Friedman, and Judge David Yaffe;
7 (b) Officers of Intervenor LA Superior Court - such as Att David Pasternak, former
8 President of the LA Bar Association, who often serves as alleged false Receiver
9 for real estate for Intervenor, under Judge David Yaffe, manager of Intervenor’s
10 Department of Writs and Receivers;
11 (c) Defendant’s LA County Sheriff Department, which is claimed below to be
12 engaging in false imprisonment of Att Richard Fine, and possibly also obstruction
13 and perversion of justice, jointly with Judge David Yaffe and others, in respect to
14 the conduct of litigation in Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-CV-01914) –
15 the habeas corpus petition. Request was filed with the Executive/Clerk of the
16 U.S. Court, LA, for investigation of concerns that on or about March 24, 2009, the
17 record that is the Habeas Corpus petition of Att Richard Fine was adulterated,
18 specifically, by inscribing the date March 24, 2009 on the last page of the March
19 4, 2009 Judgment record. As described below, the data as a whole suggest that
20 the Sheriff Dept had no valid legal records as foundation for the jailing of Att
21 Fine.
22 (d) Defendant’s LA County Office of Registrar/Recorder, which accepts from Att
23 David Pasternak on behalf of Intervenor, the LA Superior Court, grant deeds such
24 as those in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), which were opined “fraud” by veteran
25 FBI agent, fraud expert James Wedick, who was decorated by U.S. Congress,
26 U.S. Attorney General, and FBI Director.
27
28

1 16) Therefore, additional orders were requested for the safeguard of Civil and Human
Rights pertaining to the conduct of Intervenor LA Superior Court in instant case and
2
in all cases of the Court regarding denial of access to court records and “waiver” of
3 notice and service of court orders.
4 a. Orders to restore compliance by Intervenor LA Superior Court with Due
5 Process rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
6 including but not limited to Notice and Service. In instant case as well there
7 was no evidence that the Court noticed and served parties, as required by law,
8 on all of its Minute Orders.
9 b. Orders to restore compliance by Intervenor LA Superior Court with Common
10 Law, First and Sixth Amendments rights - to allow public access to judicial
11 records to inspect and to copy, to publish such public court records, and for
12 public trial - as re-affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner
13 Communications, Inc (1978);
14 c. Orders to restore compliance by Intervenor LA Superior Court with the
15 Universal Declaration of Human Rights – ratified International Law - Articles
16 2, 7, 10, 11, and 12.
17 Articles 2, 7, 10, 11, and 12 say:
18 Article 2
No distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or
19 international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs.
20
Article 7
21 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to
equal protection of the law.
22
Article 8
23 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
24 constitution or by law.
25 Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
26 independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
27
28

1 Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent
2 until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the
guarantees necessary for his defence.
3 No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or
omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or
4 international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier
penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal
5 offence was committed.
6
Article 12
7 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
8 Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks.
9
d. Orders to restore compliance by Intervenor with California Law and Rules of
10
Courts prescribing that the courts provide public access to judicial records that
11
are trial court litigation records, including, but not limited to electronic
12
records and digital signatures.
13
California Code of Civil Procedures §124 says:
14
124. Except as provided in Section 214 of the Family Code or any
15 other provision of law, the sittings of every court shall be public.
16 California Public Records Act says:

17
Cal Govt Code §6250-6276.48
18 …public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of
the…agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record…,
19 [and to receive] an exact copy of an identifiable record unless impracticable.
20
California Rules of Court, Rule 1.20 Filing, and 1.21 Service say:
21
Rule 1.20 Filing
22 Unless otherwise provided, a document is deemed filed on the date it is
received by the court clerk.
23 (Rule 1.20 adopted effective January 1, 2007.)
24 Rule 1.21. Service
(a) Service on a party or attorney
25 Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must
be made on the party’s attorney if the party is represented.
26 (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(b) “Serve and file”
27 As used in these rules, unless a statute or rule provides for a different method
for filing or service, a requirement to “serve and file” a document means that
28 a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each party

1 separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any other
person or entity when required by statute, rule, or court order, and that the
2 document and a proof of service of the document must be filed with the court.
…
3 (c) “Proof of service”
As used in these rules, “proof of service” means a declaration stating that
4 service has been made as provided in (a) and (b). If the proof of service
names attorneys for separately represented parties, it must also state which
5 party or parties each of the attorneys served is representing.
(Subd (c) adopted effective January 1, 2007.)
6
Rule 1.21 amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1,
7 2007.
8 California Rules of Court, Rules 2.500 et seq say:

9 Chapter 2. Public Access to Electronic Trial Court Records
Rule 2.500. Statement of purpose
10 Rule 2.501. Application and scope
Rule 2.502. Definitions
11 Rule 2.503. Public access
Rule 2.504. Limitations and conditions
12 Rule 2.505. Contracts with vendors
Rule 2.506. Fees for electronic access
13 Rule 2.507. Electronic access to court calendars, indexes, and registers of
actions
14 Rule 2.500. Statement of purpose
15 (a) Intent
The rules in this chapter are intended to provide the public with reasonable
16 access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form, while
protecting privacy interests.
17 (b) Benefits of electronic access
Improved technologies provide courts with many alternatives to the historical
18 paper-based record receipt and retention process, including the creation and
use of court records maintained in electronic form. Providing public access to
19 trial court records that are maintained in electronic form may save the courts
and the public time, money, and effort and encourage courts to be more
20 efficient in their operations. Improved access to trial court records may also
foster in the public a more comprehensive understanding of the trial court
21 system.
22 (c) No creation of rights
The rules in this chapter are not intended to give the public a right of access
23 to any record that they are not otherwise entitled to access. The rules do not
create any right of access to records that are sealed by court order or
24 confidential as a matter of law.
(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
25 Rule 2.500 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as
rule 2070 effective July 1, 2002.
26 Advisory Committee Comment
The rules in this chapter acknowledge the benefits that electronic court
27 records provide but attempt to limit the potential for unjustified intrusions into
the privacy of individuals involved in litigation that can occur as a result of
28 remote access to electronic court records. The proposed rules take into

1 account the limited resources currently available in the trial courts. It is
contemplated that the rules may be modified to provide greater electronic
2 access as the courts’ technical capabilities improve and with the knowledge
gained from the experience of the courts in providing electronic access under
3 these rules.
Rule 2.501. Application and scope
4 (a) Application
The rules in this chapter apply only to trial court records.
5 (Subd (a) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as
subd (b) effective July 1, 2002.)
6
(b) Access by parties and attorneys
7 The rules in this chapter apply only to access to court records by the public.
They do not limit access to court records by a party to an action or
8 proceeding, by the attorney of a party, or by other persons or entities that are
entitled to access by statute or rule.
9 (Subd (b) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as
subd (c) effective July 1, 2002.)
10 Rule 2.501 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted
11 as rule 2017 effective July 1, 2002.
12 17) Case #1: Wrongdoing was alleged by the Court in collusion with LA County
13 agency – the Sheriff Department in Marina v LA County (BS109420)
14 There is no plausible explanation based on good faith conduct for explaining the records
15 found in re: March 4, 2009 Judgment by Judge David Yaffe for jailing of Attorney Fine.
16 In a recent review of records in Fine v LA County Sheriff Department - the habeas
17 corpus petition of Att Richard Fine (Exhibit 2c), Dr Zernik found out that the purported
18 Judge David P Yaffe March 4,2009 Judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine, which was
19 stamped FILED by the LA Superior Court on March 4, 2009, and was stamped FILED on
20 March 20, 2009, as one of the exhibits in habeas corpus petition filed on that date at the U.S.
21 District Court , LA, was verified by Judge David Yaffe, with the date of March 24, 2009. on
22 at least 2 of the copies of such purported court record. One might initially consider such
23 false date as a naïve error, but further investigation made it more likely that the case involved
24 false judgment record and alleged alteration/adulteration of court records to affect false
25 imprisonment.
26 Once it was realized that the case of the jailing of Att Richard Fine was yet another
Entry of Judgment case by the LA Superior Court, the history of the litigation in the habeas
27
corpus petition in both the U.S. District Court, LA became clearer:
28

1 18) Unusual and extreme conditions of jailing of Att Richard Fine by Defendant’s
agency LA County Sheriff Department, were likely induced by the desire to
2
undermine Att Fine’s legal efforts.
3
First – the filing of the habeas corpus petition was delayed and was overshadowed by
4
concerted efforts by the LA Sheriff Department to prevent Att Fine from filing such petition,
5
by denying him access to paper, to pen, to visitors, to the jail’s legal library. Once one
6
realized that the Sheriff Department, an agency of Defendant LA County, was most likely
7
colluding with Intervenor, the LA Superior Court, in what must be deemed false
8
imprisonment, it made more sense why the need arose to resort to such extreme abusive
9
measures against Att Richard Fine.
10
On that background, it also became obvious why the efforts were made to isolate Att
11
Richard Fine from the outside world- therefore - he would not know what the papers filed
12
under his name looked like on the court’s docket, and people outside would not know what
13 papers Att Fine was served in jail.
14 19) Both Defendant and Intervenor in Instant Case refused to respond to the habeas
15 corpus petition of Att Richard Fine in U.S. District Court, LA.
.
16 Another unusual feature of the litigation in Fine v LA County Sheriff Department was
17 that after the petition was filed, neither the Sheriff Department nor the LA Superior Court
18 agreed to respond to the petition. Once one realizes that the jailing was founded on an
19 alleged false judgment record it all made sense – none of them wanted to incriminate
20 himself. At the end, the Sheriff – an agency of Defendant LA County, indeed never filed a
21 response – albeit – he was rightfully named as Respondent, since he falsely held and still
22 holds Attorney Fine. The Sheriff Department claimed that Real Party in Interest – the LA
23 Superior Court should be required to respond. Through Attorney Fontana, the Sheriff
24 eventually filed a motion to dismiss, but without ever filing any records to establish the legal
25 foundation of the jailing of Att Richard Fine.
26 The LA Superior Court – Intervenor in Instant Case – eventually volunteered to
27 respond, albeit, it responded with an insufficient pleading – no declaration was filed by
28 Judge David Yaffe or any other Court officer. Instead, the U.S. District Court of Magistrate

1 Woehrle was fully satisfied with declaration by counsel only. Moreover, the Counsel, Att
2 McCormick, filed a copy of the Judgment record that was different from the one filed by Att
3 Richard Fine, and yet, like the copy filed by Richard Fine, it showed a March 4, 2009 FILED
4 stamp on its face, and verification by Judge Yaffe dated March 24, 2009 on its last page.
5 Moreover, the Counsel failed to file the definitive record required to establish the legal
6 foundation for such judgment – the Register of Actions in Sustain.
7 In the case of Marina v LA County, it was likely that upon gaining access to Public
8 Record which was the Register of Actions in Sustain, additional flaws in the records by the
9 LA Superior Court would be uncovered. Requests filed with the Clerk of the LA Superior
Court to access such records was denied.
10
11
20) Wrongdoing was alleged in collusion by the LA Superior Court and the U.S.
District Court LA in habeas corpus petition of Att Richard Fine - Fine v Sheriff
12 (2:09-Cv-01914)
13 The docket of the U.S. District Court, LA in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914), stated
14 that the petition of Att Fine was filed on March 20, 2009, including the Judge Yaffe March 4,
15 2009 Judgment record. Dr Zernik was reliably informed that Att Fine recently stated that
16 such record that was in his possession and was filed on his behalf with the habeas corpus
17 petition was undated. However, the U.S. docket in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914), further
18 stated that the petition exhibits, filed on March 20, 2009 were modified on March 24, 2009,
19 with no additional details, and with no evidence of consent by Att Fine to such modifications
20 that may have taken place and were noted in the docket.
21 Combined with additional evidence it appeared most plausible that on March 24,
22 2009, the record in the U.S. District Court was disassembled, and that the necessary page
23 was forwarded to Judge Yaffe for signature, which he truthfully then signed March 24, 2009,
24 only to have the record shipped back to the U.S. Court, and reinserted into the Attorney
25 Richard Fine habeas corpus petition, all without Att Richard Fine’s consent.
26 Dr Zernik raised his concerns with the counsel involved, but none of them responded
27 to Dr Zernik (Exhibit 2d). Dr Zernik also raised his concerns with the U.S. District Court
28 Supervisor of Operations, Ms Sharon McGee, and a week later, by phone, Ms McGee

1 informed Dr Zernik that she looked into the matter and that she concurred with Dr Zernik’s
2 concerns that there could have been some dishonest conduct involved. She also informed Dr
3 Zernik that she raised the issue before the court of Magistrate Woehrle.
4 Dr Zernik also filed a request for investigation with the Executive Clerk of the U.S.
5 Court, Terry Nafisi. No response was received so far.
6 21) No record at all existed of entry or service of March 4, 2009 Judgment for the
Jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (BS109420)
7
8 Of interest, the March 4, 2009 Minute Order in the case that originated the jailing -
9 Marina v County (BS109420), included no mention of the judgment or entry of judgment.
10 Such March 4, 2009 Minute Order was never noticed or served on the parties either. In short
– there is no evidence that any semblance of entry of judgment procedure or any permutation
11
of such procedure ever took place on March 4, 2009. Instead, it appears that Judge Yaffe
12
chose to deliberately rely on a defective, unentered ineffectual judgment for the jailing of Att
13
Fine, and the Sheriff Department went along for the ride.
14
The alleged false March 4, 2009 judgment was of course facilitated by the fact that
15
the LA County did not maintain a Book of Judgments, and therefore did not comply with any
16
legal procedure for entry of judgment. Therefore, there was also no clearly defined way for
17
the public to inspect and to copy records that would definitively ascertain or refute the
18
existence of a March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine.
19
In short – the LA Superior Court created vague and ambiguous conditions relative to
20
judgments that were outside any standards of U.S. Due Process, and also International Law
21
in re: Fair Tribunals.
22
22) Inexplicable dishonest review of the allegedly false David P Yaffe March 4, 2009
23 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine in Marina v County (BS109420) was
recorded by the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
24
25 The case of Marina v County (BS109420), also demonstrates the conduct of the
26 California Court of Appeals, 2nd District in cases of alleged judgment fraud by the LA
27 Superior Court. Att Richard Fine filed a habeas corpus petition also with the California
28 Court of Appeals, 2nd District, based on the same purported David P Yaffe March 4, 2009

1 Judgment record, with no date in its verification. But the court of appeals DENIED the
2 petition, albeit, the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, online record left the ‘Judgment
3 Date” field incomplete.
4 As noted before, such online dockets of the California Court of Appeals at present fail
5 to include any field where the “Date of Entry of Judgment” would be noted in the record.
6 Such unusual practice by the California Courts of Appeals in their online “Dockets
7 (Registers of Actions)”, in fact, was no different from the online “Case Summary” falsely
8 represented as the Register of Actions by the LA Superior Court.
9
Case Number B214321
10 Date Description Notes
11 03/02/2009 Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed. Request for Immediate Stay/1 Volume of Exhibits
12
03/03/2009 Order denying petition filed.
13
03/03/2009 Case complete.
14
15
16 23) Dishonest review of the allegedly fraudulent Judge David Yaffe March 4,2009
Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine was recorded by Magistrate Woehrle’s
17 June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendations in the matter of Att Richard Fine’s
habeas corpus petition Fine v Sheriff (2:09-Cv-01914)
18
19 Once one realized that the jailing of Att Richard Fine was most likely founded on a
20 false judgment at the LA Superior Court, the conduct of U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle
21 becomes much easier to understand, albeit – serious concerns were raised regarding her
22 conduct as well.
23 The core standard for review of a habeas corpus petition was spelled out in Fay v
24 Noya (1963), where the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority decision was written by the late
25 Justice Brennan. In a writ of habeas corpus, a U.S. Judge is petitioned “to inquire into the
26 legality of the prisoner's detention”, and the overriding standard of review in such inquiry
is: “…if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental
27
28

1 requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release.” (Fay v Noia
2 (1963) pp. 401–402).
3 On June 12, 2009, almost 3 months after Att Richard Fine filed his habeas corpus
4 petition, Magistrate Woehrle filed her Report and Recommendation – that the petition be
5 dismissed with prejudice. Her opening paragraph effectively provided the examination of
6 “the fundamental requirements of the law”:
7 I. PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
The pro se petitioner, Richard I. Fine, is in the custody of the Sheriff of Los Angeles
8 County, at a Los Angeles County jail facility, under a judgment and order of contempt
and a remand order (imposing coercive civil contempt under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc.
9 § 1219(a)) both issued on March 4, 2009, by Hon. David P. Yaffe, Judge of the
Superior Court, in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No.
10 BS109420. Petitioner challenged the contempt proceeding and sought state court
remedies in a habeas petition to the California Supreme Court (No. S170933), which
11 was summarily denied on March 5, 2009.
The present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
12 State Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2254) was filed in this court on March 19, 2009 (as
13 docket no. 1). On April 21, 2009, Respondent Sheriff Baca filed a motion to dismiss
(docket no. 12), simply arguing that the Sheriff, although Petitioner’s actual
14 custodian, has acted under order of the superior court, and is not the real party in
interest. An answer, addressing the merits of Petitioner’s claims, was filed on May 1,
15 2009 (docket no. 15), on behalf of Judge Yaffe and the Superior Court, Los Angeles
County, as Respondents and Real Parties in Interest. Petitioner has filed two
16 responses to the answer (docket no. 22, filed May 8, 2009, and docket no. 24, filed
May 14, 2009).
17
18 Of note, Magistrate Woehrle failed to even identify the case by name, which may be
19 tied to the question whether there was indeed an authenticated case of Marina v LA County
20 (BS109420). Similarly – Magistrate Woehrle noted Judge David Yaffe as Judge of the
21 Superior Court, but she failed to state that he was Presiding Judge in Marina v County,
22 raising the question of missing Assignment Orders in that case as well. She entirely forgot to
23 inquire about the Register of Actions of the case – the definitive record of the litigation for
24 establishing the foundation for the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment record.
25 Most conspicuous – she failed to state that the March 4, 2009 Judgment was ever
26 entered, instead, she noted that judgment was “issued” March 4, 2009. Finally- she missed
27 the discrepancy in dates between filing and verification of the record.
28

1 24) The dishonest conduct of U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle in review of alleged
false judgment by the LA Superior Court in re: Entry of Judgment for jailing of Att
2
Richard Fine – was a repeat of her dishonest conduct in review of alleged false
3 judgment by the LA Superior Court in re: Entry of Judgment in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) a year earlier.
4
5 None of these deficiencies in the U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle June 12, 2009 Report
6 and Recommendation could be deemed an oversight or as a naïve error, if only for the fact
7 that she managed in a few short sentences to misrepresent the case of Marina v LA County
8 (BS109420), as if it provided the authentic legal foundation for the jailing, while managing
9 to consistently avoid any valid statement on the matter. Moreover, a year earlier, Dr Zernik
10 was engaged in similar arguments with Magistrate Carla Woehrle relative to yet another
11 alleged false Entry of Judgment by the LA Superior Court – in Samaan v Zernik
12 (SC087400). Therefore, there was no doubt at all, that by the time she reviewed the Att
13 Richard Fine habeas corpus petition she was readily familiar with all the nuances of the
14 alleged false judgments at the LA Superior Court.
15 Needless to say, the fact that such cases of alleged false judgments by the LA
16 Superior Court end up in the lap of U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle, combined with the
17 multiple recusals typically seen in such cases, are inexplicable in and of themselves.
18 25) Case #2: Criminality in conduct of judges Connor, Segal, and Friedman, among
others, was alleged in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
19
20 Magistrate Carla Woehrle reviewed the LA Superior Court in Samaan v Zernik
21 (SC087400) as part of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), where some 10 judges of the
22 LA Superior Court were named as Defendants for allegedly perpetrating real estate false
23 conveyance of title. They were sued for violation of civil rights under the color of law 42
24 USC §1983, pertaining to the taking of Dr Zernik’s property for private use with no
25 compensation at all. They were also in the unusual position of having no immunity, since
26 they had no Assignment Orders as well.
27 In Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) too, no declaration by any judge was
28 entered. In that case as well, the LA Superior Court attempted to file the online “Case

1 History” record in lieu of the true litigation record that is the Register of Actions. The same
2 alleged false conduct that was attempted by Counsel Bennett July 28, 2009 Letter relative to
3 instant case, in which he denied access to public court records in instant case.
4 In response to such filing by the LA Superior Court in U.S. District Court in Zernik v
5 Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) Dr Zernik filed an objection and also an OSC for Contempt.
6 Magistrate Woehrle simply refused to rule on such filings, claiming that they were not
7 material to the litigation. In fact, the alleged false “Case Summary” record was the ONLY
8 documentary evidence filed by the LA Superior Court and its judges in Zernik v Connor et al
9 (2:08-cv-01550).
10 Magistrate Woehrle also refused to file a Statement on the Record regarding any
11 conflicts, pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics, claiming that as U.S. Magistrate
12 she was not bound by the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
13 In the same case in U.S. Court - Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) - Judge Virginia
14 Phillips issued a March 21. 2008 Minute Order, where she stated twice that judgment was
15 “awarded”, but never mentioned the word “entered”. Dr Zernik filed a request for reconsideration,
16 asking for restatement of that ruling with the word “entered”. Dr Zernik asked Judge Phillips as well
17 for a Statement on the Record in re: conflicts. Judge Phillips denied both requests.
18 26) There is no plausible explanation based on honest conduct and effectual August
9, 2009 Judgment by Court in view of the records generated by Judge Jacqueline
19
Connor, Judge John Segal, Judge Terry Friedman, Att David Pasternak, Att
20 Mohammad Keshavarzi in Samaan v Zernik.
21 The evidence provided in Exhibit 4 that are Court records from Samaan v Zernik
22 (SC087400) showed that the judges in this case engaged in alleged criminal conduct. None
23 of them held valid Assignment Order, none of them had any authority by law. They engaged
24 in the taking of property for private use with no compensation at all, under the threat of
25 force.
26 27) Case #3: False Entry of Judgment in Galdjie v Darwish () .There is no plausible
27 explanation based on honest conduct and effectual May 20, 2002 Judgment by
Court in view of the records generated by Judge John Segal and Att David
28 Pasternak in Galdjie v Darwish.

1
2 The evidence provided in Exhibit 3 that were Court records from Galdjie v Darwish (SC)
3 showed that the judges in this case engaged in alleged criminal conduct. None of them held
4 valid Assignment Order, none of them had any authority by law. They engaged in the taking
5 of property for private use with no authority at all.
6 28) Therefore, additional orders are requested regarding alleged wrongdoing by
7 Defendant, Intervenor, and others in three named cases of alleged judgment frauds:
8 a. Orders to initiate corrective actions, subject to review of following matters by the
9 Court as part of instant ex parte application:
10 i. The alleged fraud in judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine by Intervenor the LA
11 Superior Court through Judge David Yaffe and Defendant LA County through the
12 LA County Sheriff Department in Marina v LA County (BS109420);
13 ii. The alleged fraud in judgment for taking the real property of Barbara Kramar
14 Darwish by Intervenor the LA Superior Court through Judge John Segal and Att
15 David Pasternak in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), and
16 iii. The alleged fraud in judgment for taking the real property of Interested Party Dr
17 Joseph H Zernik by Intervenor the LA Superior Court through Judge Jacqueline
18 Connor in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400),
19 Instant ex parte application reliably informs the Court of such matters, and the
20 California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(1) & (2) prescribes that under such
21 circumstances a California judge such as Justice James Richman initiate corrective
22 action.
23 California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3D(1) & (2) say:
24 D. Disciplinary Responsibilities
(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated
25 any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate
appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the
26 appropriate authority.
(2) Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated
27 any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take
appropriate corrective action.
28

1 29) Therefore, additional orders are requested as corrective action regarding vague
and ambiguous procedure for entry of judgment and failure to keep a public record
2
that is the Book of Judgments in compliance with the California Code - conditions that
3 enabled the judgment frauds named in (4). Above:
4 a. Orders to create an Electronic Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments in Sustain as a
5 public record;
6 b. Orders to disambiguate Court procedures for maintenance of Book of Judgments/Index
7 of Judgments in Sustain and entry of judgment in compliance with California Code.
8 c. Orders to update the Local Rules of Court, pursuant to California Rule Making Enabling
9 Act, on any other matter where the rules, as published today, are inconsistent with the
10 practice of the court, including but not limited to the maintenance and access to an
11 Electronic Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments, and procedures for entry of
12 judgment.
13 30) Therefore, additional orders are requested as corrective action of the ongoing false
14 incarceration of the Rampart-FIPs:
15 a. Orders to restore public access in the criminal division of Intervenor the LA Superior
16 Court in a manner similar to that listed above regarding the civil division of Intervenor
17 LA Superior Court –public access to court records including but not limited to: Index
18 of All Cases, Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts, Book of Judgments/Index
19 of Judgments, and minute orders in the computerized case management system (name
20 unknown) of the criminal division.
21 b. Orders to restore Due Process by service and notice of all court orders, rulings,
22 judgments in the criminal division of Intervenor the LA Superior Court.
23 c. Order for Intervenor the LA Superior Court to file in instant case digital copy of all
24 court records of the criminal division for the years 1985 (?)-2000, including: Index of
25 All Cases, Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts, Book of Judgments/Index of
26 Judgments, and minute orders with a self-standing functional copy of the criminal
27 division’s case management system. 2 terminals, and manuals.
28

1 d. Order by the court announcing that it would review proposals that may be filed by any
2 credible not-for-profit organization committed to fairness in the criminal justice
3 system, to undertake review of such records in attempt to expediently free the
4 Rampart-FIPs.
6 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
7
8
9
By: _________________________________
Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
13
14 IX.
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK
15
16
I , Joseph H Zernik, declare as follows:
17
1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein which I know to be true and
18
correct and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify with respect
19
thereto. This declaration is submitted as part of my Motion for Mistrial/To Vacate
20
Judgments in Sturgeion v LA County.
21
22 2. I wrote Attachment A: Vague and ambiguous Rules of Court in re: entry of judgment in
LA County, California, except for a paragraph, as marked. The published Rules of Court
23
of LA Superior Court bear no relationship to reality. I am informed that the unpublished
24
rules are out of compliance with the law, if only for being unpublished.
25
3. Attachment B: Concerns & Proposal regarding computers at the courts – The paper in
26
Attachment B is a true and correct copy of a proposal I submitted to the U.S. Judiciary
27
Committees of House and Senate. In it I identified the unregulated use of computers at
28

1 the courts as a root cause for court corruption, and a solution was proposed based on
2 enforcement of state and federal Rule Making Enabling Act, as well as Nixon v Warner
3 Communications, Inc (1978).
4 4. Attachment C: Involvement of Countrywide, now Bank of America Corporation, in
5 alleged criminality at the LA Superior Court- the Attachment refers to true and correct
6 records of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston Texas, which I filed with that court.
7 5. Attachment D: I wrote the statement regarding involvement of Bryan Cave, LLP,
8 Sheppard Mullin and the legal profession, which I believe is true and correct.
9 6. EXHIBIT 1. STURGEON V LA COUNTY (BC351286) EVIDENCE FOR
10 MISTRIAL - Credible evidence demonstrates that the LA Superior Court denied and
11 continues to deny access to the true official litigation records – the Register of Actions in
12 Sustain – a public record by law, and false and deliberately misleading alternative records
13 are published by the court.
14 7. Exhibit 1-a: included true and correct copies of correspondence of July 27-29. 2009
15 demonstrating denial of access to court records.
16 8. Exhibit 1-b: The data in the Aug 9, 2009 Table of Available Document Images compared
17 to data available in “Case Summary” online are true and correct data compiled from the
18 two sources indicated.
19 9. Exhibit 1-c: August 6, 2009 online Case Summary, unofficial, false and deliberately
20 misleading court records, is a true and correct copy of the case summary, which includes
21 false and deliberately misleading court records, albeit with a disclaimer.
22 10. Exhibit 1-d: January-February 2007 & July-August 2009 Justice James A Richman
23 Papers in Sturgeon v LA County – includes true and correct papers downloaded from the
24 court’s web site. All of these papers should be deemed of dubious authenticity, or at least
25 as being treated as such by the LA Superior Court.
26 11. Exhibit 1-e: February 2007–January 2009 – Cal Crt of App, 4th District – includes true
27 and correct papers and dockets downloaded from that court’s web site. Court of Appeals
28

1 rulings fail to appear among LA Superior Court records, and it is doubted that the LA
2 Superior Court deems them as effectual.
3 12. Exhibit 1-f: August 6, 2009 Dr Zernik’s Requests for Verification/Corrections in re:
4 Litigation History – Sturgeon v LA County – includes true and correct copies of letters
5 addressed to Clerk Gregory Drapac and Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court John A
6 Clarke, to Judicial Watch, Los Angeles office, and to the office of Justice Richman.
7 Response was received from Judicial Watch only, stating that on July 13, 2009 oral
8 arguments were heard by Justice Richman, and that on July 30, 2009, ruling was issued
9 by Justice Richman.
10 13. Exhibit 1-g: is a true and correct copy of the August 10, 2009 Letter to Mr Klunder - IT,
11 and Mr Clarke - the Clerk, in re: Computer systems verification. Requesting explanation
12 regarding Google Chrome security warnings regarding the court’s severs, which are
13 found by such programs to bear a false verification certificate.
14 14. EXHIBIT 2. MARINA V LA COUNTY (BS109420) – EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT
15 FRAUD – includes true and correct copies of records that provide evidence to support
16 finding of judgment fraud. The case is a current, indefinite, real estate litigation at the
17 LA Superior Court, which originated the false jailing of Att Richard Fine through alleged
18 judgment fraud.
19 15. Exhibit 2-a: includes true and correct copies of various sources, as indicated, of the
20 March 4, 2009 purported Judgment by Judge David Yaffe .
21 16. Exhibit 2-b: is a true and correct copy of the July 31, 2009 Letter to the Clerk of the U.S.
22 Court, Terry Nafisi, Demand for Investigation –Demand was for investigation of credible
23 evidence for tampering with litigation records in custody of the Clerk of U.S. District
24 Court, LA.
25 17. Exhibit 2-c: is a true and correct copy of July 31, 2009 Letters of Meet and Confer, letter
26 sent to parties in preparation for filing a motion for relief from judgment.
27 18. EXHIBIT 3. GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC052737) - EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT
28 FRAUD - – includes true and correct copies of records that provide evidence to support

1 finding of courtroom real estate fraud, based on alleged judgment fraud. Combined
2 analysis with Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), a twin case, would lead a reasonable person
3 to conclude that the litigation, even prior to the filing of the complaints were almost
4 certainly schemed by judges of the LA Superior Court.
5 19. Exhibit 3a- is a true and correct copy of Requests for authentication.
6 20. Exhibit 3b- is a true and correct copy of pages from the Register of actions that provide
7 Evidence for Criminality in the case of Galdjie v Darwish.
8 21. Exhibit 3c- is a true and correct statement regarding efforts of Dr Zernik to uncover the
9 Grant Deed purportedly issued by Att David Pasternak in the case of Galdjie v Darwish,
10 and failure to find such record at the office of Registrar/Recorder.
11 22. Exhibit 3d- is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Darwish.
12 23. Exhibit 3e- is a record composed by Dr Zernik that includes comparison of features in the
13 cases of Galdjie v Darwish, and Samaan v Zernik, which would support the finding of
14 “Equity Rights” litigations a the LA Superior Court as alleged frauds at the LA Superior
15 Court .
16 24. Exhibit 4. SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) – EVIDENCE OF JUDGMENT
17 FRAUD – includes true and correct copies of records that would support upon review the
18 finding of fraud and criminality in re: entry of judgment - alleged courtroom real estate
19 fraud, based on alleged judgment fraud.
20 25. Exhibit 4-a: is true and correct copy of records demonstrating denial of access to
21 litigation records.
22 26. Exhibit 4-b: provided true and correct copies of variation in the first page of the Register
23 of Actions that would support findings of criminality in the Register of Actions.
24 27. Exhibit 4-c: provides true and correct data from copies of minute orders obtained from
25 the court, in the form of a table, which supports finding of criminality in operation of
26 Sustain.
27
28

1 28. Exhibit 4-d: is true and correct copies of the records titled August 9, 2007 Judgment by
2 Court per CCP §437c, by Judge Jacqueline Connor, and Order Granting Summary
3 Judgment Motion.
4 29. Exhibit 4-e: is true and correct copy of the record titled August 9, 2007 Minute Order
5 – Motion for Summary Judgment– by Judge Jacqueline Connor.
6 30. Exhibit 4-f: : is true and correct copy of the record titled August 21. 2007 Minute
7 Order – Samaan’s Ex Parte Application for Entry of Judgment- by Judge Jacqueline
8 Connor,
9 31. Exhibit 4-g: : is true and correct copy of the records found in search of judgments
10 dated August 7-9, 2007 from the LA Superior Court’s Microfilm Archive.
11 32. Exhibit 4-h: is true and correct copies of the records provided on September 7, 2007
12 by the office of Retired Judge Gregory O’Brien, to support his claim to act as an Escrow
13 Referee Appointed by Judge Jacqueline Connor.
14 33. Exhibit 4-i: is true and correct copy record titled Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order –
15 Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Connor, and Fictitious Hearing on Motion for
16 Sanctions per CCP §128.7 -by Judge Jacqueline Connor –
17 34. Exhibit 4-j: : is true and correct copy of the record titled Nov 9, 2007 Order
18 Appointing David Pasternak Receiver in motion at 4-days notice – by Judge John Segal
19 35. Exhibit 4-k: : is true and correct copy of the record titled Nov 9, 2007 Hearing on 4-
20 day Notice Motion for Appointment of Att Pasternak Receiver – Court Reporter’s
21 transcript – Court of Judge John Segal.
22 36. Exhibit 4-l: : is true and correct copy of the record titled November 21, 2007 Order
23 “like Unlawful Detainer after issuing Writ of Execution and Entry of Judgment” by Judge
24 John Segal, at Att David Pasternak’s request .
25 37. Exhibit 4-m: : is true and correct copy of the record titled December 7, 2007 Gag
26 Orders, Indemnity Agreement, approval of false Grant Deed by Judge Patricia Collins -
27 at Att Pasternak’s Request.
28

1 38. Exhibit 4-n: : is true and correct copy of the record titled December 7, 2008 and
2 December 17, 2008 Grant Deeds – by Att David Pasternak – with opinion letter by James
3 Wedick, of “frauds being committed”.
4 39. Exhibit 4-o: : is true and correct copy of the record titled January 30, 2008 Minute
5 Order – Defendant Dr Zernik’s Ex Parte Application for release of funds held by Att
6 David Pasternak – by Judge Terry Friedman.
7 40. Exhibit 4-p: : is true and correct copy of the record titled June 22, 2009 Att David
8 Pasternak periodic report – at the Court of Judge Terry Friedman.
9 41. Exhibit 4-q: : is true and correct copy of the record titled August 21, 2008 – Veteran
10 FBI Agent Jim Wedick’s Email Note.
11 42. Exhibit 4-r: : is true and correct copy of the record titled August –September 2008 –
12 Kenneth Melson – Director, U.S. Dept of Justice, and Kenneth Kaiser – Assistant
13 Director, FBI - Alleged Fraud in Responses to Congressional Inquiries.
14 43. Exhibit 4-s: : is true and correct copy of the record titled March 21. 2008 Outline of
15 Racketeering by Countrywide and Judges of the LA Superior Court.
16 44. Exhibit 4-t: : is true and correct copy of the record titled May 13, 2008 pages from
17 complaint filed with US Attorney Office, LA, and FBI, LA.
18 45. Exhibit 4-u: : is true and correct copy of the record titled May 30, 2008 The Big
19 Picture – Outline pf Criminality in re: Samaan v Zernik filed with FBI, Los Angeles
20 46. EXHIBIT 5. RAMPART –FIPS (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) – HUMAN RIGHTS
21 ABUSE OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS. Includes true and correct copies of record
22 that support the finding that ongoing false imprisonments in Los Angeles of the victims
23 of the Rampart Corruption scandal are Human Rights abuses of historic proportions.
24 47. Exhibit 5-a: : is true and correct copy of the record titled PBS – Rampart False
25 Imprisonments (2001, updated 2005, 2008).
26 48. Exhibit 5-b: : is true and correct copy of the record titled Chemerinsky, Erwin – The
27 criminal justice system of Los Angeles, California, Guild Practitioner, 2000.
28

1 49. Exhibit 5-c: : is true and correct copy of the record titled October 8, 2000 LA Times
2 Remarks on Perez by Rampart Trial Judge Raising Eyebrows.
3 50. Exhibit 5-d: : is true and correct copy of the record titled November 16, 2000 NYT: 3
4 of 4 Officers Convicted In Police Corruption Case
5 51. Exhibit 5-e: : is true and correct copy of the record titled December 23, 2000 LA
6 Times- Rampart Verdicts Voided.
7 52. Exhibit 5-f: : is true and correct copy of the record titled December 24, 2000 LA
8 Times The Judge’s Decision.
9 53. Dr Zernik alleges that litigation of Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), and the conduct of
10 the Clerk of the Court in such case - from inception, generated ambiguity in severe
11 violation of fundamental Common Law, First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights
12 and compromised litigation to the point of Mistrial. Such abuse of Civil Rights pursuant
13 to the Amendments is best evidenced by Dr Zernik’s requests for access to court records
14 in instant case, and denial of access, through the Counsel for the Court on behalf of the
15 Clerk (Exhibit 1a).
16 54. Concomitantly, the Court provided access to an online record titled “Case Summary”
17 which is misleading (Exhibit 1b-c), since it fails to list pertinent records, it includes
18 statements that contradict other records, and it comes with a disclaimer that it is NOT an
19 official Court record and should not be relied upon.
20 55. Further evidence for the misleading nature of such record was provided in the July 29,
21 2009 Court Counsel, Mr Bennett letter (Exhibit 1a).
22 56. Repeated requests for access, directed to the Clerk were denied. Through such access it
23 would be possible either authenticate or invalidate the registration of instant case of the
24 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (“LA Superior
25 Court), the registration of the Assignment of Justice James A Richman as Presiding Judge
26 in instant case and the registration of his Orders and Judgments (Exhibit 1d), as well as
27 the Rulings of the California Court of Appeals, 4th District (Exhibit 1e). Registrations of
28 all of these key elements of instant litigation at present appear questionable at best. There

1 are good reasons to believe that such records were never registered as entered and never
2 deemed effectual by the LA Superior Court either.
3 57. Ambiguity regarding judgments undermines the concept of court litigation in the first
4 place. Request for an Order to allow access to court records was filed as part of the Ex
5 Parte Application for Orders and for Leave to File served and filed herewith.
6 58. Detailed discussion was provided and evidence that the published Local Rules of Court
7 of the Court included for the past quarter century Rules pertaining to Entry of Judgment
8 that had no bearing in reality (Attachment A). In contrast, what the true unpublished
9 Local Rules of Court were relative to Entry of Judgment remained to be discovered
10 (Exhibit 1c). It was alleged that such vague and ambiguous, misleading Rules, under
11 which the LA Superior Court operated in the past quarter century, combined with the
12 denial of access to public records generated conditions in LA County that amounted to
13 severe abuse of Due Process and other Civil Rights.
14 59. In short- shortcomings or fundamental defects seen in instant litigation were not unique,
15 but rather typical of substantial number of cases. As supporting evidence for the Motion
16 for Mistrial and its alternatives, the severe outcome of such ambiguities relative to
17 judgments, as seen in instant case, were demonstrated in further details in three additional
18 cases:
19 (1) Depriving Att Richard Fine of his liberty in Marina v LA County (BS109420)
20 (Exhibits 2a-d),
21 (2) The wrongful taking of the rental property of Barbara Kramar Darwish in Galdjie v
22 Darwish (SC052737) (Exhibit 3a-d), and
23 (3) The wrongful taking of residential property of Joseph Zernik for private use with no
24 compensation at all in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) (Exhibit 4a-p).
25 60. Beyond vague and ambiguous Entry of Judgment, the other features common to all three
26 cases listed above were that such wrongdoing as seen in such cases, could never have
27 been possible absent collusion by LA County agencies – the LA County Sheriff
28 Department and the LA County Office of Registrar/Recorder. Therefore, it is the nature

1 of the relationship between Defendant and Intervenor which is at the root cause of such
2 wrongdoing. It was precisely the same relationship that was the subject matter of instant
3 litigation, through review of payments by Defendant to Intervenor.
4 61. Through denial of access to records and various other wrongdoings, the LA Superior
5 Court was also the cause of the ongoing incarceration of thousands of Rampart-FIPs
6 (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) a decade after the true facts in that matter were unveiled, as
7 documented in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel report, 2006 (available at the official
8 LAPD site3); and in PBS Frontline – False Imprisonments in LA, 2001, updated 2008
9 (Exhibit 5a), and in review titled The Criminal Justice System of Los Angeles County,
10 California by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky (2000) (Exhibit 5b).
11 62. Therefore, the evidence provided herein, on the one hand – supported Mistrial,
12 alternatively- vacating of court actions in litigation, which was irreparably compromised
13 by Due Process and other Civil Rights violations. On the other hand – such evidence
14 demonstrated the harm already done through collusion in wrongdoing between Defendant
15 and Intervenor in instant case.
16
17 I make this declaration under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of
18 California and the United States. Signed here in La Verne on the 12th of August, 2009.
19
20
21
22 _______________________________________
23 Joseph H Zernik
24
25
3
26 Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006), Executive Summary, and Appendices can be viewed at the official LAPD site:
http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/RampartReconsidered.html
27 http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Full%20Report.pdf
http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
28 http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/071506-Rampart%20Reconsidered-Appendices%20Final.pdf

1 Joseph H Zernik
2 PO Box 526, LV CA 91750
3 Tel: (323) 515-4583;
Fax: (801) 998-0917
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
8
HAROLD STURGEON, ) Case No. BC351286
9 Plaintiff/Petitioner ) The Honorable Justice Richard A Richman,
)
10 ) California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
v
)
11 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ) [PROPOSED] ORDERS IN RE:
) MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL,
12 Defendant/Respondent )
) ALTERNATIVELY –VACATING
13 and ) JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS, AND FOR
) CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF )
CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS )
15 ANGELES, )
Intervenor . )
16 )
_____________________________________ )
17
18
19 INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH ZERNIK’S Motions for Mistrial, alternatively for vacating
20 judgments, and for orders to initiate corrective actions came for hearing before this Court on
21 _______ , 2009.
22 Good cause apparent, the orders were granted as follows:
23 1) Pro Se Interested Party’s request for incorporation by reference is GRANTED.
24 2) Pro Se Interested Party request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED/
25 3) The Clerk of the Court, Mr John A Clarke, shall provide forthwith authentication endorsed
26 by his own hand, that matter under caption of Sturgeon v LA County, designated by number
27
28

1 as (BC351286) – was and is a case of the Superior Court of the State of California for the
2 County of Los Angeles, and that the Honorable James A Richman was duly assigned as
3 Judge in such case; Alternatively - The Clerk of the Court shall invalidate the case and all
4 transactions made in it and provide parties records to that effect.
5 4) Access to Sustain records of Sturgeon v LA County:
6 The Clerk of the Court shall allow Dr Zernik forthwith access to the Register of Actions of
7 Sturgeon v LA County, to inspect and to copy. The Clerk of the Court shall also provide
8 access to a manual detailing the allowed entries in various data fields (Sustain
9 “Dictionary”).
10 5) Notice of Court Orders:
11 The LA Superior Court and the Clerk of the Court shall comply with the law in re: Notice
12 and Service to parties in litigation of court orders, and no further employment of “waivers”
13 shall be allowed.
14 6) Access to Court Records in general:
15 The LA Superior Court shall provide public access to all Sustain records that are required to
16 be publicly accessible within 7 days from the date of this order in all court locations.
17 7) Declaratory Relief: Regarding the jailed Attorney Richard Fine:
18 The March 4, 2009 Judgment in Marina v LA County (BS109420) for the jailing of
19 Attorney Richard Fine was never an effectual entered judgment, and the LA Sheriff
20 Department shall immediately release Att Fine from jail.
21 8) Declaratory Relief: Regarding Barbara Darwish’s property at Yale Street in Santa
22 Monica:
23 The May 20, 2002 proceeding of Galdjie v Darwish in Municipal Court in Culver City
24 could not possibly be the source of an effectual entered judgment in respective case
25 Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).
26 9) Declaratory Relief: Regarding Dr Joseph Zernik’s property at 320 South Peck Drive,
27 Beverly Hills:
28

1 The August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court by Judge Jacqueline Connor was never the basis
2 for any of the actions of LA Superior Court against Dr Joseph Zernik in Samaan v Zernik
3 (SC087400). The taking of his property was out of compliance and in violation of the
4 law. The LA Superior Court and Att David Pasternak shall ensure that the property at
5 320 South Peck Drive shall be returned to the possession of Dr Joseph Zernik within 60
6 days from the date of this order, that the false grant deed that was filed at the Office of
7 LA County Registrar/Recorder shall be withdrawn, and all funds remaining as of this date
8 in receivership account held by Att Pasternak shall be released to Dr Zernik, as part of
9 compensation for abuse he endured in the past 4 years.
10 10) Declaratory Relief: Regarding conduct of Att David Pasternak as Receiver for the
LA Superior Court:
11
The Clerk of the Court shall report to the Section on Public Integrity of the U.S. Department
12
of Justice regarding findings related to conduct of Att David Pasternak and the Department
13
of Writs and Receivers under Judge David Yaffe, and request their investigation of the
14
matter.
15
16 11) The LA Superior Court shall implement in Sustain an Index of Judgments, and
shall establish Rules of Court for Entry of Judgment in compliance with the law and
17
California Rule Making Enabling Procedure – Cal Code Civ Proc §575.1.
18
The LA Superior Court shall update its Rules of Court so that they reflect the true practice
19
of the court today in compliance with the law.
20
21 12) Orders for corrective action in re: the Rampart-FIPs:
e. The Clerk of the LA Superior Court shall allow public access to litigation
22
records of the criminal division of Intervenor the LA Superior Court in a
23
manner similar to that listed above regarding the civil division of the same
24
court.: Index of All Cases, Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts,
25
Book of Judgments/Index of Judgments, and minute orders in the
26
computerized case management system (name unknown) of the criminal
27
division.
28

1 f. The Clerk of the LA Superior Court shall notice parties of Minute Orders on a
2 regular basis. No waiver of the right to Notice and Service shall be allowed.
3 g. Intervenor the LA Superior Court shall file in instant case digital copy of all
4 court records of the criminal division for the years 1985-2000, including:
5 Index of All Cases, Registers of Actions, Calendars of the Courts, Book of
6 Judgments/Index of Judgments, and minute orders with a self-standing
7 functional copy and 2 terminals of the criminal division’s case management
8 system, as well as manuals.
9 h. The Clerk of the Court shall advertise in the appropriate legal publications that
10 the Court shall review proposals that may be filed by any credible not-for-
11 profit organization committed to fairness in the criminal justice system, to
12 undertake review of the records of the LA Superior Court Criminal Division,
13 in order to expediently free the Rampart-FIPs.
14 SO IT IS ORDERED.
15
16
17 Dated:________________________
18
19 _____________________________________
20 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 Joseph H Zernik
2 PO Box 526, LV CA 91750
3 Tel: (323) 515-4583;
Fax: (801) 998-0917
IX.
5 PROOF OF SERVICE
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
7 I am employed in the Los Angeles County, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years
8 and not a party to the action; my business address is:________________________
On _____________, 2009 , I served the foregoing document described as:
9 (1) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND (2) UNDER SEPARATE
FACE PAGE: INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S NOTICE OF
10
REQUESTS FOR INTERVENTIONS BY ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND NOTICES
11 OF MOTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL, ALTERNATIVELY – VACATING
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS, AND FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WITH
12 EXHIBITS IN TOTAL OF 3 VOLUMES.
13 The document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a
true copy thereof in the firm’s mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as noted in
14 the attached mailing list.
15
[x] BY MAIL: I am familiar with processing correspondence for mailing. Under that
16 practice it is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon
fully prepaid at Beverly Hills, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that
17
on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or
18 postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this
declaration.
19 [ ] VIA FACSIMILE: I caused all of the pages of the above entitled document to be sent to
20 the recipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the facsimile number as noted in
the attached mailing list. This document was transmitted by facsimile and transmission
21 reported complete without error.
22 [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the
addressees noted in the attached mailing list.
23 [ ] BY EMAIL: Courtesy copy. I sent by email with copy to myself as shown in printouts.
Executed on _______________, 2009, Los Angeles, California.
24
25 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that the declaration was executed on August __, 2009.
26
27
_____________________________
28 Name

1 SERVICE LIST
(Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC 351286)
2
3 1) Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.
(Copy was sent to Att Norris only)
4 JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
501 School Street, SW, Suite 500
5 Washington, DC 20024
6 Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5199
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff STURGEON HAROLD P.
8 2) Sterling E. Norris, Esq.

(by first class USPS)
9
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
10 2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, CA 91108
11 Tel.: (626) 287-4540
Fax: (626) 237-2003
12 jwatch@pacbell.net
13 Attorneys for Plaintiff STURGEON HAROLD P.
14 3) Elwood Lui, Esq.

Brian Hershman, Esq.
15 (by first class USPS)
16 DAY JONES
555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
17 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-3939
18 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
elui@jonesday.com
19
bhershman@jonesday.com
20 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
21 4) Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.

Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
22 (by first class USPS)
23 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Ave
24 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Tel: (213) 229-7000
25 Fax: (213) 229-7520
26 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
kscolnick@gibsondunn.com
27 Attorney for Intervenor SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
28

1 1) The Hon. James A. Richman
(no paper copy was mailed)
2 Associate Justice
3 Court of Appeal, First Appellate Dist., Div. Two
350 McAllister Street
4 San Francisco, CA 94102
5 Fax: (415) 865-7213
"ORourkeScanlon, Suzanne" Suzanne.ORourkeScanlon@jud.ca.gov
6 Trial Judge, sitting by designation
7
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY EMAIL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10 On August 12, 2009 , I served the foregoing document described as:
INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
11 ORDERS FOR DUE PROCESS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
The document was served on the interested party or parties in this action by sending it
12
by email from my account at jz12345@earthlink,net to the parties listed in the foregoing
13 service list at the email addresses provided.
3) Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
14 1) Sterling E. Norris, Esq. Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
15 jwatch@pacbell.net tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
kscolnick@gibsondunn.com
16 2) Elwood Lui, Esq.
Brian Hershman, Esq 2) The Hon. James A. Richman c/o
17 elui@jonesday.com "ORourkeScanlon, Suzanne"
bhershman@jonesday.com Suzanne.ORourkeScanlon@jud.ca.gov
18
19
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the
20 foregoing is true and correct and that the declaration was executed on August __, 2009.
21
DATED: August 12, 2009 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
22
23
24
25 By: _________________________________
Joseph H Zernik, Pro Se Interested Party
26
1853 Foothill Blvd, LV CA 91750
27 Tel: 323 515 4583; Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
28

09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #3 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol I

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #3 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol I

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Joseph H Zernik

PO Box 526, LV CA 91750

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD STURGEON, ) Case No: BC351286

TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 1/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 2/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 3/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

18 well as Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).

19 Attachment C: Involvement of Countrywide, now Bank of America Corporation, in alleged

20 criminality at the LA Superior Court- p15

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 4/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 5/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 6/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 7/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 8/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 9/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 10/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 11/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 12/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 13/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 14/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 15/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 16/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 17/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 18/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 19/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 20/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 21/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 22/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

9 part of petition stamped FILED at U.S. Court March 20. 2009.

18 e. Minute Orders from paper court file.

20 electronic court files.

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 23/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 24/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 25/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 26/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 27/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

15 a. Failure to register an Initial Case Conference

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 28/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

12 misleadingly referred to as the “Register of Actions”, consistently minimizes that role of

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 29/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 30/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 31/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 32/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 33/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 34/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 35/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 36/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 37/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 38/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

16 California Public Records Act says:

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 39/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

8 California Rules of Court, Rules 2.500 et seq say:

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 40/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 41/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

26 The LA Superior Court – Intervenor in Instant Case – eventually volunteered to

27 respond, albeit, it responded with an insufficient pleading – no declaration was filed by

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 42/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

6 foundation for such judgment – the Register of Actions in Sustain.

28 Supervisor of Operations, Ms Sharon McGee, and a week later, by phone, Ms McGee

REQUESTS & MOTIONS 43/63 Sturgeon v LA COUNTY (BC351286)

9 Marina v County (BS109420), included no mention of the judgment or entry of judgment.