Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • 00-12-24 First Rampart Trial (2000) - Judge Jacqueline Connor Overturns Convictions of Police in Scandal NYT

    Загружено:

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    71 просмотров2 страницы
    Los Angles, August 8 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against Judge Jacqueline Connor and others at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights at both the civil and criminal divisions of the Court. At the civil division, the complaint detailed conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in leading others in pretense litigation in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), alleged as racketeering by the Court. Others named as perpetrators in the case included: Judge Allan Goodman, Judge John Segal, Judge Linda Hart-Cole, Judge Terry Friedman, Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg, and Presiding Charles McCoy, Judge (ret) Gregory O'Brien and Judge (ret) Patricia Collins, Clerk John Clarke, Deputy Clerk Debbie Witts, Courtroom Clerk Vivian Jaime - all of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and Attorney David Pasternak – former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and also former President of Bet Tzedek – a prominent Jewish charity, providing free legal services. Conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor and others in Samaan v Zernik followed what was described in previous complaints as a prototype of pretense civil litigation and real estate fraud by the Court - Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737): Multiple judges of the Court colluded in the presiding in either case with no Assignment Orders. The cases were therefore alleged as amounting to racketeering by the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The Clerk of the Court, John A Clarke, refused to certify either case as litigation of the Superior Court of California. In both Galdjie v Darwish and Samaan v Zernik, all fees collected by the Clerk were designated in the Register of Actions (California civil docket) as “Journal Entry”, whereas in other cases of the Court such fees were designated as “Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”, “Stipulation Fees”, etc. Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke refused to disclose the ultimate designation of the funds. Accountancy texts consider misuse of “Journal Entry” as a cardinal sign of high-level financial management fraud. In both cases possession of real property was conveyed by Attorney David Pasternak on behalf of the Superior Court, albeit, with no legal authority at all. In both cases no judgment was ever entered and no writ of execution was ever issued. Grant deeds, which were issued in the Samaan v Zernik on behalf of the Court by Attorney David Pasternak, with no entered judgement and with no writ of execution were opined by fraud expert as “fraud being committed”. The complaint provided evidence of false and deliberately misleading court minutes, orders, and judgment, which were issued in Samaan v Zernik by Judge Jacqueline Connor, were never authenticated by Clerk of the Court, but were nevertheless inserted in the court file by the Clerk, as if they were valid court records. Such minutes, orders, and judgment could be perceived by a naïve reader as inadvertent errors. However, the complaint claimed that review of the cases of Samaan v Zernik and Galdjie v Darwish, as a whole, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that such false records, were no errors at all, but in fact were Judge Jacqueline Connor’s routine fraud technique. In criminal prosecutions, the complaint alleged that Judge Jacqueline Connor engaged in similar conduct – fraud in the court, which was falsely represented as inadvertent errors. The prototype of such conduct was alleged in Judge Jacqueline Connors alleged perversion of justice in the First Rampart Trial (2000), where Judge Jacqueline Connor prevented any true judicial review of alleged criminalities of the Rampart Scandal (1998-2000). Through such conduct it was further alleged that Judge Connor was central to the ongoing false imprisonment of thousands of Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), victims of the Rampart sc

    Оригинальное название

    00-12-24 First Rampart Trial (2000)- Judge Jacqueline Connor Overturns Convictions of Police in Scandal NYT

    Авторское право

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Доступные форматы

    PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Los Angles, August 8 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against Judge Jacqueline Connor and others at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights at both the civil and criminal divisions of the Court. At the civil division, the complaint detailed conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in leading others in pretense litigation in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), alleged as racketeering by the Court. Others named as perpetrators in the case included: Judge Allan Goodman, Judge John Segal, Judge Linda Hart-Cole, Judge Terry Friedman, Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg, and Presiding Charles McCoy, Judge (ret) Gregory O'Brien and Judge (ret) Patricia Collins, Clerk John Clarke, Deputy Clerk Debbie Witts, Courtroom Clerk Vivian Jaime - all of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and Attorney David Pasternak – former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and also former President of Bet Tzedek – a prominent Jewish charity, providing free legal services. Conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor and others in Samaan v Zernik followed what was described in previous complaints as a prototype of pretense civil litigation and real estate fraud by the Court - Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737): Multiple judges of the Court colluded in the presiding in either case with no Assignment Orders. The cases were therefore alleged as amounting to racketeering by the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The Clerk of the Court, John A Clarke, refused to certify either case as litigation of the Superior Court of California. In both Galdjie v Darwish and Samaan v Zernik, all fees collected by the Clerk were designated in the Register of Actions (California civil docket) as “Journal Entry”, whereas in other cases of the Court such fees were designated as “Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”, “Stipulation Fees”, etc. Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke refused to disclose the ultimate designation of the funds. Accountancy texts consider misuse of “Journal Entry” as a cardinal sign of high-level financial management fraud. In both cases possession of real property was conveyed by Attorney David Pasternak on behalf of the Superior Court, albeit, with no legal authority at all. In both cases no judgment was ever entered and no writ of execution was ever issued. Grant deeds, which were issued in the Samaan v Zernik on behalf of the Court by Attorney David Pasternak, with no entered judgement and with no writ of execution were opined by fraud expert as “fraud being committed”. The complaint provided evidence of false and deliberately misleading court minutes, orders, and judgment, which were issued in Samaan v Zernik by Judge Jacqueline Connor, were never authenticated by Clerk of the Court, but were nevertheless inserted in the court file by the Clerk, as if they were valid court records. Such minutes, orders, and judgment could be perceived by a naïve reader as inadvertent errors. However, the complaint claimed that review of the cases of Samaan v Zernik and Galdjie v Darwish, as a whole, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that such false records, were no errors at all, but in fact were Judge Jacqueline Connor’s routine fraud technique. In criminal prosecutions, the complaint alleged that Judge Jacqueline Connor engaged in similar conduct – fraud in the court, which was falsely represented as inadvertent errors. The prototype of such conduct was alleged in Judge Jacqueline Connors alleged perversion of justice in the First Rampart Trial (2000), where Judge Jacqueline Connor prevented any true judicial review of alleged criminalities of the Rampart Scandal (1998-2000). Through such conduct it was further alleged that Judge Connor was central to the ongoing false imprisonment of thousands of Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), victims of the Rampart sc

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    71 просмотров2 страницы

    00-12-24 First Rampart Trial (2000) - Judge Jacqueline Connor Overturns Convictions of Police in Scandal NYT

    Загружено:

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    Los Angles, August 8 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against Judge Jacqueline Connor and others at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights at both the civil and criminal divisions of the Court. At the civil division, the complaint detailed conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in leading others in pretense litigation in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), alleged as racketeering by the Court. Others named as perpetrators in the case included: Judge Allan Goodman, Judge John Segal, Judge Linda Hart-Cole, Judge Terry Friedman, Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg, and Presiding Charles McCoy, Judge (ret) Gregory O'Brien and Judge (ret) Patricia Collins, Clerk John Clarke, Deputy Clerk Debbie Witts, Courtroom Clerk Vivian Jaime - all of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and Attorney David Pasternak – former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and also former President of Bet Tzedek – a prominent Jewish charity, providing free legal services. Conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor and others in Samaan v Zernik followed what was described in previous complaints as a prototype of pretense civil litigation and real estate fraud by the Court - Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737): Multiple judges of the Court colluded in the presiding in either case with no Assignment Orders. The cases were therefore alleged as amounting to racketeering by the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The Clerk of the Court, John A Clarke, refused to certify either case as litigation of the Superior Court of California. In both Galdjie v Darwish and Samaan v Zernik, all fees collected by the Clerk were designated in the Register of Actions (California civil docket) as “Journal Entry”, whereas in other cases of the Court such fees were designated as “Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”, “Stipulation Fees”, etc. Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke refused to disclose the ultimate designation of the funds. Accountancy texts consider misuse of “Journal Entry” as a cardinal sign of high-level financial management fraud. In both cases possession of real property was conveyed by Attorney David Pasternak on behalf of the Superior Court, albeit, with no legal authority at all. In both cases no judgment was ever entered and no writ of execution was ever issued. Grant deeds, which were issued in the Samaan v Zernik on behalf of the Court by Attorney David Pasternak, with no entered judgement and with no writ of execution were opined by fraud expert as “fraud being committed”. The complaint provided evidence of false and deliberately misleading court minutes, orders, and judgment, which were issued in Samaan v Zernik by Judge Jacqueline Connor, were never authenticated by Clerk of the Court, but were nevertheless inserted in the court file by the Clerk, as if they were valid court records. Such minutes, orders, and judgment could be perceived by a naïve reader as inadvertent errors. However, the complaint claimed that review of the cases of Samaan v Zernik and Galdjie v Darwish, as a whole, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that such false records, were no errors at all, but in fact were Judge Jacqueline Connor’s routine fraud technique. In criminal prosecutions, the complaint alleged that Judge Jacqueline Connor engaged in similar conduct – fraud in the court, which was falsely represented as inadvertent errors. The prototype of such conduct was alleged in Judge Jacqueline Connors alleged perversion of justice in the First Rampart Trial (2000), where Judge Jacqueline Connor prevented any true judicial review of alleged criminalities of the Rampart Scandal (1998-2000). Through such conduct it was further alleged that Judge Connor was central to the ongoing false imprisonment of thousands of Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), victims of the Rampart sc

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 2

    1/13/2009 Los Angeles Judge Overturns Convic…

    December 24, 2000

    Los Angeles Judge Overturns Convictions of Police


    in Scandal
    By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

    The judge who presided over a major police corruption case here has overturned convictions against three
    officers at the center of the scandal who had been accused of framing gang members and planting
    evidence.

    In a decision issued Friday night, Judge Jacqueline Connor of Los Angeles Superior Court granted the
    men -- Sgt. Edward Ortiz, Sgt. Brian Liddy and Officer Michael Buchanan -- the right to a new trial. The
    judge ruled that prosecutors had not presented enough evidence and that jury members had
    misunderstood their instructions.

    The ruling represented a stinging blow to prosecutors in the first case to grow out of the city's worst police
    corruption scandal in years. An investigation into the Police Department's Rampart Division has led to the
    dismissal of about 100 criminal cases, the suspension of dozens of officers and the rekindling of pubic
    distrust of the police.

    ''We're deeply disappointed,'' Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles District Attorney's
    Office, said today. ''Since it involves highly complex legal issues, we're going to have to study the judge's
    ruling and also review the evidence in the case to determine our next step.''

    The convictions, delivered on Nov. 15, seemed a first step toward restoring public confidence in the
    department. District Attorney Gil Garcetti, who was voted out of office a week before the guilty verdicts,
    had characterized the verdicts as a triumph for the community over the closed-mouth culture of a police
    department and the criminal actions of bad officers.

    But Judge Connor found that a lack of evidence against the officers and confusion on the part of some
    jurors were grounds to overturn the verdicts, which could have brought prison terms of four or more
    years.

    Mr. Garcetti's successor, Steve Cooley, has until Jan. 16 to decide whether to prosecute the officers
    again.

    Lawyers for the defendants welcomed the ruling.

    ''We were not surprised by this,'' said Harland W. Braun, who represents Officer Buchanan. ''The
    problems with the case were always pretty clear to us, and they were bad enough. But they also created
    the public impression that the police department was totally corrupt.''

    The charges against the officers evolved from an investigation into Community Resources Against Street
    Hoodlums, or Crash, a unit of the Rampart Division that was formed to use aggressive tactics against
    street gangs.

    The central witness in the investigation was former Officer Rafael Perez, who has confessed to corrupt
    activities. Mr. Perez testified that members of the unit were operating outside the law, routinely lying about
    its tactics and framing suspects.

    The three officers in the case, plus one other who was acquitted, were the first to be prosecuted in the
    scandal. They were found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice by framing gang members. The two
    sergeants were also convicted of filing a false report.

    Defense lawyers said Judge Connor's ruling could make any future prosecution of their clients more
    difficult.

    In her decision, the judge wrote: ''This court cannot and should not consider the political ramifications of
    future lawsuits or future prosecutions. The defense in this case has presented compelling arguments to
    support their argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial.''
    query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htm… 1/2
    1/13/2009 Los Angeles Judge Overturns Convic…
    support their argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial.''

    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top

    query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htm… 2/2

    Вам также может понравиться