Dr Z

Joseph Zernik, PhD

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

10-03-16 Richard Fine: More on the Culprits

Postings at the ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-
year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#68499

MORE ABOUT THE CULPRITS (PART I)

SUSTAIN, THE DAILY JOURNAL, AND MARTIN BERG – EDITOR IN CHIEF

Sustain, the Company that produced and maintained the civil case management system of the Superior Court
of California, is wholly owned by The Daily Journal, the largest legal newspaper in California. Sustain, the
case management system was alleged as fraud on the people. In contrast with other case management system
producers, Sustain would not allow any inspection of the program’s features – unless you produced a certified
letter that you were employed by the court. In response to questions regarding compliance with the law, or
lack thereof in Sustain – the case management system – as implemented at the Los Angeles Superior Court, a
senior staff member at Sustain responded that the company never made any representations in that regard;
The client was the Court, and the company simply performed programming services for the Court.

Concomitantly with installation of Sustain, the Superior Court of California adopted an unpublished local rule
of court: “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only”. Accordingly, the court routinely denies access to the
court records in Sustain, even to parties in litigation. The most striking denials of access as related to Sustain
are the denial of access to the Index of All Cases, the Calendars of the Courts, the Registers of Actions, and
Book of Judgments (California Index of Judgments). The denial of access to the latter opened the way to a
chain of alleged fraud cases by the court, as seen in the case of Richard Fine, where judgments which were
never entered and were never deemed honest valid and effectual court records by the court itself, were
nevertheless executed, with no foundation in the law.

Introduction of Sustain amounted to a sea change in the operations of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
However, the Local Rules of Court were never revised to this date – a quarter century later, to reflect such
changes. The most blatant example is in the Local Rules of Court pertaining to the Books of Judgments
(California Index of Judgments) which to this date state that such books were maintained by the Clerk of the
Court in each District of the Court, when in fact the Clerk’s Offices at the various district denied that such
books existed ever since computerization of the courts.

In short: Sustain, the civil case management system of the Los Angeles Superior Court was alleged as the
enabling tool of racketeering at the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Note: Unconfirmed information also suggested that the California Bar Association had a controlling position relative to The Daily Journal. The
Daily Journal refused to respond on repeated requests for clarifications on this matter.

Page 2/4 March 16, 2010

MORE ABOUT THE CULPRITS (PART II)

RONALD GEORGE – CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

1) Based on his official biography, California Chief Justice Ronald George served in leadership positions
at the Superior Court of California at the time that Sustain was installed at the Los Angeles Superior
Court. California Chief Justice Ronald George refused to respond on repeated requests for
clarification regarding his role, if any in the installation of Sustain at the Los Angeles Superior Court
and the concomitant denial of access to court records.

2) As detailed above, the evidence showed that Attorney Kevin McCormick engaged in false
appearances at the US District Court, Los Angeles under caption of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) –
the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine. It was alleged that such false appearances were through
false engagement perpetrated through the California Administrative Office of the Courts, an arm of
the California Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George. It was alleged that
such false engagement could not be perpetrated unless by explicit knowledge and agreement of
California Chief Justice Ronald George.

To this date, Chief Justice Ronald George and the California Administrative Office of the Courts
refused to answer on requests for clarifications regarding their role, if any in the false appearances of
Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff.

MORE ABOUT THE CULPRITS (PART III)

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS, 2nd DISTRICT

It was alleged that the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, was critical in providing the infrastructure for
racketeering at the Los Angeles Superior Court:

1) The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, itself, engaged in conduct in its case management
systems, which was similar to the conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court. For example – the
online Docket/ Register of Actions and Case Summaries, included no field to display the “Date of
Entry of Judgment” – arguably the single most important data relative to validity of Notice of Appeal.

2) The California Court of Appeal provided the permission, in disregard of California Code, for the Los
Angeles Superior Court to conceal from the public the Book of Judgments (California Index of
Judgments) in Sustain. In annotations to Cal Code Civ Pro § 668.5, West writes:

Failure of register of actions to indicate that judgment was in fact entered did not preclude
running of 60-day time period for filing notice of appeal, where judgment was signed by law
and motion judge, since judgment was deemed entered on that date; moreover, in Los Angeles
County which does not maintain a judgment book, entry of judgment occurs upon filing of
document, which occurred on date that file-stamped copy of judgment bearing facsimile
signature of judge was served. Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist.
1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736, 41 Cal.App.4th 738, rehearing denied, review denied.

3) In a parallel series of decisions, the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District ambiguated the Due
Process procedure of Notice of Entry of Judgment.

Page 3/4 March 16, 2010

4) The final outcome – alleged racketeering by judges of the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, as seen in real estate cases, was best documented in the case of Galdjie v Darwish
((SC052737) – where the Los Angeles Superior Court mislead Defendant Darwish to subject
herself to a “bench trial” in an unlimited civil case of the Superior Court of California, by the
Municipal Court of Culver City, by a judge who remained anonymous in the Register of Actions,
name only “Muni Judge”. Such bench trial led to the taking of Defendant Darwish’s 6 unit rental
property in Santa Monica California.

Records of the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, in related captions, remained likewise inexplicable.
The California Court of Appeals, 2nd District took three (3) appeals in this matter:

1. The first appeal (B163170) was listed as noticed on 12/19/2002, from a judgment dated 09/05/2002,
by trial Court Judge John Segal. However, the Register of Actions in the case shows no proceedings
or papers filed or entered on such date at all. Furthermore, even had there been a judgment entered
on September 5th, 2002, the Notice of Appeal on December 19th, 2002, would have been out of
compliance with time frames provided by law for filing Notice of Appeal from such judgment. The
outcome of such appeal was listed as “Affirmed in Full” on 12/04/2003, in a “final”, “signed”,
“published” decision by Justices Daniel Curry, Charles Vogel, and J Hastings (113 Cal.App.4th
1331).

2. The second appeal (B179667) was listed as noticed on 11/24/2004, from Judgment or Appealable
Order, which was not listed at all, by Judge John Segal. The date of the record from which such appeal
was taken, was likewise unlisted. Therefore, there was no way to establish the validity of such Appeal
process in the first place. The outcome of such appeal was listed as “Affirmed in Full” on 11/09/2005,
in a “final”, “signed”, “unpublished” decision by Justices Daniel Curry, Norman Epstein,
and J Hastings.

3. The third appeal (B191327) was listed as noticed on 5/18/2006, from Judgment/Appealable Order,
dated 04/26/2006, by Trial Court Judge John Segal. The only record associated with such date in the
Register of Actions were “Ex Parte Application to Extend Time to Close Escrow”, but no Judgment or
Appealable Order at all. Such appeal was voluntarily abandoned by Appellant on 10/24/2006. The
case was listed as assigned to Division 4 of the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, but no name
of individual justice was listed in the available records.

In short:

Through its decisions regarding Notice of Entry of Judgment and Books of Judgments, the California Court of
Appeals, 2nd District provided the infrastructure for alleged racketeering by judges of the Los Angeles
Superior Court. Through the review of individual cases, alleged as racketeering by the Los Angeles Superior
Court judges, such as Galdjie v Darwish, the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District actively colluded in
such conduct.

MORE ABOUT THE CULPRITS (PART IV)

CALIFORIA ATTORNEY GENERAL JERRY BROWN:

Jerry Brown, California Attorney General and gubernatorial aspirant was directly informed and provided with
credible evidence of racketeering and widespread corruption of the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Jerry Brown repeatedly refused to take any action.

Page 4/4 March 16, 2010

The office of Jerry Brown refused to respond on questions whether Jerry Brown ever made any statement
written or oral regarding SBX-2-11 – the dubious “Retroactive Immunities” for all judges who took “not
permitted” payments, which were signed into law by the California Governor on February 20, 2009, as a
prelude to the taking of Richard Fine n March 4, 2009.

In a recent press conference in San Bernardino County, California, where a large corruption scandal is
evolving, Jerry Brown was quoted as ”appalled by the corruption”, and as “never seen anything like this”.

In short: During his tenure as Attorney General of California, Jerry Brown has engaged in ongoing cover-up
of widespread judicial corruption at the Los Angeles Superior Court - the largest county court in the United
States, and concomitant cover up of the ongoing abuse of Los Angeles County’s 10 million residents.

MORE ABOUT THE CULPRITS (PART V)

CALIFORNIA AND LOS ANGELES ATTORNEYS AND BAR ASSOCIATIONS

The question regarding alleged widespread corruption of the legal profession in California – particularly, Los
Angeles County – vis-à-vis widespread corruption of the judges – as evidence in the SBX-2-11 “Retroactive
Immunities”/Pardons is of the type of "Chicken and the Egg":

Suffice is to say that Attorney David Pasternak, former President of the Los Angeles Bar Association was
alleged as the henchman of the Los Angeles Superior Court in numerous real estate fraud cases, as
documented in alleged fraudulent conveyances retrieved from the Office of Registrar/Recorder of Los
Angeles County. Fraud by Attorney David Pasternak under the guise of real estate litigation at the Los
Angeles Superior Court was also opined by a fraud expert second to none - James Wedick - a veteran FBI
agent, who had been decorated by US Congress, by US Attorney General, and by by FBI Director,

In the case of Richard Fine, disbarment was through administrative action of the Bar, under charges of “Moral
Turpitude”, which was liberally construed as pertaining to filing of complaints against Los Angeles Superior
Court in US District Court, Los Angeles.

Unconfirmed information also suggested that the California Bar Association had a controlling position
relative to The Daily Journal, maker of Sustain – the alleged fraudulent case management system of the Los
Angeles Superior Court. The Daily Journal refused to respond on repeated requests for clarifications on this
matter.

In short:

The California Bar Association, structured as an arm of the Supreme Court of California, is an inherent part of
the problem.