Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4
 
 
Dr ZDr ZDr ZDr 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 Concomitantly with installation of Sustain, the Superior Court of California adopted an unpublished local rule of court: “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only”.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, 2
nd
 DISTRICT
It was alleged that the California Court of Appeal, 2
nd
 District, was critical in providing the infrastructure for racketeering at the Los Angeles Superior Court: 1) The California Court of Appeal, 2
nd
 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, 2
nd
 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, 2
nd
 District, in related captions, remained likewise inexplicable. The California Court of Appeals, 2
nd
 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 5
th
, 2002, the Notice of Appeal on December 19
th
, 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, 2
nd
 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.

Ihre Neugier belohnen

Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505