10-07-22 Complaint Filed With US Attorney Office Against The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, in Re: Public Corruption, Racketeering, in Galdjie V Darwish S

Digitally signed
by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.07.22
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert 18:49:03 +03'00'
10-07-22 Complaint for Public Corruption against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court
of Appeal, 2nd District, RE: Conduct of three pretense appeals in Galdjie v Darwish
(SC052737) – alleged real estate fraud and racketeering by the Courts.
Executive Summary 1
Los Angles, July 22 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert
(NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against Justices and the Clerk of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District - alleging
public corruption in three pretense appeals originating from a pretense litigation in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), which
proceeded from 1998 to 2006, and was alleged in a previous complaint as real estate fraud and racketeering by the
Courts.
Justices DANIEL CURRY, CHARLES VOGEL, J HASTINGS, AND NORMAN EPSTEIN, Clerk of the Court of
Appeals JOSEPH LANE, and Attorneys RICHARD GREEN (Green & Marker), MITCHEL J. EZER (Ezer
Williamson & Brown), and DAVID PASTERNAK (Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton) – were listed as accused of public
corruption and deprivation of rights in conduct amounting to racketeering by the Courts in three pretense appeals
in Galdjie v Darwish - B163970, B179667, and B191327.
Previous complaint detailed conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court - where a group of Judges and the Clerk
colluded to take the 6-unit Santa Monica rental property of Defendant Darwish. The hallmark of the alleged fraud at the
Superior Court was in directing Defendant Darwish in May 2002, on a day that Jury Trial appeared was schedule at the
Court, to proceed to the Municipal Court of Culver City, where an anonymous “Muni Judge” conducted a pretense “Court
Trial” and falsely represented entering judgment in the case. Defendant Darwish provided a declaration that it was Judge
John Segal.
Superior Court records showed that neither a Judgment, nor an Appealable Order was ever entered in the manner
required by California law to make it “effectual for any purpose”.
Table 1: Appealable events in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as falsely recorded in the Register of Actions (California civil docket), Los
Angeles Superior Court
Date Judge Nature of Judicial Record or Comments
Proceeding
1 05/20/02 “Muni Judge” Ruling on Submitted Matter Alleged fraud in registration of a judgment.
“As to the first cause of action, the court
enters judgment in favor of defendants and
against plaintiff…”
2 05/07/04 Segal, John Hearing-Other Alleged fraud in registration of an Order
Appointing Receiver.
The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District ran three (3) pretense appeals in the case – two of them were denied, and the
third was voluntarily dismissed.
California law is clear regarding jurisdiction the Court of Appeal to conduct appeals only in entered judgments, when
Notice of Appeal was filed within 60 days from the Date of Entry of Judgment or Appealable Order.
Records of the Court of Appeals, 2nd District showed:
1
For ease of access to the hyperlinks provided in instant complaint, an online copy was also posted online at:
http://inproperinla.com/10-07-22-complaint-re-public-corruption-in-galdjie-v-darwish-s.pdf
z Page 2/13 July 22, 2010 TOC
a) The first appeal was listed as originating from a “Judgment Date” of September 5, 2002, a date on which neither
proceeding nor filing was listed at the Superior Court. The respective date of Notice of Appeal was listed as
December 19, 2002.
b) The second appeal was listed with no “Judgment Date” at all.
c) The third appeal was listed as originating from a “Judgment Date” of April 26, 2006. The only proceeding or
filing at the Superior Court on that date was “Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Application To Extend Time To Close Escrow”
– not an appealable court action.
nd
Table 2: Appeals in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as falsely recorded in the online public access system of the California Court of Appeal, 2
District
Appeal # “Judgment Notice of Trial Court California Court of Appeal Disposition
Date” * Appeal Judge Justices
1 B163970 09/05/02 12/19/02 Segal, John Curry, Daniel Affirmed in full
Vogel, Charles (Concur) Final
Hastings, J. (Concur) Signed Published
113 Cal.App.4th 1331
2 B179667 None Listed 11/24/04 Segal, John Curry, Daniel Affirmed in full
Epstein, Norman (Concur) Final
Hastings, J. (Concur)
3 B191327 04/26/06 05/18/06 Segal, John None Listed Voluntary dismissal
Final
* The public access system of the California Court of Appeal does not list any Dates of Entry of Judgments
The complaint alleged that the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, in such pretense appeals committed numerous
serious violations of the law.
The complaint further alleged that the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, through a series of decisions over more
than a decade colluded with the Los Angeles Superior Court in ambiguation of both entry of judgment and notice of entry
of judgment, and jointly, the Courts created conditions that enabled racketeering, as detailed in the complaint.
The complaint further alleged that in such pretense appeals, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, joined forces with
the Los Angeles Superior Court in efforts to establish “oral modifications of real estate contracts” as permitted by law.
Los Angeles County was distinguished already in the early 2000s in FBI reports as “ the epicenter of the epidemic of real
estate and mortgage fraud”. The complaint alleged that the Courts themselves were central to propelling the County to
such distinction.
The complaint further noted that the online public access system of the California Courts of Appeals failed to include any
registration of the Dates of Entry of Judgments. Therefore, the online public access system was alleged as fraud by
design an in operation, and the enabling tool for racketeering by the Courts.
The complaint against the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, was copied to the United Nations and the US State
Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses
by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and
report are scheduled for November 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the
justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special
emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of
integrity of the justice system in the United States.
_______________
Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.

221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
By certified mail.
By fax: 213-894-6269
TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s

Complaint by Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) against Justices DANIEL CURRY,
CHARLES VOGEL, J HASTINGS, AND NORMAN EPSTEIN, and JOSEPH LANE - Clerk, all of the
California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, and Attorneys RICHARD GREEN (Green & Marker),
MITCHEL J. EZER (Ezer, Williamson & Brown), and DAVID PASTERNAK (Pasternak, Pasternak,
Patton) – for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to conduct of three pretense appeals
originating from Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) – pretense litigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court,
alleged in a previous complaint as real estate fraud by the court and conduct that amounted to racketeering.
COMPLAINT
1. What did the experts say about the justice system in Los Angeles County, California?
• "Innocent people remain in prison"
• "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice
system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to
the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) i
• "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did
not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) ii
• "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states...
and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) iii
2. Complainants
Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, resident of Los Angeles County, California
Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
Tel: 323-515-4583
Fax: (preferred) 323-488-9697
Email: (preferred) jz12345@earthlink.net
3. Accused
a) DANIEL CURRY – Justice;
b) CHARLES VOGEL – Justice;
c) J HASTINGS – Justice;
d) NORMAN EPSTEIN – Justice;
e) JOSEPH LANE – Clerk;
California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
f) RICHARD GREEN (Green & Marker);

g) MITCHEL J. EZER (Ezer, Williamson & Brown), and
h) DAVID PASTERNAK (Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton)
4. General claims
Conduct of the accused in the caption, referenced above, and detailed in the Complaint, is alleged as
including, but not limited to:
a) Public Corruption;
b) Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law;
c) Honest Services Fraud;
d) Fraud;
e) Mail Fraud;
f) Adulteration of Court Records;
g) Conspiracy, and
h) Denial of due process of law.
It should be emphasized that conduct, which is detailed in instant complaint, is not unique at all. Other
pretense Appeals at the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, were identified as well. Complaint is filed
relative to the appeals, referenced above, due to their unique public policy significance.
5. Complainants are not attorneys, neither are they represented by counsel in matters, which are
subject of instant complaint.
Therefore, in most case, no sections of the code were cited. Instead, the US Attorney is requested to
apply the correct sections of the code. In case errors were made, where sections of the code were cited,
the US Attorney is requested to disregard such citations of the code, and instead - review the facts alone
and apply the correct section of the code.
6. Additional evidence and records are provided in records linked below, in respective court files,
and in complaints previously filed with the office of US Attorney, Los Angeles.
For the sake of brevity, only a small part of the evidence was described and linked below. Please do not
hesitate to contact Dr Zernik for additional evidence in this matter.
Since the Superior Court denies access to the paper court files in the underlying cases, the complaint was
based on the following records (linked below):
a) Complaint, previously filed with US Attorney Office, relative to conduct in Galdjie v Darwish at
the Los Angeles Superior Court, and records linked in it, including the Los Angeles Superior
Court Registers of Actions, Case Summaries, Judgment Archive records, Registrar/Recorder
records, and Declaration by Defendant Darwish. iv
b) Registers of Actions (California civil docket) of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, in
the pretense appeals number B163970, B179667, B191327;
c) Published opinion in pretense appeal of the California Court of Appeals - Galdjie v. Darwish
(2003)113 Cal.App.4th 1331. v
Additional evidence pertaining to instant complaint, which further supports the allegations is held in:
a) Records in paper court filed under the three pretense appeals, number B163970, vi B179667, vii
B191327; viii
b) Records in the paper court files under captions of Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) and Derwish v
Darwish (SC060217) at the Los Angeles Superior Court;
c) Records in the electronic court files under the same captions;
d) Complaints, which were separately filed with the office of US Attorney, Central District of
California, pertaining to conduct the courts in Los Angeles County in other cases, all alleged as
pretense litigations of the Court:
i. Complaint against Judge David Yaffe, Clerk John A Clarke, and Sheriff Lee Baca – for public
corruption and deprivation of rights. ix
ii. Complaint against David Pasternak and others –for public corruption and deprivation of rights. x
iii. Complaint against Bank of America and others – for racketeering. xi
iv. Complaint against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, and Clerk John A
Clarke – for public corruption and deprivation or rights. xii
7. Related court actions

The three pretense Appeals all originated from the same pretense litigation of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles - Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).
Table 1: Purported Appealable in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as falsely recorded in Register of Action (California civil docket) of the Los
Angeles Superior Court
Date Judge Nature of Judicial Record or Comments
Proceeding
1 05/20/02 “Muni Judge” “Ruling on Submitted Matter” Alleged fraud in registration of a judgment.
“As to the first cause of action, the court
enters judgment in favor of defendants and
against plaintiff…”
2 05/07/04 Segal, John “Hearing-Other” Alleged fraud in registration of Order
Appointing Receiver.
The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, ran three (3) pretense appeals in the case – two of them denied,
and the third - voluntarily dismissed.
California law is explicit regarding jurisdiction the Court of Appeal to conduct appeals only in entered
judgments, when Notice of Appeal was filed within 60 days from the Date of Entry of Judgment or
Appealable Order.
Records of the Court of Appeals, 2nd District show:
d) The first appeal is listed as originating from a “Judgment Date” of September 5, 2002, when no
Superior Court proceeding or filing was listed at all. The respective date of Notice of Appeal was
listed as December 19, 2002 – longer than the 60 days permitted by law, even had there been a
Judgment, or Appealable Order, which was entered on September 5, 2002.
e) The second appeal is listed as originating from no “Judgment Date” at all.
f) The third appeal is listed as originating from a “Judgment Date” of April 26, 2006. The only
proceeding or filing at the Superior Court on that date was “Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Application To
Extend Time To Close Escrow” – not a judgment or appealable order at all.
Table 2: Three pretense Appeals originating from Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) as recorded in the online public access system of the
nd
California Court of Appeal, 2 District
Appeal # “Judgment Notice of Trial Court California Court of Appeal Disposition
Date” * Appeal Judge Justices
1 B163970 09/05/02 12/19/02 Segal, John Curry, Daniel “Affirmed in full”
Vogel, Charles (Concur) “Final”
Hastings, J. (Concur) “Signed Published”
113 Cal.App.4th 1331
2 B179667 None Listed 11/24/04 Segal, John Curry, Daniel “Affirmed in full”
Epstein, Norman (Concur) “Final”
Hastings, J. (Concur)
3 B191327 04/26/06 05/18/06 Segal, John None Listed “Voluntary dismissal”
“Final”
* The public access system of the California Court of Appeal does not list any Dates of Entry of Judgments
There is no plausible explanation within the law for the conduct of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District,
in conducting the appeals, referenced above, all originating from Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).
The case is unique in documenting collusion of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, in conduct of
pretense appeals from a pretense litigation at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
Joined conduct of the Courts is alleged as a conspiracy to take Defendant Darwish’s property and deprive her
of her Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights under the color of law.
The joint conduct of the Courts is further alleged as sufficient for prosecution for racketeering – conduct of a
well-established enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
8. The evidence shows that a group of justices and attorneys colluded in the enactment of pretense
appeals.
Court records show the following Justices of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, as colluding in the
conduct of the pretense appeals, referenced above:
a) DANIEL CURRY – Justice;
b) CHARLES VOGEL – Justice;
c) J HASTINGS – Justice;
d) NORMAN EPSTEIN – Justice.
The Clerk of the Court of Appeal, 2nd District must be deemed in collusion as well:
e) JOSEPH LANE – Clerk;
The following counsel are listed as appearing and colluding in conduct of the pretense appeals:
f) RICHARD GREEN (Green & Marker);
g) MITCHEL J. EZER (Ezer, Williamson & Brown), and
h) DAVID PASTERNAK (Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton)
It is only through the collusion of justices, clerk, and counsel that such conduct was made possible.
9. Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) was a pretense litigation of the Superior Court, which is alleged as
real estate fraud amounting to racketeering. The three pretense appeals were integral part of such
conduct of an enterprise.
The online Case Summaries xiii , xiv of the Superior Court (not formal Court records) listed a litigation, where
Plaintiff Galdjie filed on 05/27/1998 complaint for “Specific Performance or Damages” originating from a
real estate dispute based on Plaintiff’s earlier, failed attempt to purchase the property. The complaint was
based on claims of “oral modifications of real estate contract”. With that, the alleged fraud at the Superior
Court litigation was typical of medieval times, and one that was to be prevented through “Statutes of Frauds”
in the English-speaking courts.
The three appeals are alleged as integral part of the fraud by the Courts, intended to add false validity and the
color of law to conduct of the Superior Court, which was alleged as criminal in its essence.
10. The online records of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, and even more so, the pretense
published opinion in the first appeal, provide unique example of the fraud in conduct of appeals.
The online records show appeals that originated from invalid judgments and appealable orders, or no such
judgments and appealable orders at all.
Moreover, the purported notices of appeals failed to comply with the time frames provided by law, even had
valid judgments/appealable orders existed in the case.
When asked to explain such records, Deputy Clerk at the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, stated that
the Justices liberally construed the law.
In the three pretense appeals in Galdjie v Darwish, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, was acting
with no jurisdiction at all. Instead, it was deliberately colluding in alleged public corruption and deprivation
of rights under the color of law, amounting to racketeering by the Courts.
11. Conduct of the accused amounted to conspiracy to deprive the 10 million residents of Los Angeles
of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings.
As documented in other complaints filed with the office of the US Attorney, conduct of pretense litigations at
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and pretense appeals at the California Court of
Appeal, 2nd Disrtrict, which were the basis for instant complaint, were not an isolated cases at all. Therefore, it
is alleged that conduct of the Courts amounted to a long-term conspiracy to deprive the 10 million residents of
Los Angeles of honest courts and fair hearings, and amounted to a well-established racketeering enterprise.
12. The cases related to Galdjie v Darwish hold unique public policy significance, since they provide
unique evidence of the role of the Courts in real estate fraud in Los Angeles County.
Los Angeles County was distinguished by FBI already in the early 2000s as “the epicenter of the epidemic of
real estate and mortgage fraud.” It is alleged that such distinction is largely the working of the Courts
themselves.
Moreover, the cases at hand show efforts by the Courts to establish “oral modifications of real estate
contracts” as permitted by law. There is no doubt that such conduct by the Courts would further increase the
incidence of real estate fraud in Los Angeles County.
unique evidence of the role of the online public access system of the California Court of Appeal in
the conduct of pretense litigations.
The system lacks any validity, and the records posted online are neither verified, nor authenticated. Under
such conditions, the cases at hand document the Court of Appeals holding itself at liberty to publish online
false and deliberately misleading records, therefore enabling the fraud under the pretense of administration of
justice by the Courts.
Of particular concern is the fact that the system by design fails to include any registry of the Dates of Entry of
Judgments – critical records for determining the validity and jurisdiction in any Appeal conducted by the
Court.
It was therefore claimed in the April 2010 Human Rights Alert report to the United Nations, that
implementation of fraudulent case management systems and online public access system were the enabling
tool for the precipitous deterioration of the justice system in the United States.
The report further claimed that all such systems must be subjected to legally and publicly accountable
validation (certified, functional logic verification).
unique evidence of the role of alleged fraud in the Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court in
enabling conduct of pretense litigations.
The failure and refusal of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to publish honest, valid,
and effectual Local Rules of Court relative to its procedures pertaining to maintenance of Judgment Books
and Entry of Judgments, are alleged as central to the alleged racketeering evidenced in instant complaint.
unique evidence of the alleged corruption of judges, clerks, and attorneys in Los Angeles County,
California.
The complaint named as co-conspirators all justices, the clerk, and attorneys who appeared in the three
appeals.
None of the conduct alleged in instant complaint could ever take place absent full collusion by all the named
accused.
unique evidence of refusal of FBI and California Attorney General and gubernatorial aspirant
Jerry Brown to provide equal protection. xv
Complaints regarding conduct of the Superior Court and the California Court of Appeals in cases, including,
but not limited to Galdjie v Darwish, were previously filed with California Attorney General and
gubernatorial aspirant Jerry Brown. Jerry Brown, was recently quoted by media a “appalled by corruption”.
However, Jerry Brown refused to provide equal protection for the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County
against alleged widespread public corruption and racketeering by the Courts in Los Angeles County,
California.
FBI, likewise, has refused so far to investigate complaints in this matter.
It was therefore claimed in the April 2010 Human Rights Alert report to the United Nations, that refusal of US
officers to provide equal protection to the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County, California, in view of
racketeering by the Courts, amounted to serious violations of Human Rights in ratified international law.
17. Conduct, documented in instant complaint, is the culmination of efforts by the Courts, lasting
several decades, to ambiguate procedures related to Judgment Books and Entry of Judgments –
fundamentals of Due Process of Law.
The California Code is explicit in requiring the Superior Court to maintain a Judgment Book, and enter
Judgments in such Book to make them “effectual for any purpose”. The Code is likewise explicit in requiring
Notice of Entry of Judgment, as a fundamental of Due Process of Law.
Through concerted actions, which lasted over several decades, the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, and the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, managed to entirely ambiguate such Due
Process procedures, and entirely subvert the California Code.
It is alleged that the ambiguity in entry of judgments, created by the Courts, is essential for enabling the
alleged racketeering enterprise in the Los Angeles County Courts, such as documented in instant complaint
and other complaints, previously filed with the US Attorney Office.
Cal Code Civ Proc §664 says:

... If the trial has been had by the court, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to the
decision of the court, immediately upon the filing of such decision. In no case is a judgment effectual for
any purpose until entered.
Cal Code Civ Proc §664.5 says:

664.5. (a) In any contested action or special proceeding other than
a small claims action or an action or proceeding in which a
prevailing party is not represented by counsel, the party submitting
an order or judgment for entry shall prepare and mail a copy of the
notice of entry of judgment to all parties who have appeared in the
action or proceeding and shall file with the court the original
notice of entry of judgment together with the proof of service by
mail. This subdivision does not apply in a proceeding for
dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal
separation.
(b) Promptly upon entry of judgment in a contested action or
special proceeding in which a prevailing party is not represented by
counsel, the clerk of the court shall mail notice of entry of
judgment to all parties who have appeared in the action or special
proceeding and shall execute a certificate of such mailing and place
it in the court's file in the cause.
(c) For purposes of this section, "judgment" includes any
judgment, decree, or signed order from which an appeal lies.
(d) Upon order of the court in any action or special proceeding,
the clerk shall mail notice of entry of any judgment or ruling,
whether or not appealable.
Cal Gov Code §69844.7 clearly states such intent of the legislators:
Nothing contained herein shall eliminate the requirement for a judgment book where judgments and
decrees are required to be entered.
In contrast, the false and deliberately misleading Local Rules of Court of Los Angeles County are
alleged as essential in enabling the conduct of pretense litigations and fraud by the Courts.
Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court. Rule 3.0 states:

LOCAL RULES OF COURT:
3.0 JUDGMENTS (See Also LASCR, rule 8.96)
a) Original and Copy.
Whenever a proposed judgment is submitted to the court, the original shall be accompanied by
a complete, legible copy.
And the same section continue (underline added):
(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees.
Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court, which are required by law to be entered,
shall be entered by the clerk in judgment books kept by him/her either in the Public Services
Division, of the Central District, or the clerk’s office in each of the several districts. The
judgment, order or decree shall be entered in the judgment books in the district wherein the
same was rendered and no other entry thereof shall be required.
Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court. Rule 1.4(e)16(e) states:

1.4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
…
(e) Powers and Duties. Pursuant to Section 69898 of the Government Code and Rule 10.610 Superior
Court of California County of Los Angeles Ch. 1 Pg. 5 of the California Rules of Court, the court declares
that, under the direction of the Presiding Judge, the powers and duties of the Executive Officer shall
include:
…
(16) To exercise and perform all of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the County Clerk and Clerk
of the Superior Court required or permitted by this Court to be exercised or performed by the Executive
Officer in connection with judicial actions, proceedings and records under subdivision (d) of Section
69898 of the Government Code. Such powers, duties and responsibilities include:
…
e) To enter orders, findings, judgments and decrees; to accept confessions of judgment for filing; to
authenticate records; to certify abstracts of judgment; to keep a judgment book or its equivalent.
In contrast, Supervisors at the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court routinely stated that the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles had not maintained Judgment Books for several decades.
Requests were therefore forwarded to the Presiding Judge and Clerk of the Court, asking that they
disclose the true facts regarding Judgment Books, or lack thereof at the Court. Neither ever responded.
Instead, the Frederic Bennett, Court Counsel, provided responses, with no authority at all, claiming that
the microfilm Judgment Archives, maintained at the underground bunker, not an accessible location at
all, was today’s equivalent of Judgment Book of the Court.
Repeat searches of the Microfilm Archives failed to find entry in the judgment archives of the
fraudulently May 2002 Judgment by “Muni Judge” John Segal, falsely registered as “Ruling on
Submitted Matter”. Likewise, no entry was found in the judgment archives of the fraudulent Order
Appointing Attorney Pasternak “Receiver”, which was falsely registered as “Hearing- Other”.
In general, entries in the microfilm judgment archives were mostly from the family courts- for divorces,
and for name changes. Hardly any judgments were found originating from civil cases, with the noted
exception of some cases, where Los Angeles County was party to the litigations.
Conduct of the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, was critical in permitting such conduct by the
Los Angeles Superior Court.
In published opinion, as summarized in West, the Court of Appeal said:

Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736, 41
Cal.App.4th 738 - is summarized in West’s annotation of Cal Code of Civ Proc §668.5 as follows:
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.
The Court of Appeals, likewise, through a series of opinions extending over a couple of decades, ambiguated
the clear stipulations in the California Code pertaining to the Notice of Entry of Judgment.
18. Alleged widespread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles is drawing both national and
international awareness.
As part of the first ever review by the United Nations (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, report was
filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Dr Joseph Zernik xvi alleging widespread corruption of the justice
system in Los Angeles County, California. The report further documented the refusal of senior officers of the
US government to abide by its duties and responsibilities pursuant to ratified international law – in failure to
accord equal protection to the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County.
As part of the UPR process, US, UK, Germany, and France based blogs were created,xvii where over 17,000
readers from some 85 nations were recorded so far.
A Scribd site was created for Human Rights Alert in January 2010, which has recorded over 70,000 reads,
with over 500 reads a day in recent months.xviii
Additional news sites, where Dr Zernik and Human Rights Alert routinely issue press releases, which were
attracted tens of thousands of additional readers. xix
Furthermore, an online archive was established, xx documenting the alleged abuses of rights. The archive, not
a user’s friendly site by any stretch of imagination, has attracted thousands of visits per month from nations
worldwide, totaling of close to 90,000 visits in 2010 alone. xxi
19. Remedies are requested by the US Attorney, Central District of California, including, but not
limited to equal protection of all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County.
US Attorney, Central District of California, is herein requested to provide the following remedies:
a) Equal protection of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all 10 millions who reside in Los
Angeles County under US and ratified international law, by putting an end to pretend litigations at the Los
Angeles Superior Court, and pretend appeals at the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, by compelling
the Courts to comply with California, US, and ratified international law.
b) Enforcement of First Amendment rights and US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978) in Los Angeles County, California, by compelling the Los Angeles Superior
Court to permit public access – to inspect and to copy court records - including, but not limited to the
Register of Actions, Audit Data in the Registers, and paper court files.
c) Enforcement of Fair Hearings and Due Process rights in Los Angeles County, California, by compelling
the Los Angeles Superior Court to publish honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of Court, including, but
not limited to rules pertaining to entry of judgment and maintenance of Books of Judgments, as required
by California Civil Code.
d) Investigation and, if necessary, prosecution of the accused, in re: allegations of public corruption and
deprivation of rights under the color of law. It should be noted that the request in instant complaint for US
investigation of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California, is a repeat of the recommendations
of the official report of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006). xxii
20. Request for due process in acceptance, acknowledgement, and review of complaints at the US
Attorney Office, Central District of California.
As previously noted, the web pages of the US Attorney Office and information received from staff of the
Office, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that at best a vague and ambiguous procedures were
established at the US Attorney’s Office for acceptance, acknowledgment, and review of complaints at the
newly re-established Public Corruption and Civil Rights unit. It is therefore explicitly requested that the US
Attorney Office, Central District of California, accord due process to instant complaint:
a) That the complaint be accepted as such;
b) That the US Attorney Office acknowledge receipt of the complaint and issue a reference number for the
complaint;
c) That the complaint be duly reviewed, and
d) That following review, a response be provided, verified by an authorized person.
Respectfully,
Dated: July 22, 2010
Joseph Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
CC:
1) Prof David Burcham – former Dean, Loyola Law School
<david.burcham@lmu.edu>
2) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky – Dean, Irvine Law School
<EChemerinsky@law.uci.edu>
3) Attorney Connie Rice – Los Angeles Advancement Project
<dmcmorris@advanceproj.org>
4) UPR Office of the United Nations
<UPRsubmissions@ohchr.org>
5) UPR Office of the US State Department:
<upr_info@state.gov>
6) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein – Senator from California
7) US Senate and House of Representatives – Judiciary Committees
LINKS
i
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
ii
Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
iii
Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
iv
Complaint against the Los Angeles Superior Court relative to conduct in Galdjie v Darwish:
v
03-12-04 Galdjie v Darwish (B163170) published opinion in pretense appeal (2003) 113 Cal App 4th 1331 s
vi
California Court of Appeal, 2nd District: Records of pretense appeal #1 Galdjie v Darwish (B163970)
vii
viii
ix
Complaint against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca – for public corruption and deprivation of
rights
x
Complaint against David Pasternak – for public corruption and deprivation of rights
xi
Complaint against Bank of America and others – for racketeering.
xii
Complaint against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, and Clerk John A
Clarke – for public corruption and deprivation or rights.
xiii
08-07-23-Galdjie-v-Darwish-SC052737-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Case-Summary-not-a-formal-
court-record-as-printed-from-the-online-public
xiv
10-07-18-Derwish-v-Darwish-SC060217-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Case-Summary-not-a-
formal-court-record-as-printed-from-the-online-public-a
xv
10-02-13-Galdjie-v-Darwish-SC052737-Racketeering-by-judges-and-attorneys-in-Los-Angeles-California-
Requesting-Jerry-Brown-apos-s-comments-s
xvi
Human Rights Alert (NGO) report to the UN for the 2010 UPR:
1) Press Release:
2) Submission:
3) Appendix:
xvii
Blog associated with Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
xviii
Scribd site of Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
xix
News sites where Human Rights Alert posts routine releases:
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
xx
Online archive documenting corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County and beyond:
http://inproperinla.com/
xxi
Intense interest by the Russian Republic in corruption of US courts and banking regulation:
xxii
Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) – see (i), above.

10-07-22 Complaint Filed With US Attorney Office Against The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, in Re: Public Corruption, Racketeering, in Galdjie V Darwish S

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

10-07-22 Complaint Filed With US Attorney Office Against The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, in Re: Public Corruption, Racketeering, in Galdjie V Darwish S

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Digitally signed

Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.

TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s

f) RICHARD GREEN (Green & Marker);

7. Related court actions

FBI, likewise, has refused so far to investigate complaints in this matter.

Cal Code Civ Proc §664 says:

Cal Code Civ Proc §664.5 says:

Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court. Rule 3.0 states:

Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court. Rule 1.4(e)16(e) states:

In published opinion, as summarized in West, the Court of Appeal said:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen